• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

i9 9900k pricing

Caporegime
Joined
24 Dec 2005
Posts
40,065
Location
Autonomy
Not quite sure what you buying a PC has anything to do with the comment with regards to HT. At no point did I say that one should not buy now or indeed wait., merely pointed out the fact that the removal of HT is somewhat optimistic given the current state of affairs, and that of things to come in the close future.

... ... ... ... .-. ..-- ... ... I assume you were doing something like Morse code, was I right? :p :D

Yeah its a hidden message from intel....:p........

False. Buy a 16-thread Ryzen, X470 motherboard and Radeon RX Vega 64 and you will be future proof. .

No you won't...:confused:

There is always new tech...Higher resolutions, more demanding games etc...My old 6700k was released in 2015, so Iv'e waited 3 years since upgrading...Ryzen 1800x was poor in games its 8/16...gen 2 is better but not quite as fast as intel then you have ryzen 3...Are you telling me people with with x470 mobos on gen 2 wont want to upgrade to gen 3 with a bios update and ditch their perfectly fine 2700x's?

Nature of the beast...

;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Man of Honour
Joined
26 May 2012
Posts
16,503
So, better to be intel shills
nope. best to be neutral rather than an AMD shill, which is equally as bad as an intel shill.

return to 720p just for the sake of it to show their processors have higher frequency of the single thread?!
well done for admitting that intel had the edge over the 1800x in games. that's the first step to recovery from being an amd shill :)
 
Permabanned
Joined
2 Sep 2017
Posts
10,490
nope. best to be neutral rather than an AMD shill, which is equally as bad as an intel shill.

When you are neutral, you must say that when increasing the resolution, most high end CPUs become EQUAL! Yes, EQUAL. No matter what graphics card you pair with them.
If you want to test your CPU, run in software rendering mode, or simply go back to ancient resolutions.
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Jun 2005
Posts
2,751
Location
Edinburgh
So, better to be intel shills and return to 720p just for the sake of it to show their processors have higher frequency of the single thread?!
No. this is to demonstrate they have more to give when not GPU limited. We were talking about future proofing weren't we?

How about 1440p example from the same site?

1440p.png
 
Man of Honour
Joined
26 May 2012
Posts
16,503
Farcry is a troll example. Look at this: :D
cut the bull manure please.
it's well established that 9900k is better than the 2700x for gaming benchmarks on the whole, to the tune of ~10-15%
is it worth the extra outlay in comparison to a 2700x - probably not.
value = 2700x, performance = 9900k.
to argue anything otherwise is just outright lies.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
26 May 2012
Posts
16,503
Is it? Link with numbers on average including all resolutions (from 2K to 4K and beyond), please.
there's no point comparing 4k results and above as it's GPU bound at that resolution. pointless CPU comparison.
of course an AMD shill would argue otherwise, no? :)

https://techreport.com/review/34192/intel-core-i9-9900k-cpu-reviewed
https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwrevie...der-vs-paste-delid-gaming-benchmarks-vs-2700x
https://www.techspot.com/review/1730-intel-core-i9-9900k-core-i7-9700k/

to name but a few.
 
Permabanned
Joined
2 Sep 2017
Posts
10,490


About wPrime
wPrime uses a recursive call of Newton's method for estimating functions, with f(x)=x2-k, where k is the number we're sqrting, until Sgn(f(x)/f'(x)) does not equal that of the previous iteration, starting with an estimation of k/2. It then uses an iterative calling of the estimation method a set amount of times to increase the accuracy of the results. It then confirms that n(k)2=k to ensure the calculation was correct. It repeats this for all numbers from 1 to the requested maximum.

Threading
Our aim was to make a perfectly threaded benchmark, such that it would consistantly use 100% of the CPU while in use. This is achieved by using CPUz to detect the CPU count and use exactly that many processing threads to avoid any performance losses due to multiple threads running on any single physical thread. Each thread is designed to do 1/n of the work, where n is the number of threads. For example, if you're calculating 16 roots on 4 CPU's, each CPU will calculate 4 roots. Some might argue that this style of threading is unrealistic in real-time performance, but in fact is quite indicative of performance in several real world tasks such as F@H which allows you to run several instances of the work at any one time.

Hardware Information
wPrime retreives most hardware information thanks to CPUz. It retreives CPU information such as clock speed, code name, cache size, voltage, etc. It retreives the motherboard model and the amount, speed and timings of your memory.

Name
So what's 'Prime' got to do with square roots? Well nothing, initially I had planned a Prime number calculator but no logical pattern for each prime number is known so it's difficult to confirm accuracy of the results. Square roots however, have a logical and simple reverse (the square).

License
wPrime is freeware, which means you can download it, distribute it, host it, etc without any need for my consent. I do ask though, that you provide a link to this website if you choose to host it, etc.
http://www.wprime.net/About/
 
Permabanned
Joined
2 Sep 2017
Posts
10,490
Congratulations on finding two synthetic benchmarks which barely prove your bad advice. How many other benchmarks in that same remove prove the opposite?

Crap, you want to convince me that the badly written applications should be taken seriously as performance metrics when choosing a CPU. Never gonna happen with me.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
26 May 2012
Posts
16,503
Crap, you want to convince me that the badly written applications should be taken seriously as performance metrics when choosing a CPU. Never gonna happen with me.
indeed, so according to your wprime picture, 9900k scores 86, 2700k scores 95 (9900k is 10% better)
and also according to your frybench picture, 9900k scores 107, 2700k scores 141 (9900k is 31% better)
so 9900k is much better and we should all pick the 9900k!?
well played amd shill, well played.... :rolleyes:
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Jun 2005
Posts
2,751
Location
Edinburgh
Crap, you want to convince me that the badly written applications should be taken seriously as performance metrics when choosing a CPU. Never gonna happen with me.
So from your linked review the 9700K beats the 8700K in 22 of the 28 benchmarks with 1 draw. Yet you claim the 8700K is faster than the 9700K.

In the same review the 9900K beats the 2700X in 27 of the 28 benchmarks. But you claim a 16 thread Ryzen in the most future proof.

I guess they just didn’t pick the well written applications then.
 
Permabanned
Joined
2 Sep 2017
Posts
10,490
indeed, so according to your wprime picture, 9900k scores 86, 2700k scores 95 (9900k is 10% better)
and also according to your frybench picture, 9900k scores 107, 2700k scores 141 (9900k is 31% better)
so 9900k is much better and we should all pick the 9900k!?
well played amd shill, well played.... :rolleyes:

If you all will pay 62% more for this, which is exactly the difference between 290 pounds and 470 pounds.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
26 May 2012
Posts
16,503
If you all will pay 62% more for this, which is exactly the difference between 290 pounds and 470 pounds.
hang on amd shill, don't change the goal posts now.
nowhere until now that you've proven yourself that the 9900k is a better chip that you've taken costs into account.
everything you've posted thus far was how the 2700x is supposedly the better chip. why move the goal posts then?
:rolleyes:

just to quote myself again, because im not an amd or intel shill:
cut the bull manure please.
it's well established that 9900k is better than the 2700x for gaming benchmarks on the whole, to the tune of ~10-15%
is it worth the extra outlay in comparison to a 2700x - probably not.
value = 2700x, performance = 9900k.
to argue anything otherwise is just outright lies.
 
Permabanned
Joined
2 Sep 2017
Posts
10,490
hang on amd shill, don't change the goal posts now.
nowhere until now that you've proven yourself that the 9900k is a better chip that you've taken costs into account.
everything you've posted thus far was how the 2700x is supposedly the better chip. why move the goal posts then?
:rolleyes:

The 2700X works on motherboards that will be supported till 2021 when the first non-AM4 Ryzen will be released.
 
Back
Top Bottom