-
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
- Thread starter orbitalwalsh
- Start date
theoretically yes
Possibly. It may depend on the board and whether it's VRMs were built to be overkill, because the 8-cores are very likely to have higher power demands.
Associate
Winning by less than 500 points on a chip that's likely clocked much higher is "smoking" it? Think whoever wrote this article was smoking something.
Soldato
Its the 14nm process from Global Foundries as well.
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 979
Since 3DMark scales pretty well with clock speed and we know the 9900K has an all-core boost of 4.7ghz:
Margin of error? or IPC has dropped slightly to squeeze those extra cores in.
Margin of error? or IPC has dropped slightly to squeeze those extra cores in.
Ryzen has an advantage in multithreaded IPC compared to Intel right now, so it makes sense that Intel's lead would vanish with extra cores. I like that you bring up margin of error because a lot of PC enthusiasts (well, let's face it, mostly fanboys) don't seem to understand margin of error; there'll be plenty of people that claim the i9-9900K "beats" the R7 2700X at 5 GHz according to that graph, which is depressing. It's a difference of under 0.3%!Since 3DMark scales pretty well with clock speed and we know the 9900K has an all-core boost of 4.7ghz:
Margin of error? or IPC has dropped slightly to squeeze those extra cores in.
The price and other features will define what is better. If consumers are willing to pay considerably more to get the same, then you can't help...
It's not the same though. The 9900K looks like it will beat the 2700X at most things. Whether the price difference reflects the performance difference (probably not) is another thing but its not the same.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 2,209
I should hope it does, its not only much newer but much more expensive plus the 2700 isnt really going to be its main competition ....
If this is say £400 plus and only does the 2700x by 5-10% in multithreaded apps then its rather a large dose of fail.
If this is say £400 plus and only does the 2700x by 5-10% in multithreaded apps then its rather a large dose of fail.
It's certainly not much newer and the 2700X is very much its competition.
I think all of this mines bigger than yours nonsense you see on here is down to expectations or maybe more so warped expectations.
Intel are about to release a CPU that will be the fastest at most things. Not always much faster and not everything but then who was expecting that? It's weird when you see people harping on about how Intel are struggling at the moment and things are very competitive (which they are) but then those same people will criticise Intel because their newest CPU isn't fixing global warming. What we are seeing and have seen from Intel is exactly what we will see and have seen from AMD in the coming updates. Small increases in performance.
Soldato
Do we have a date where this might be officially announced? Any press events or conferences coming up for Intel?
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 2,209
While the 2700x is competition because its a similar processor in size ect, its certainly not priced competitively.
Intel are struggling a bit at the moment, next year that bit looks like a lot.
Intel are struggling a bit at the moment, next year that bit looks like a lot.
Soldato
They are only struggling because of their greed. Pure and simple.
If they called the 9900k an i7 and priced it the same as the 2700. 99% of people would buy it over Ryzen. Fact.
Pure greed holding Intel back. They have the tech to compete with AMD like for like. They are just too used to a certain rrp and the milking. Hell mend them.
I guess struggling covers a much broader meaning that I was aware of. Winning in most games, winning in production. The prices are high but I'm surprised that we are surprised the prices are high. It's how it is. AMD have some great CPU's at amazing prices, but they are generally slower. Intel will price high because of this. Intel have made some odd decisions recently based on them just being miles in front for so long and not seeming to know how to deal with competition correctly but I wish I was struggling like them.
Soldato
But that's simply not the case, is it. Unless you're in the rarefied position of money being no object so you can afford to buy the very best regardless of cost, price-performance ratio is an important metric, and one that Intel either seem to ignore or are relying on fevered fanboiism and consumer mindshare to swallow stupid prices.
Winning in most games? True, but hardly enough to justify £100+ premiums over Ryzen
Winning in production? Yeah OK, have you not heard of Threadripper? And, again, are Intel's minor gains at the very high 18-core end worth double the price of a 16-core TR? What happens when that monster 32-core Threadripper lands? Should be renamed Xeonripper. And to pre-empt "every second gained in render queues is worth money" argument because I've been in production for 2 decades and I have yet to work for a company who'd shell out twice the price of a 16-core TR just because 18-core i9/Xeon can do the job a couple minutes faster.