• 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

Yeah I might import from the states for this one as I want a 9900k, not willing to pay £600 for it here. Retail packaged Intel processors have international warranties?
 
It;s remarkable that the UK price is £100 above MSRP. I can't remember the last time it was so much cheaper to import tech paying taxes.

It looks like all retailers are affected so I would suspect it must be the supply channels which are gouging the price. Nvidia probably taught them how it was done.
 
Ornatus said:
I was going to get the 9900k also but after seeing the price of the said cpu and the 9700k they can **** right off, also isnt the 9900k 100mhz less at stock? also have you accounted for the possibility of having to get a z390 mobo? I've heard that the VRM's might struggle on a z370 board? I've always brought Intel CPU's but not now, I'm going to wait for Zen2, I don't reward ****** companies who pull stunts like massive price increases with nothing to show for it, artifically inflating the price of the 8700k so it falls just below the cost of the 9700k, that isn't a coincidence. Over the last 2 years we were ****** over with the RAM prices, then the 20 series cards (brought my MSI 970 for £280 and now for a 2070 you're looking at £500, thats nearly a 100% price increase over the course of 3 years) and now Intel took notice of Nvidia and pulled the same stunt, we don't have a choice really regarding graphics cards but we do with CPU's. I too was going to get one from America, I have a friend there that could get it for me but after the shady **** I'll happily wait.
Click to expand...

I tested on some cpu intensive games.

GTA5 my 6 core 8600k was around 40-55w (4.8ghz 1.286-1.312vcore), GTA5 uses AVX
FF15 around 35-45w, as far as I know no AVX in this game.

I think unless you plan to run prime95 AVX 24/7 or/and run with insane vcore, a z370 VRM is going to have no issues with a 9900k overclocked or not. Especially a upper tier z370 which are overbuilt anyway.

Also for the 32gig debate, this is on a 32 gig ram config with zero swap so the virtual memory is way way above 50% (16 gig ram), fivem itself was using 17 gig of memory at the time of this screenshot (excluding commit overhead), an hour later virtual memory load was at 96%. The problem is partly down to windows memory management, windows does not allow over commit of memory, meaning you need memory for over commits, so e.g. if an app is using 4 gig of memory, but has requested 7 gig, then it needs 7 gig of memory not 4. Other OS's like linux allow overcommit which makes ram management far better.

Ho4qKfH.jpg
 
Last edited:
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...

The gap is closer, but I find GN's stance a joke to be honest I felt they were a shambles when reviewing ryzen2, doing all sorts of games.

Fans locked at full speed
Enabling bios performance enhancement options to non stock settings, whilst at the same time keeping intel at stock.
No manual OC on intel chips.
Manual tuning of ram to get working at high frequencies instead of the fairer option of lowering their clock speed.
Making a video showcasing ryzen strength vs on htt intel chips, the issue been hardly anyone streams games, and even more so they used software encoding (practically no one does this). This is probably even worse than using cinebench as a performance metric.

I dont know if GN are AMD biased or just have misguided thoughts on what should be considered a reasonable way to test hardware. Some of the stuff they did on the ryzen2 review I felt went way out of the way to try and hammer its advantages, amd its now clear they used a lot of effort to hide deficiencies as well.

Before anyone calls me an intel fanboy, I just want what I consider a fair testing field, and also to point out I think the 9000 series is a joke pricing wise and think right now ryzen2 vs 9000 series is a way better buy.

The PT benchmarks were an alternate way of testing that the review industry has a big difference of opinion on whats reasonable, the three issues that seemed to be the biggest issue were.

1 - the cooling on the amd cpus, both the cooler used and the fact auto fan speed was used.
2 - the amount of ram installed
3 - the use of gamer mode on the mainstream chips.

I asked on here if gamer mode on the software has a warning, or even "anything" stating it should only be used on threadripper chips, no one answered. If I was a newb user, and brought a chip for games, would I use creative mode or gaming mode? let me think. Heads in the sand moment.

I agreed the use of 64gig ram was crazy. But I also think it had little impact on test results. As both intel and AMD were hindered by its use.

The cooling clearly hindered AMD, but I felt it was reasonable, as it highlights weaknesses of the product, (a) that supplied cooling is inadequate, and (b) its a reasonable expectation to use auto instead of 100% fan speeds, especially if noise is a concern.

Should non default options be used in a bios on a review, in my opinion no, unless it stated in the review they are non default and as such may not be stable, and probably with default results also posted alongside. Like on intel reviews there is stock performance posted vs OC performance. Its not just OC by itself. One such reason is that these non default options make the ryzen2 chips run out of spec exceeding the spec'd TDP.

There is a big issue here tho I find very alarming. I seem to be a very tiny minority where I think the standard of hardware reviews from so called independent reviewers is substandard and flawed. However the typical viewer of these review videos and reader of their websites is a firm believer of how they carry out reviews so the general opinion is the PT tests were very flawed and that the other reviewers have been doing things properly. In affect the reviewers control the market, they have their viewers mind controlled.

Now I do acknowledge it is possible PT deliberately used that gamer mode knowing full well what it meant, and with the full intention of the different results. They may have already tested both modes, and simply published the one with the worst results. It is possible. But we also have the reviewers manipulating results themselves when they chose to enable or disable specific features, use specific ram, ommit certain tests from graphs and so forth, what I really dont like is how innocent the reviewers are acting. It has really annoyed me. Also the claim they not paid or sponsored, well doh!!, if you getting free kit, you are paid/sponsored.

Now having watched the above video its even worse for GN :(((((((

I think he should just stick to breaking down cards, First he moaned that intel repeated the claim "still the best gaming cpu", then proceeded to slam it down saying "what about creativity", how is creativity relevant to gaming performance? it means nothing, its irrelevant. The statement made by intel is expected from a marketing rep, and remains accurate based on those testing results and will probably remain accurate after his own testing.

The impressions I get are as follows.

1 - He is salty about not been able to post a review the same time as PT, as these reviewers are obsessed with this day one rubbish for publishing. He says its so consumers have more data to process, which is true, but his real reason is he wont get as many hits if someone else can post data before him.
2 - The review results were way different to all the ryzen2 testing carried by himself and other reviewers, so obviously this had to be challenged to keep integrity in their earlier results. Both results are valid in the ways they been tested, the mistake by GN here was the claims PT tests are somehow invalid or flawed, simply because they were very different to his own (flawed) tests.
3 - These videos create story, and this gets GN hits, so there is that motivation to make these videos as well, may as well fill that void between now and the embargo date.
 
Last edited:
Panos said:
ROFLMAO. :D
Click to expand...

I dont get this one.

Intel systems had ram at 2666
AMD at 2933

So amd had a 266 mhz performance advantage on the ram.

Sorry its not fair if you optimise the ram, its fair if you put basic ram in both rigs. Plus accept either default configs or what automated tuning gives you, manual tuning or cherry picking parts makes it flawed unless you doing it to both setups.

Techpowerup felt it was fair to manually tune AMD bios in its ryzen2 review, but keep intel's bios at stock and do no manual OC, in my opinion a manual OC is no different to manually optimising ram.

Its intel bashing time, I get it guys, because we need AMD to be a strong competitor, and intel's pricing is a complete joke. But I dont think it merits biased reviewers.

Lets put it this way, both nvidia and intel pricing is a joke right now agreed?

Who thinks intels pricing will get the same treatment as nvidia by these so called independent reviewers, we all know whats coming. Nvidia get performance/price ratio brushed under the carpet for £1500 GPU's, intel are about to get a big whipping for £600 cpu's.
 
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...

They can have their fun, my issue is with the reviewers, I find their stance concerning as they supposed to be neutral and clearly have a large influence on their audience.

I mean I am looking at the published specs of the testing, and the rationale behind what PT posted does have plausibility.

Some quotes.

Incidentally these were not mentioned in GN's new video even tho the statement was provided to the media.

All Intel systems

  • Enabled: Extreme Memory Profile(X.M.P.)

  • DRAM Frequency set toDDR4-2666

  • Disabled ASUS MultiCore Enhancement to use stock intel multicore settings
All AMD systems

  • Verify that D.O.C.P is selected for AMD-equivalent memory settings toXMP

  • Performance Enhancer, set toDefault

  • Disabled overclockingenhancement

  • DRAM frequency set toDDR4-2933

  • Set Core Performance Boost toAuto

  • Set performance bias toNone

  • Installed Ryzen Masterutility
In my view nothing unreasonable about the above. AMD had the higher speed configured on the ram as well, I believe this is because AMD officially support higher speed ram than intel.

So the ram in both system had same timings (not nerfed on AMD). MCE was disabled on intel even tho was enabled by default on ASUS bios, and likewise performance enhancements were disabled in bios for AMD. No manual OC for either.

In regards to the cooling, the cooler was picked for intel based on the cooler that was used on the threadripper, threadripper and intel had similar spec'd coolers. Again reasonable, AMD have stated the supplied cooler on ryzen2 chips is a good cooler so was used, again reasonable. The chips were indeed ran within stock spec configuration so should have been adequate.

In regards to the use of 4 dimms

Memory speeds: To have complete parity across all systems, and to allow the Intel® Core™ i9 X-series and AMD Ryzen™ Threadripper™ to fully utilize memory bandwidth, we used 4 16GB DDR4 DIMMs on all configurations. We took the following memory configuration steps:
Click to expand...

So threadripper is indeed quad channel, if anything the 4 dimm configuration helped AMD as it gave threadripper more memory bandwidth. Both intel and AMD consumer boards suffer from not been able to clock memory as high when all 4 dimm slots are used, so this config helped threadripper and was neutral for 9900k and 2700x.

Us two seem the only two guys in this thread looking at this rationally ;)
 
chrcoluk said:
I dont know if GN are AMD biased or just have misguided thoughts on what should be considered a reasonable way to test hardware.
Click to expand...

They've always tried to show hardware in its best light - IIRC for instance I believe the rational for "Enabling bios performance enhancement options to non stock settings, whilst at the same time keeping intel at stock." was that out the box Intel uses XFR like behaviour while AMD CPUs don't.
 
obpdaiwv4zr11.jpg
 
chrcoluk said:
A slightly more calm reaction from linus vs GN.

His basis is that this happens with all product launches, from AMD, nvidia etc. In short he feels intel is just been picked on, they not innocent tho in terms of incompetance.

https://youtu.be/mTC99ANf3fU?t=43m40s
Click to expand...

He may be right in this instance but we can't take Linus at face value. I get the impression he is heavily sponsored by Intel.

I'd just like to see reviewers try to show both sets of hardware in their best light. I don't care what settings are used just get the best results from each and present the figures fairly.

I think the time is coming where consumers will have to subscribe to reviewers and no sponsorship or freebies will be allowed.
 
I find it pretty underhand that intel raises all their 8xxx prices by £100 a couple of months before launch, hoping we will think the 9xxx isn't that much more :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom