• 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

AMDPower said:

so at best 10-25% faster depending on game, not bad, but the price is not in line with performance gain.
Click to expand...

Especially some multi thread games like PUBG, the difference is already 4.9%!!!!!!

Lets have some food for thought. The 2700X with the stock wraith (used in test) can do couple of cores to 4.1Ghz no more. Needs better cooling to hit higher rated speeds.
9900K works at 20-23% higher clocks on most cores. Where is the perf outside CSGO which is a single thread game?
 
Panos said:
Especially some multi thread games like PUBG, the difference is already 4.9%!!!!!!

Lets have some food for thought. The 2700X with the stock wraith (used in test) can do couple of cores to 4.1Ghz no more. Needs better cooling to hit higher rated speeds.
9900K works at 20-23% higher clocks on most cores. Where is the perf outside CSGO which is a single thread game?
Click to expand...
Its not going to be much faster then the 8700k untill more multi threaded games are out. Id guess at best 1-5% .
 
Lokken86 said:
Its not going to be much faster then the 8700k untill more multi threaded games are out. Id guess at best 1-5% .
Click to expand...

Actually it looks worse. Why? All core 8700K @5Ghz vs all core 2700X @ 4.2Ghz, have 9% difference with the GTX1080Ti at 1080p on max out settings (Ultra). (bear in mind the 8700K burns 10% more power).
That's well documented.

Here we have the same 1080Ti at 1080p on lower graphic settings (high not ultra).
With a suffocating and burning 2700X with the stock wraith, in apparently very bad case (from Linus streaming last night) that might have been able to do more than 4Ghz let alone 4.2 and that on 1-2 cores, with crap ram (and 64GB of that), is beaten by just 12%, there is something wrong with the 9900K performance, because the numbers do not add up.

So either the 9900K is not as good as we believe, or due to much higher power consumption, even the Noctua cooler, and soldered IHS cannot help it from throttling.
 
These Intel threads do make me smile. The majority of the posts seem to be from AMD owners trying to convince poeple to buy AMD instead. Is there some kind of commission scheme or something?
 
IT Troll said:
These Intel threads do make me smile. The majority of the posts seem to be from AMD owners trying to convince poeple to buy AMD instead. Is there some kind of commission scheme or something?
Click to expand...

No, i've always said if you have a GTX 1080TI and want the best out of it you have to get an 8700K, and i stand by that.

But it seems that's starting to go to Intel's head because they are not really doing a lot to advance themselves, all they are doing is pushing the price up to ridiculous levels.

If you have a problem with that we can debate it, don't go throwing around silly accusations so you can divert from the real issue here, people like you are why Intel feel they can keep pushing the price up and up and up...... have you not learned that yet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom