• 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.

Core 9000 series

Couple things to point out when looking at Intel's numbers.

Firstly they state that the performance may not reflect the performance with all security patches installed/enabled, which implies that the performance shown is best case and that maybe even some of the 'mitigations' they promise with this gen which are actually only microcode/software fixes from launch, aren't enabled.

Second..

http://www.principledtechnologies.com/Intel/PC_gaming_processor_study_interim_1018.pdf

If you look near the bottom, one of the reasons for some big differences and the insane 50% higher gaming performance than a 2700x... is because they likely disgustingly, disabled 4 cores on the 2700x. They enabled game mode on ALL AMD systems. On threadripper that is somewhat understandable as it can help, on a 2700x it disables 4 cores. So they are benching a 2700x in 4 core mode against a 8 core Intel chip and claiming a massive advantage.


Also when you see the Geil vs Corsair benching a couple pages back, Intel had XMP settings enabled, AMD did not, they just set it to the speed supported by the platform. It's fairly surprising that they used the stock supported memory speed for AMD and Intel already in that AMD supports higher memory speed.

So they've pretty much crippled 2700x performance and even Intel performance may not be what you get from a stock 9th gen system when you install it and find all microcode and security software enabled and lower performance.

https://youtu.be/6bD9EgyKYkU?t=440

Guy on youtube who was covering this, I set it to start at the benchmark results that show the difference between the shown benchmark results and real world. You can watch the earlier part but he mostly covers what I said, XMP timing difference and questioning why the Ashes result stands out as wrong to him.
 
drunkenmaster said:
Couple things to point out when looking at Intel's numbers.

Firstly they state that the performance may not reflect the performance with all security patches installed/enabled, which implies that the performance shown is best case and that maybe even some of the 'mitigations' they promise with this gen which are actually only microcode/software fixes from launch, aren't enabled.

Second..

http://www.principledtechnologies.com/Intel/PC_gaming_processor_study_interim_1018.pdf

If you look near the bottom, one of the reasons for some big differences and the insane 50% higher gaming performance than a 2700x... is because they likely disgustingly, disabled 4 cores on the 2700x. They enabled game mode on ALL AMD systems. On threadripper that is somewhat understandable as it can help, on a 2700x it disables 4 cores. So they are benching a 2700x in 4 core mode against a 8 core Intel chip and claiming a massive advantage.


Also when you see the Geil vs Corsair benching a couple pages back, Intel had XMP settings enabled, AMD did not, they just set it to the speed supported by the platform. It's fairly surprising that they used the stock supported memory speed for AMD and Intel already in that AMD supports higher memory speed.

So they've pretty much crippled 2700x performance and even Intel performance may not be what you get from a stock 9th gen system when you install it and find all microcode and security software enabled and lower performance.

https://youtu.be/6bD9EgyKYkU?t=440

Guy on youtube who was covering this, I set it to start at the benchmark results that show the difference between the shown benchmark results and real world. You can watch the earlier part but he mostly covers what I said, XMP timing difference and questioning why the Ashes result stands out as wrong to him.
Click to expand...

Yeah and if this is the case, it's even less tempting at current prices, double the price for at best 20% performance increase.
 
Last edited:
Yeah just looked into it, my single thread 2600k performance using cpu-z benchmark scores 439 - ryzen 2700x only scores 466, 8 years later and that's the best increase we've got?? 8700k is 530, so I'll be interested to see what the 9900k is.
 
RavenXXX2 said:
Lol cpuz bench, is that what you base overall performance on. The 2700x crushes sandy bridge.
Click to expand...

It's just a quick idea to compare my actual CPU to others. Besides it crushes it in multi-thread performance, not single thread.

And what it says to me, is we've basically gotten nowhere in 8 years, other than adding more cores on top of more cores.
 
Jim Jervis said:
£500 for a 9700k / £1,100 for a 2080ti, consoles here I come.
Click to expand...

Why? You don't have to buy the very top end components to game well on a PC as I am sure you already know. Heck you can buy an R5 2600 build with an RX580 for a shade over £600, and happily play at 1440p which is better than you can do with a console.

If you become obsessed with owning the best, of the best, of the best then you are gonna get ripped off, no matter what the hobby, if it's not a hobby and just something to entertain you then there's no need to even be looking at a CPU above £160.
 
icehot666 said:
It's just a quick idea to compare my actual CPU to others. Besides it crushes it in multi-thread performance, not single thread.

And what it says to me, is we've basically gotten nowhere in 8 years, other than adding more cores on top of more cores.
Click to expand...

That's not the case at all. The only people that will take this information and see it how you have are people that use software that do not utilise all the cores. All software now is being modified to take into consideration multicore cpus. While, yes, there have been small advances in single threaded performance the multithreaded architecture is paramount in todays pcs. Otherwise we would all be using dual core i3.
 
ZXSpectrum said:
That's not the case at all. The only people that will take this information and see it how you have are people that use software that do not utilise all the cores. All software now is being modified to take into consideration multicore cpus. While, yes, there have been small advances in single threaded performance the multithreaded architecture is paramount in todays pcs. Otherwise we would all be using dual core i3.
Click to expand...

I didn't say multicore wasn't important, I just want multi-thread AND single thread improvements - multicore improvements to me seem the lazy way out, yes it's important, but the difference say in an 8700k to a 2600k apart from slight IPC improvements, are just 2 more cores, and a clock increase - well I've already done the clock increase myself. You can see it in most benchmarks - you divide the results up on a per core basis, and then on a per clock basis, and things even out very quickly between all of them. Why? Because there's not been very much gain in IPC single thread performance.
 
drunkenmaster said:
Couple things to point out when looking at Intel's numbers.

Firstly they state that the performance may not reflect the performance with all security patches installed/enabled, which implies that the performance shown is best case and that maybe even some of the 'mitigations' they promise with this gen which are actually only microcode/software fixes from launch, aren't enabled.

Second..

http://www.principledtechnologies.com/Intel/PC_gaming_processor_study_interim_1018.pdf

If you look near the bottom, one of the reasons for some big differences and the insane 50% higher gaming performance than a 2700x... is because they likely disgustingly, disabled 4 cores on the 2700x. They enabled game mode on ALL AMD systems. On threadripper that is somewhat understandable as it can help, on a 2700x it disables 4 cores. So they are benching a 2700x in 4 core mode against a 8 core Intel chip and claiming a massive advantage.


Also when you see the Geil vs Corsair benching a couple pages back, Intel had XMP settings enabled, AMD did not, they just set it to the speed supported by the platform. It's fairly surprising that they used the stock supported memory speed for AMD and Intel already in that AMD supports higher memory speed.

So they've pretty much crippled 2700x performance and even Intel performance may not be what you get from a stock 9th gen system when you install it and find all microcode and security software enabled and lower performance.

https://youtu.be/6bD9EgyKYkU?t=440

Guy on youtube who was covering this, I set it to start at the benchmark results that show the difference between the shown benchmark results and real world. You can watch the earlier part but he mostly covers what I said, XMP timing difference and questioning why the Ashes result stands out as wrong to him.
Click to expand...

DM,I am surprised you have forgotten about the company doing the benchmarking for Intel!! ;)

Intel used a company called Principled Technologies to do the benchmarks which sounded familar.

Then I realised 6 years ago I saw this when it was talking about the use of Intel using a certain benchmark suite from them to show X86 being better than ARM with regards to power effiency:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...y-in-Tablets&p=5150663&viewfull=1#post5150663
https://www.prweb.com/releases/hdxprt/11-02-2010/prweb4699694.htm

They are closely aligned with Intel,and then look at the Intel chap commenting in that article.

Now look at BAPCo who were behind Sysmark and was founded by the same Intel employee mentioned in those links(who is VP, Sales & Marketing Group & GM, Platform Evaluation & Competitive Assessment):

https://www.businesswire.com/news/h.../BAPCo-Announces-EECoMark-TM----Joint-Venture
https://www.crunchbase.com/person/shervin-kheradpir#/entity
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/07/24/intel_and_bapco_just_good/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom