• 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.

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

humbug

humbug

humbug

Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,651
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
Look they have to expect to be scrutinised for their work, they don't operate in a vacuum.

Intel paid them for this, despite this they could still be independent, because we don't know otherwise we have to assume they are being as they say independent, so the only alternative is PT are ridiculously incompetent, in which case the criticism laid at them is warranted.
 

~>Dg<~

~>Dg<~

~>Dg<~

Caporegime
Joined
1 Jun 2006
Posts
33,508
Location
Notts
anyone interested in real benchmarks look at pubg and battlefield games in big mp games. see what the difference is then you will know.

anyone saying its close it can be but in many games there is massive differences. latest forza amd behind by 50 fps ! thats not a joke. thats like going from a 1050 to the latest 2080ti difference. just for being on a modern intel cpu. you do get so much bs in benchmarks you cant say though overall amd is close on intel gaming wise.
 

DragonQ

DragonQ

DragonQ

Soldato
Joined
13 Jun 2009
Posts
6,847
~>Dg<~ said:
anyone interested in real benchmarks look at pubg and battlefield games in big mp games. see what the difference is then you will know.

anyone saying its close it can be but in many games there is massive differences. latest forza amd behind by 50 fps ! thats not a joke. thats like going from a 1050 to the latest 2080ti difference. just for being on a modern intel cpu. you do get so much bs in benchmarks you cant say though overall amd is close on intel gaming wise.
Click to expand...
So because 3 games you picked arbitrarily have large differences, you "can't say" they are close overall. You do talk some twaddle mate.

Unless you are planning on buying a 2080 Ti, picking a faster GPU will be a better use of cash in almost every scenario for gaming. Even in games like BF1 at 1080p you'll see better FPS with a 1080 Ti plus Ryzen 5+ than a 1080 plus i7-8700K. At 2160p it's not even close. Consider that a i7-9700K will be £200+ more than the R7 2700X (let alone the R5 2600X) and it's just a stupid proposition for a gaming rig for the vast majority of people. The only two cases I can think of where it makes sense are:
  • pairing it with a 2080 Ti;
  • wanting it to last a decade whilst hoping that GPUs become competitive again.
If prices become more sensible it might make more sense, and if high end GPUs become competitive again and it starts making sense to upgrade GPUs every 2-3 years like it used to, then it might make more sense.

Note that this is just talking about gaming, there are other scenarios where you need that extra performance and it is worth splashing the cash for it.
 
Last edited:

ZXSpectrum

ZXSpectrum

ZXSpectrum

Soldato
Joined
20 Oct 2002
Posts
11,293
Location
Derby
anyone saying its close it can be but in many games there is massive differences. latest forza amd behind by 50 fps ! thats not a joke. thats like going from a 1050 to the latest 2080ti difference. just for being on a modern intel cpu. you do get so much bs in benchmarks you cant say though overall amd is close on intel gaming wise.
Click to expand...

lets get this right.. if it was 50fps from say 70fps vs 120fps then yes it would make a huge difference as you say. If its more like 120fps v 170fps then the proportion of users that will see that difference will be very very small indeed and certainly does not make it worth the money over Ryzen.
 

AMDPower

AMDPower

AMDPower

Soldato
Joined
24 Feb 2004
Posts
2,713
haha i just noticed tags at the top of the thread

#intelrobbery :D

its a good cpu for those that need absolute best without any compromise and they comprise a small margin of all customers the rest of us mere mortals take into account price/performance and for £289 for 2700x you just cant go wrong, its a bargain at this price to be honest, you are only 10-15% difference in performance but almost 100% less price currently.
 

oweneades

oweneades

oweneades

Soldato
Joined
17 Jul 2005
Posts
9,688
humbug said:
@DragonQ ~>Dg<~ looks to me like an angry troll throwing grenades, i would just leave him to his own devices.
Click to expand...

Best part is I literally benched Horizon 4 last night...

The difference between my 8700k @ 4.5 Ghz and my 1800x @ 4Ghz (not even tested the 2700x yet) is more like 5-10fps.. (1440p Ultra Preset with a 1080Ti boosting to ~1850 @ 99% GPU load). The gap should be closer as my Intel system currently has a memory advantage (working on this) and I haven't had enough time to play with all of the settings (on either system to be fair).

To net a 50FPS difference you either have to be playing at a resolution where you wouldn't be buying a 8700k in first place (this seems to be a go to argument..), or something is seriously ****** up in the test methodology (or its a load of crap.... ).

I also managed to sort of bench Destiny 2 (Afterburner and FRAPS do not work) and the difference was once again around 5-10fps depending on where I was. What I did notice however is that my 8700k was locked at 120fps (current refresh cap with G-sync), whereas my 1800x was between 110 and 120fps. Again the same memory caveat applies.

BS benchmarks are fun..
 

Hotwired

Hotwired

Hotwired

Soldato
Joined
17 Aug 2009
Posts
10,719
Get the popcorn ready for the 19th(?) when reviewers crack out the higher than 1080p testing on high-maximum quality.

Intel knows exactly what it'll look like and we can speculate extremely strongly because we already know how this goes when the resolution is turned up.

But that's why there's a rigged better than best case scenario released over 2 weeks before actually independent tests.

Gotta get the shareholders frothing and believing Intel has something to back up the massive price tag. Like a massive 50% performance advantage. That should do the trick ye?
 

Panos

Panos

Panos

Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2009
Posts
13,252
Location
Under the hot sun.
smogsy said:
ok £200 for 16 core 2950X or even less for 2920X still worth a look into

2920X they recon will be £/$649
Click to expand...

If OCUK keeps similar pricing to 2950X, personally I expect the 2920X at £600.
Which is amazing value for money against not only the new Intel 9xx0X HEDT series, but even the mainstream 9xx0K it seems!!!

But it not good value for money against the 2990WX, which these days goes for £1600, or £1350 if you import one from the states with your next holiday flight there...
Ahh and there is a used one on bay for £920, in UK...... :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom