Saturday, October 13th 2018

New PT Data: i9-9900K is 66% Pricier While Being Just 12% Faster than 2700X at Gaming

Principled Technologies (PT), which Intel paid to obtain some very outrageous test results for its Core i9-9900K eight-core processor launch event test-results, revised its benchmark data by improving its testing methodology partially. Initial tests by the outfit comparing Core i9-9900K to the Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and 2990WX, sprung up false and misleading results because PT tested the AMD chip with half its cores effectively disabled, and crippled its memory controller with an extremely sub-optimal memory configuration (4-module + dual-rank clocked high, leaving the motherboard to significantly loosen up timings).

The original testing provided us with such gems as the i9-9900K "being up to 50 percent faster than 2700X at gaming." As part of its revised testing, while Principled Technologies corrected half its rookie-mistakes, by running the 2700X in the default "Creator Mode" that enables all 8 cores; it didn't correct the sub-optimal memory. Despite this, the data shows gaming performance percentage-differences between the i9-9900K and the 2700X narrow down to single-digit or around 12.39 percent on average, seldom crossing 20 percent. This is a significant departure from the earlier testing, which skewed the average on the basis of >40% differences in some games, due to half the cores being effectively disabled on the 2700X. The bottom-line of PT's new data is this: the Core i9-9900K is roughly 12 percent faster than the Ryzen 7 2700X at gaming, while being a whopping 66% pricier ($319 vs. $530 average online prices).

This whopping 12.3% gap between the i9-9900K and 2700X could narrow further to single-digit percentages if the 2700X is tested with an optimal memory configuration, such as single-rank 2-module dual-channel, with memory timings of around 14-14-14-34, even if the memory clock remains at DDR4-2933 MHz.

Intel responded to these "triumphant" new numbers with the following statement:
Given the feedback from the tech community, we are pleased that Principled Technologies ran additional tests. They've now published these results along with even more detail on the configurations used and the rationale. The results continue to show that the 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900K is the world's best gaming processor. We are thankful to Principled Technologies' time and transparency throughout the process. We always appreciate feedback from the tech community and are looking forward to comprehensive third party reviews coming out on October 19.
The media never disputed the possibility of i9-9900K being faster than the 2700X. It did, however, call out the bovine defecation peddled as "performance advantage data."

The entire testing data follows:
Source: Principled Technologies (PDF)
Add your own comment

322 Comments on New PT Data: i9-9900K is 66% Pricier While Being Just 12% Faster than 2700X at Gaming

#151
GoldenX
That's the risk of being an early adopter, I remember Intel chipsets with SATA controllers losing performance over time.
Posted on Reply
#152
cadaveca
My name is Dave
GoldenX
That's the risk of being an early adopter, I remember Intel cheapsets with SATA controllers losing performance over time.
Yeah, sometimes being an early adopter sucks big-time. I had many struggles over the years with pre-launch hardware from both camps. AMD's launch BIOS situation really soured a lot of people on Ryzen, which is unfortunate. I mean, I have the choice of 7900X, 7980XE, TR 1950X for my personal rig, and the intel chips are collecting dust at the moment because I like my AMD system better. I mean, I'm running my TR1950X in a Artic Freezer33 air cooler, and have ZERO complaints, even though this is supposed to be a sub-optimal cooling choice for this chip.

AMd really screwed the launch of Ryzen and X370, sending reviewers out ram kits that weren't Samsung-B with the boards and CPUs in the launch kits, but me, I had tonnes of ram to choose from, and was maybe he only reviewer that used those memory chips for a launch article, and ended up giving ASRock's Taichi board a 10/10 because it worked so well, when everyone else was struggling with their ASUS boards and complaining.

Like don't get me wrong, I think Intel is right to charge so much for their chips, but a big part of that is that those that don't want to pay those prices do have the option of buying an AMD rig for far less. Like I posted earlier, we should be thanking Intel for making AMD look so much better!
Posted on Reply
#153
ORLY
I suppose they tested it with 1080ti. With 2080ti the difference would be bigger.
Posted on Reply
#154
GreiverBlade
notb
5-10% is the performance increase we get every year (not including occasional core count increase). In other words, 9900K is a year or more before the competition. Not bad, right?.
while being released 7 month after the competition ... SOOOOOO: ROFL!
Posted on Reply
#155
R0H1T
cadaveca
They didn't rip me off; I was into benchmarking under LN2, and I wanted the CPU with the best benchmark capabilities. Just so happens that the CPU I got was #3 or #4 out of all qx9650, ever. As someone that benchmarks, that cost isn't something you let stand in the way of trying to get a record spot.

That's when Intel's good chips had a "T" next to the s-spec batch number for their really good ones. I found one at the local PC store and dropped cash in an instant. It was totally worth it.



You bet I'm fine with it. I don't mind paying top dollar for excellence. I'm not part of the "I'm entitled to the best no matter what" generation. I want top dollar for my own work, too, so to me, if I ask for top dollars, then it is only fair that others do the same. Of course, if you want to be underpaid, then your stance makes sense, to me.

A top-level CPU of any generation should be considered a luxury, and priced accordingly. They should be rare, and not mass-produced. They should NOT be in everyone's computer. Nobody REALLY needs that in their personal PC, anyway. Work PC, depending on that work, sure, it might be required, but for home users... totally not required. Considering the number of people that say you don't need 8 cores or 16 threads for gaming, then yep... I really do think Intel is undercharging, and although many don't want to admit it, their stance is quite close ot mine in that it's excessive.. so excessive price is warranted, in my books.

You all and what I view as your "overly-entitled" opinions is part of why I don't do reviews any more. It's very hard for me to relate to your thinking. I guess I'm just old.


I wish. I know it says staff next to my name, but that'll change soon enough. I have no part in this industry any more. I'm just a normal user, just like you.

I'm sorry my opinion is different than yours, but its truly how I feel. Great things need high prices. I don't buy cheap stuff, either... I wait and save my pennies.


I don't think 8 threads is required either, but the added cache and overall core design offered by that CPU (not at max speed) does help for sure in keeping those latencies low. Note that it's a 65W i7-4770 (3.4 GHz), and not a 95W i7-4770K.


Well, you know I demand perfection, and expect to pay for it. Not everyone can understand this line of thinking, but then, not everyone can afford to. Oh well. Different mindsets, but that's cool. I appreciate that popular opinion differs than mine, for sure.



You know full well you got the right memory to work with Ryzen, and that Ryzen was rife with memory issues at launch, and while they improved over time, are still not exactly perfect. I mean, my TR-1950X has ZERO problems running 3600 MHz, so clearly some of the CPUs are capable of high memory speeds, but not all are, and many boards have poor BIOSes for memory clocking.
I can see where you're coming from, however if games & other applications, which can utilize more cores, are to be mainstream/better than they currently are ~ users need access to cheap(er) cores. There's also the fact that the 9900k isn't the flagship for desktops, at least I don't consider MSDT as flagship.

That's what I have serious a problem with, the market leader today can charge whatever they want & basically get away with it. The likes of Apple, Intel, Nvidia et al can charge obscene amounts of money, exploit slave labour, hazardous working conditions, economies of scale & even trade wars to basically suck out a disproportionate amount of money from the normal user that it's insane, thinking about the piles of cash they have. You're saying Intel is undercharging, how do you explain their ever increasing profits then?

Lastly I see this phrase often times repeated these days, what's "entitled to" supposed to mean in this case? Shouldn't corporations be held accountable to a particular standard, are they entitled to "free money" or no/less scrutiny in perpetuity?
Posted on Reply
#156
cadaveca
My name is Dave
R0H1T
Lastly I see this phrase often times repeated these days, what's "entitled to" supposed to mean in this case? Shouldn't corporations be held accountable to a particular standard, are they entitled to "free money" or no/less scrutiny in perpetuity?
Complaining doesn't really do squat, though. You do have other options for each company you mentioned. Some people pay the price of not caring, and getting the luxuries they want, but that's their choice. No business is beholden to those that truly aren't interested... they are beholden to those that buy their products and pay their bills.

It's when you don't have a choice that these things should be a problem.

Yet while I do hear where you are coming from, I maybe don't agree that Intel has any requirement to met the needs of everyone. Those that don't like what they do can spend their dollars on other products. That's the benefit of there not being a true monopoly, and why price fixing is illegal. Otherwise, it's all fair game and a company can set whatever price they like for their products, like NVidia has seemingly done with the ultra-expensive RTX 2080 TI. That pricing will force some people elsewhere, and that's perfectly OK.
Posted on Reply
#157
GoldenX
GreiverBlade
while being released 7 month after the competition ... SOOOOOO: ROFL!
No, that's comparing it to Ryzen 2, if you want to compare a 16 thread 14nm Intel consumer CPU, you have to compare them to the first gen Zen, so, over a year late.
Posted on Reply
#158
medi01
It's curious how tone against Intel is quite negative all the way, while anything with "nVidia" in it sounds like a copy paste from their press release.
Posted on Reply
#159
Phyrce
Tsukiyomi91
I think for folks who would go balls to the walls spec for their beastly gaming PC, I don't think they even care about price at this point. So far as I know the i9-9900K is capable of clocking 5GHz on all 8 cores thanks to the soldered IHS, unlike the i7-8700K where you need to delid it in order to reach the same level of performance. Same core & thread count as the R7 2700X but has way higher turbo boost frequencies & sustains it better. Also, you don't need to spend more money on Ryzen-optimized RAM kits... even a typical 2666MHz DDR4 RAM kit does the job.
You don't need to delid to hit 5GHZ on the 8700k, just really good cooling. Most people who delid, like myself, hit 5.2 - 5.3 pretty easily. I was able to hit 5GHZ Stable with a 280mm AIO prior to my delid, i was not happy at all with the temps under synthetic loads however (in the mid 80s C)
Posted on Reply
#160
medi01
btarunr
The entire testing data follows:
Am I the only person who does not see the resolution at which tests were made?
Posted on Reply
#161
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
medi01
Am I the only person who does not see the resolution at which tests were made?
They're all 1080p. Their justification is they're simulating a CPU-limited scenario.
Posted on Reply
#162
king of swag187
AM4 is more price for performance but not more performance at this point, unfortunately if you want the best on the market you got to saddle up and pay for it big time
Posted on Reply
#163
Smartcom5
The actual poll's results reflecting pretty much the percentage that processor may have an advantage over – in terms of performance (+12%) versus extra charge (+88) …


Isn't it incredibly ironic?!
Posted on Reply
#164
dj-electric
Who would have guess, a niche and expensive product will get less popularity among people.

Shocking.
Posted on Reply
#165
Metroid
Smartcom5
The actual poll's results reflecting pretty much the percentage that processor may have an advantage over – in terms of performance (+12%) versus extra charge (+88) …


Isn't it incredibly ironic?!
Now tell them to make a similar poll 9700k x 2700x, I believe 90% will choose the 9700k over the 2700x.
Posted on Reply
#166
ppn
Metroid
Now tell them to make a similar poll 9700k x 2700x, I believe 90% will choose the 9700k over the 2700x.
Yeah how that works

2700 € 278,
9700K € 499

Can € 231 buy me 2080Ti instead of 2080. Not today. 1080Ti instead of 1080. But 2070 is closer to Ti, so there is no faster card that is wort it.
Posted on Reply
#167
GoldenX
ppn
Yeah how that works

2700 € 278,
9700K € 499

Can € 231 buy me 2080Ti instead of 2080. Not today. 1080Ti instead of 1080. But 2070 is closer to Ti, so there is no faster card that is wort it.
Nice example of using retarded blue CPU prices to justify retarded green GPU prices.
Posted on Reply
#168
efikkan
Metroid
Now tell them to make a similar poll 9700k x 2700x, I believe 90% will choose the 9700k over the 2700x.
Imagine if they would make a poll without false choices?
i7-9700K, i5-9600K, i7-8700K, i7-8700 and i5-8600K are all better choices for gaming and overall than 2700/X.

And for gaming-only with no OC, i5-8400 and i5-8500 would offer great value at $182, while offering better gaming performance than AMD can offer.
Posted on Reply
#169
XiGMAKiD
Yes, try being an enthusiast some time
Did you mean: Yes, try getting ripped off some time

Silly quick poll :slap:
Posted on Reply
#170
trog100
attempting to create an artificial CPU limited gaming situation is pretty stupid anyways.. in a real world gaming situation the GPU is king.. always has been and always will be..

both gpu and cpu wise the "best" is now better than it needs to be and people that want it are gonna have to shell out a fair bit more for it.. luckily there are perfectly adequate less costly gaming options..

trog
Posted on Reply
#171
Knoxx29
The Power Of Intel
ShurikN
But you do need to spend a LOT of money on proper cooling if you are going for that 5GHz all core.
What's a proper cooling for you and shouldn't the 9900K be soldered?
Posted on Reply
#172
Xx Tek Tip xX
cadaveca
That's when Intel's good chips had a "T" next to the s-spec batch number for their really good ones. I found one at the local PC store and dropped cash in an instant. It was totally worth it.
Fair enough, for me paying that money out for a quad core in current days would be pathetic however you used it for bench marking which will justify the cost if you've got the cash - in this current era consumers have actually found out they buy what meets their needs, both companies are here to make money and the only way amd can compete is by giving us products at the lowest cost possible against the intel counterpart along with still making money. My overall point is at £600 for a 8c16t is too steep for me to justify -If I were to move from x299 I would buy a 8700k purely because it's a more cost effective solution in the used market where it goes around £235~ at places like CEX in the UK. Paying well over twice that for 5-10% is a joke to me.
notb
To be honest, there's most likely just one Zen generation coming to AM4. AMD said they'll replace the platform in 2020, AFAIR.
Just a tiny part of the market replaces CPUs every generation. This means if you buy into an either system today, you'll most likely have to replace the mobo next time.
And zen 3 would be the 3rd ryzen processor series to be on am4 unlike intel doing 2 series a board, and it's 7nm - will you be able to replace your £600 9900k and £200~ z390 board with a 7nm processor that yields immense gains? No. Zen is hold back by single threaded performance and clock speed - zen 3 will fix that - I'm not saying AMD is better than Intel here or bashing your intel processor, I'm saying they are both for different use cases and at the current moment AMD has succeeded in compatibility and performance, now compare the 8700k to the 9900k - 10%~ across one processor series, wait until zen 3 and we'll compare the 1800x to the top end zen 3 processor and we'll show you the real gains - and before you say it was slow to start with - that's no valid point here.
notb
5-10% is the performance increase we get every year (not including occasional core count increase). In other words, 9900K is a year or more before the competition. Not bad, right?
Yeah not bad - give it more years of 14nm++++++++'s and we'll finally be on 10nm and getting a bigger gain than a 14nm chip then we can enjoy more 5-10% gains afterwards while AMD pulls ahead getting on 7nm tech.
Posted on Reply
#173
GreiverBlade
GoldenX
No, that's comparing it to Ryzen 2, if you want to compare a 16 thread 14nm Intel consumer CPU, you have to compare them to the first gen Zen, so, over a year late.
oh then it's literally 1 yrs after ... oh boy that's even more hilarious ... being 5-10% faster than the antepenultimate gen ... but well you are semi wrong ... the one i quoted mentioned Intel being a year or two in advance ... aherm ... they are actually not that much forward (unless blind) and their CPU was released 7 month after their current concurrent (which will probably get either a new SKU in the line or a refresh or even the next gen pushed forward) sooooo again... rofl ... ? you would compare it to the 1st gen of Ryzen to affirm their CPU are worth it? (well it's not like a R7 1700X/1800X wouldn't be a viable option over a 9XXX ... since they dropped quit a lot ... )

AMD did it nicely this time ... Intel on the other hand is releasing an over expensive CPU with no incentive whatsoever other than "hey look our box is more impressive in the mainstream than their HEDT" (*stomping their feet on the ground* +100$ to the price.) "hey look in our benchmark we are way faster" (*stomping their feet on the ground pointing at the result, and paying some review or asking for some very specific settings* +100$ to the price.) well ... now we know from where come the 200$ too much their top dog cost :laugh:
Metroid
Now tell them to make a similar poll 9700k x 2700x, I believe 90% will choose the 9700k over the 2700x.
depend the country pricing tho ... for me a 2600X or 2700X would be an obvious choice over a 9700K doe to pricing being probably above a 2700X (since it's probably the 9600K that will cost like a 2700X ) or even a 1XXX over a i3 :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#174
JalleR
Just a BAD troll, it is just fun to hear that you need to fiddle "that much" with a Ryzen setup to get the exspected performance....

I'm looking for a new cpu, mbo and mem for my wife, but with that and the Price only beeing 50$ deferent 2700x+3200mem vs 9700k+2666mem i will go for the less likely to be a fail in my wifes eyes.

Happy wife, happy life Intel 4 Life :D
Posted on Reply
#175
Vayra86
R0H1T
I can see where you're coming from, however if games & other applications, which can utilize more cores, are to be mainstream/better than they currently are ~ users need access to cheap(er) cores. There's also the fact that the 9900k isn't the flagship for desktops, at least I don't consider MSDT as flagship.

That's what I have serious a problem with, the market leader today can charge whatever they want & basically get away with it. The likes of Apple, Intel, Nvidia et al can charge obscene amounts of money, exploit slave labour, hazardous working conditions, economies of scale & even trade wars to basically suck out a disproportionate amount of money from the normal user that it's insane, thinking about the piles of cash they have. You're saying Intel is undercharging, how do you explain their ever increasing profits then?

Lastly I see this phrase often times repeated these days, what's "entitled to" supposed to mean in this case? Shouldn't corporations be held accountable to a particular standard, are they entitled to "free money" or no/less scrutiny in perpetuity?
Companies are not 'accountable' for the pricing of their product stack. That's just the choice they make, and the market determines whether they stick or they don't.

There are way too many people on this forum and elsewhere that suffer from this disease called 'entitlement'. What it means? 'I used to buy this sort of CPU for amount X a number of years ago, so I should be able to do the same today' is one example of it. Entitlement means ignoring every circumstance but your own desires to convince yourself of some twisted truth.

That is exactly what happens on GPU since Pascal and the mining craze and it also happens Intel CPUs because there are cheaper alternatives. Ignoring the fact that Intel still has a performance crown and charges premium for it, because 'I used to be able to buy an i7 in the Haswell days and that was the best Intel had, too'. For GPU: entitlement is why people end up ignoring obvious 'too good to be true' situations and buy cheap knock-offs that turn out to be fakes or half broken cards. And get mad at Nvidia for exploiting their current position. Realistically, though, if you want to get what you want at a lower price, you need to simply not buy something. Restraint is fast becoming a rare quality these days. And whenever you say such a thing, a bunch of people will respond with 'but others will buy it anyway so what's the point' - thát is entitlement (or 'fear of missing out'). Others buy it, so why should I miss out? Why can they have what I can't?

Accountability applies to responsibilities. Entitlement applies to desire. And none of us 'need' this hardware to live. Intel has no 'responsibility' to provide us with a product that is reasonably priced for anyone's (realistic or not) standards.

Ironically, you don't even 'need' an Intel 9900K to play games, not even remotely close. You can suffice with far cheaper alternatives and still have a rig that lasts 5 years+. Spoiler: its still not going to be a 2700X as the optimal choice - not even when perf/dollar is your concern. This whole topic title is wrong on so many levels.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment