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:
The entire testing data follows:
Source:
Principled Technologies (PDF)
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. $530 average online prices).
Intel responded to these "triumphant" new numbers with the following statement:
Given the feedback from the tech community, we are pleased that Principled Technologies ran additional tests. They've now published these results along with even more detail on the configurations used and the rationale. The results continue to show that the 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900K is the world's best gaming processor. We are thankful to Principled Technologies' time and transparency throughout the process. We always appreciate feedback from the tech community and are looking forward to comprehensive third party reviews coming out on October 19.The media never disputed the possibility of i9-9900K being faster than the 2700X. It did, however, call out the bovine defecation peddled as "performance advantage data."
The entire testing data follows:
322 Comments on New PT Data: i9-9900K is 66% Pricier While Being Just 12% Faster than 2700X at Gaming
I found it very hilarious, so silly and beyond my comprehension...hahalol, FALSE!
I believe you don't have any single AMD rig setup. lol
BTW the "Happy wife, happy life Intel 4 Life :D" was just a for fun play on words, but maybe this thread is to heated for that :) my bad.
"It is just a piece of silicon" That costs a lot of money and is not intended for a large audience.
On a side note - This thread turned into the biggest sewage tsunami since... ever. Can't recall a worse time to "discuss" matters on TPU. Sad. People on both sides completely lost their damn mind.
FX 9590 launch price - and btw, I've highlighted some fun similarities.
Perspective, ey? I guess Intel could have easily went for 800 bucks.
Small detail, on top of all that: FX 9590 wasn't even the fastest CPU available.
People being mad at certain CPUs being expensive is like being mad a designer handbag costs 9999$. Nobody is forcing you to buy it. If 2700X fits your budget and needs - go ahead, that's exactly what it was intended for.
im not totally agreeing with you on the comment "There's no better time than now to go with amd" because when the Athlon 64 came back in the days it was the same scenario ore even better for AMD" so lets hope that AMD can keep the steam up, but i can't wait for Zen3 because it is now the 4690k in my wife’s PC is starting to get to small even at 4,3Ghz
But even the BIGGEST Intel fan boy needs to be grate full for Zen, if zen wasn’t here the 9 and even the 10 series Intel would only be 6 cores at best, Especially with the 10nm problems Intel have
Yes it's not for gamers but it shows how poorly priced this 9900k is.
Remember: it's supposed to fit the AM4 socket. Unless ofc they changed this plan which means it could be possible to achieve, even on 12 nm.
Supposedly, the 7nm shrink will enable the usage of more then 2 CCXs and / or other changes, such as have the CCX be composed of only the cores while having an "extra CCX" with everything else, meaning up to 3 or 5 CCX total. This is just one of many theories floating around, and i'm not saying i agree with it, just yet.
And I got the joke BTW. :)
Get outta here,Well of course nobodys forcing me to buy it - My point is this is basically a HEDT chip being shoved onto the mainstream along with it's pricing - I guess it'll continue to rise since people do vote with their wallets but time will tell.What i wish for is for AMD to somehow manage to have the infinity fabric not directly tied to the RAM speed but be in a divider instead: this could bring extra speed to the IF, even with slower RAM. I'm thinking along the lines of an extra 1 / 8th or 1 / 6th speed VS RAM speed, via a divider of some sort. This would make IF run with 2400 MHz ram @ 2700-2800 MHz and with 3200 MHz RAM @ 3600-3733 MHz which, due to how RyZen currently works, would be quite a nice boost to performance, even if not changing anything else, VS current Zen +.
As for the topic @ hand, i don't think anyone has mentioned it yet but the I9-9900K has one particular advantage over the 2700X: it has IGP.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Quick_Sync_Video