Intel to Cut Prices of its Desktop Processors by 15% in Response to Ryzen 3000

[~>Dg<~]

https://youtu.be/ikBYHYsdhhE?t=844

 

[Boot_Loop]

There are 20 games where the 9900k is from 5% to 16% faster and 7 where it's 10%+. The 3900x plays all the games excellently but if you are just gaming I don't understand why people have such a problem with the 9900k being the best chip. At this point it just seems like raving Intel hate rather than any measured opinion. Also you missed the bit where the 9900k is a bit faster before you overclock to 5ghz. Weird also that in the individual benchmark he stated the 9900k as being 17% faster in SOTTR but in the chart it says 15%.

Ryzen is an amazing product but it has taken them 3 generations to get where they are and the gains are still not enough to bypass the Intel CPU's that people love to rip apart. Good on them but it's not the second coming people desperately want to portray it has.

This is s strange post as it's really pointless you cherry picking titles where the 9900K has a bigger advantage there are also 7-8 games where the 3900X is faster or the difference is margin of error, so what?

That's why we look at averages and we know pretty conclusively now that the gaming gap between the two under simulated conditions to boot is just 6%. Absolutely negligible and inconsequential especially when the 9900K is less efficient, draws more power under load, and gets demolished in multi-threaded or productivity workloads.

So it's not about 'Intel hate' it's about using common sense and admitting that the 9900K is no longer a viable purchase now that something better is here.

The bending over backwards of Intel 9000-series owners to justify their CPUs ultimately is not gonna fool anyone, especially now we know how tiny the gaming difference is between the top SKUs from both companies.

 

[TrM]

This is s strange post as it's really pointless you cherry picking titles where the 9900K has a bigger advantage there are also 7-8 games where the 3900X is faster or the difference is margin of error, so what?

That's why we look at averages and we know pretty conclusively now that the gaming gap between the two under simulated conditions to boot is just 6%. Absolutely negligible and inconsequential especially when the 9900K is less efficient, draws more power under load, and gets demolished in multi-threaded or productivity workloads.

So it's not about 'Intel hate' it's about using common sense and admitting that the 9900K is no longer a viable purchase now that something better is here.

The bending over backwards of Intel 9000-series owners to justify their CPUs ultimately is not gonna fool anyone, especially now we know how tiny the gaming difference is between the top SKUs from both companies.

I allways find even more funny though most of the intel people defending the allmighty 9900k dont even have a 2080ti to make use of the 6% avarge extra power it has ")

 

[kittenmittenz]

This is s strange post as it's really pointless you cherry picking titles where the 9900K has a bigger advantage there are also 7-8 games where the 3900X is faster or the difference is margin of error, so what?

That's why we look at averages and we know pretty conclusively now that the gaming gap between the two under simulated conditions to boot is just 6%. Absolutely negligible and inconsequential especially when the 9900K is less efficient, draws more power under load, and gets demolished in multi-threaded or productivity workloads.

So it's not about 'Intel hate' it's about using common sense and admitting that the 9900K is no longer a viable purchase now that something better is here.

The bending over backwards of Intel 9000-series owners to justify their CPUs ultimately is not gonna fool anyone, especially now we know how tiny the gaming difference is between the top SKUs from both companies.

I don’t know if it’s cherry picking though, I think overall it’s safe to admit that the 9900k has the advantage in gaming but I am also happy to say it is not a sensible purchase at its RRP price. If you find it around the 400 price range, I think it’s a good option (for gamers of course).

 

[Naff8000]

This is s strange post as it's really pointless you cherry picking titles where the 9900K has a bigger advantage there are also 7-8 games where the 3900X is faster or the difference is margin of error, so what?

That's why we look at averages and we know pretty conclusively now that the gaming gap between the two under simulated conditions to boot is just 6%. Absolutely negligible and inconsequential especially when the 9900K is less efficient, draws more power under load, and gets demolished in multi-threaded or productivity workloads.

So it's not about 'Intel hate' it's about using common sense and admitting that the 9900K is no longer a viable purchase now that something better is here.

The bending over backwards of Intel 9000-series owners to justify their CPUs ultimately is not gonna fool anyone, especially now we know how tiny the gaming difference is between the top SKUs from both companies.

You have no idea if he owns one. His point is completely valid, your point comes across as just a rant.

 

[B1gbeard]

This is s strange post as it's really pointless you cherry picking titles where the 9900K has a bigger advantage there are also 7-8 games where the 3900X is faster or the difference is margin of error, so what?

That's why we look at averages and we know pretty conclusively now that the gaming gap between the two under simulated conditions to boot is just 6%. Absolutely negligible and inconsequential especially when the 9900K is less efficient, draws more power under load, and gets demolished in multi-threaded or productivity workloads.

So it's not about 'Intel hate' it's about using common sense and admitting that the 9900K is no longer a viable purchase now that something better is here.

The bending over backwards of Intel 9000-series owners to justify their CPUs ultimately is not gonna fool anyone, especially now we know how tiny the gaming difference is between the top SKUs from both companies.

The very video you posted shows 3 games where the 3900x is quicker by 1-3%? Right? Or are you seeing different numbers? Then for the rest of the games the 9900k is quicker. Some of them who cares as its so close and then up to 16% (even though Steve states 17% for ROTTR during the video and then puts down 15% on the chart although maybe I missed something). So the very video you posted contradicts your argument. Cherry picking would be choosing the odd one or two games where a certain CPU is quicker and ignoring the rest, not when there are so many games to choose from as in this case.

I think you need to stop judging other peoples posts by how you are thinking. I wouldn't touch any of the Intel CPU's with a barge pole in their current form but if you are just gaming and have £450 to spend the 9900k is simply better. The 3900x still plays games fine, but you are making stuff up to justify your choices when even the video you posted doesn't back up your argument. A more sensible argument would be that the 9900k is still quicker in games, some games by a fair amount, but the 3900x is better for my use case instead of hyperbole like:

"the goalposts have moved completely" when in some games the 3XXX is quite similar to the 2700x and then "Suddenly, stock results don't count and the power hungry and inefficient 9900K needs to be overclocked to 5+ghz for gaming tests to be fair! What a joke" when in the very video you posted the stock results were slightly better for the 9900k in comparison before overclocking both CPU's. It's hard to take you seriously in light of this.

 

[humbug]

The very video you posted shows 3 games where the 3900x is quicker by 1-3%? Right? Or are you seeing different numbers? Then for the rest of the games the 9900k is quicker. Some of them who cares as its so close and then up to 16%. So the very video you posted contradicts your argument. Cherry picking would be choosing the odd one or two games where a certain CPU is quicker and ignoring the rest, not when there are so many games to choose from as in this case.

I think you need to stop judging other peoples posts by how you are thinking. I wouldn't touch any of the Intel CPU's with a barge pole in their current form but if you are just gaming and have £450 to spend the 9900k is simply better. The 3900x still plays games fine, but you are making stuff up to justify your choices when even the video you posted doesn't back up your argument. A more sensible argument would be that the 9900k is still quicker in games, some games by a fair amount, but the 3900x is better for my use case instead of hyperbole like:

"the goalposts have moved completely" when in some games the 3XXX is quite similar to the 2700x and then "Suddenly, stock results don't count and the power hungry and inefficient 9900K needs to be overclocked to 5+ghz for gaming tests to be fair! What a joke" when in the very video you posted the stock results were slightly better for the 9900k in comparison before overclocking both CPU's. It's hard to take you seriously in light of this.

To blanket say "the 9900K is better for gaming" is also disingenuous, right now that's true if you're running your games at 1080P on an RTX 2080TI, what percentage of users fall into that category? take them away from people who don't use their CPU "just for gaming" because the 3900X is a hell of a lot faster in productivity workloads than the small difference the 9900K offers in games for that tiny margin of users.

I know you made this point too and i think it's what really maters here, i would expand on it, both are fantastic CPU's and offer something for everyone but personally i think if all you do is game you're wasting your money on the 3900X and 9900K, the 9700K and 3700X offer the same level of performance for much less even if you do game on a 2080TI at 1080P, with that i would go for the 3700X simply because while it is a little slower now IMO it will come into it's own if you plan on keeping it for at least a couple of years as it's already showing a lot of performance before any game with the exception of a few have been optimized for it and given it has 16 thread's vs 8 on the 9700K it will stand up to the test of time a lot better.

 

[Grim5]

So likely a very large percentage of most peoples gaming libraries.

Is it? I wouldn't know, I generally just play single player story driven games as they come out, so always the latest releases.
But that's just me - I only asked for the data because it relates to me, I'm not interested in performance of old games.

edit: So it only took a few minutes - I only took the games released in the last 12 months from Hardware Unboxed's list which was about 12 of them. The difference is not as big as I expected but it is bigger, maybe it's just the smaller sample size. So looking at only recent games, the 9900k is 8.1% faster. Not a significant difference and the 3900x still looks good.

I was also trying to see if there was a trend that the 9900k is getting faster relative to the 3900x in newer titles - but it's not possible to draw that conclusion on the sample size.

Should be interesting in 1 year from now to see how 2020 games performs for these two parts, although Intel's 10 core should be released by then so we'll stop looking at the 9900k anyway just like the 8700k has fallen off most charts now despite still being very solid.

 

[Steveocee]

The bending over backwards of Intel 9000-series owners to justify their CPUs ultimately is not gonna fool anyone, especially now we know how tiny the gaming difference is between the top SKUs from both companies.

Nobody needs to justify anything. If you have an Intel 9 series then you have the CPU with the best performance right now. Not by a lot granted but it's better.

~Queue the argument of value~

 

[humbug]

Nobody needs to justify anything. If you have an Intel 9 series then you have the CPU with the best performance right now. Not by a lot granted but it's better.

~Queue the argument of value~

Actually the Ryzen R9 is a lot faster than the Intel i9.

 

[Steveocee]

Actually the Ryzen R9 is a lot faster than the Intel i9.

I actually can't wait for AMD to start beating Intel in the benchmarks so that we don't have to have threads with hundreds of pages of debate about it all.

**By that I mean with "normal" CPU's that most of the users on here will buy. the 3600 & 3700 equivalents at whatever generation it is.

 

[B1gbeard]

To blanket say "the 9900K is better for gaming" is also disingenuous, right now that's true if you're running your games at 1080P on an RTX 2080TI, what percentage of users fall into that category? take them away from people who don't use their CPU "just for gaming" because the 3900X is a hell of a lot faster in productivity workloads than the small difference the 9900K offers in games for that tiny margin of users.

I know you made this point too and i think it's what really maters here, i would expand on it, both are fantastic CPU's and offer something for everyone but personally i think if all you do is game you're wasting your money on the 3900X and 9900K, the 9700K and 3700X offer the same level of performance for much less even if you do game on a 2080TI at 1080P, with that i would go for the 3700X simply because while it is a little slower now IMO it will come into it's own if you plan on keeping it for at least a couple of years as it's already showing a lot of performance before any game with the exception of a few have been optimized for it and given it has 16 thread's vs 8 on the 9700K it will stand up to the test of time a lot better.

Being disingenuous would mean that I care in some way or have a wager going but I really couldn't care less what is quicker. I wouldn't dream of buying a 9900k or 9700k at the moment. It's simply a fact to point out that the 3900x doesn't come up to the 9900k in gaming overall as per the video I responded to. The 1080p and top of the range GPU argument was used for the Ryzen 2XXX series reviews also and was disproved then. There are reviews showing a 9900k winning in 1440p. Is the % smaller for some games? Sure, but that's not what I am arguing.

If I was buying right now it would be a 3900x. I just don't understand why people can look at numbers and come out with 2+2=5. So what if a CPU is quicker at something than yours. It just doesn't matter.

 

[humbug]

Don't get me wrong, i don't think you care about one brand or the other. i think your post was pretty neutral. ^^^^

Is it? I wouldn't know, I generally just play single player story driven games as they come out, so always the latest releases.
But that's just me - I only asked for the data because it relates to me, I'm not interested in performance of old games.

edit: So it only took a few minutes - I only took the games released in the last 12 months from Hardware Unboxed's list which was about 12 of them. The difference is not as big as I expected but it is bigger, maybe it's just the smaller sample size. So looking at only recent games, the 9900k is 8.1% faster. Not a significant difference and the 3900x still looks good.

I was also trying to see if there was a trend that the 9900k is getting faster relative to the 3900x in newer titles - but it's not possible to draw that conclusion on the sample size.

Should be interesting in 1 year from now to see how 2020 games performs for these two parts, although Intel's 10 core should be released by then so we'll stop looking at the 9900k anyway just like the 8700k has fallen off most charts now despite still being very solid.

The weird thing is CS:GO, always such a massively Intel leaning old game the 3900X is actually slightly quicker than the 9900K, Ryzen 3600 vs 9600K the 3600 blows the 9600K out of the water, how? then i learned CS:GO got a cheeky Ryzen patch before launch.

World War Z also runs much better on Ryzen 3000 than it did on Launch, again, it was patched.

To me that shows just how much Ryzen has left to give, it will come into it's own.

 

[Nghtmare]

Actually the Ryzen R9 is a lot faster than the Intel i9.

Facts. The 9900K its better at games by a small margin because games have been made mainly to favour Intel since Ryzen was not really a "gamers" CPU. However when you check benchmarks that test the CPU as a whole like C20 even the 3700X trades blows with the 9900K, let alone the 3900X which is in a league of its own.

 

[TrM]

I actually can't wait for AMD to start beating Intel in the benchmarks so that we don't have to have threads with hundreds of pages of debate about it all.

**By that I mean with "normal" CPU's that most of the users on here will buy. the 3600 & 3700 equivalents at whatever generation it is.

i doubt we will ever see that day intel will pull ahead at some time again whilst amd are putting up a massive fight atm and i think they will for a few years but they have to find a successor to zen one day and intel have more money more man power and can aford to take more risks with having such a market share on the prebuilt and laptop etc which makes them the most money amd really havent cracked that yet

 

[TrM]

Facts. The 9900K its better at games by a small margin because games have been made mainly to favour Intel since Ryzen was not really a "gamers" CPU. However when you check benchmarks that test the CPU as a whole like C20 even the 3700X trades blows with the 9900K, let alone the 3900X which is in a league of its own.

i dont think its zen thats the problem myself its amd in general. Uptill 2017 and from lets say phanom x6 cpu way back when amd just was not in the game amd cpu was a very budget cpu why program a game to amximise a smaller % and a lot less powerful when uptill 2017 if any gamer want to take it seriously only one choice is intel. thre intel i5 was pure gaming king simple as and if u wanted a i7 that was just a more expensive wya to go.

in 2017 amd released zen ryzen cpu and paardon the pun it was a game changer intel was finally on the abck foot and trying to out pace amd which they havent been able to do. and with amd zen gaining market share game devs will see a rreason to optimise and aqueze extra out of zen cores and threads

zen is th eproblem its bulldozer and taking 10 years to finally take the fight to intel that the major problem

 

[humbug]

Facts. The 9900K its better at games by a small margin because games have been made mainly to favour Intel since Ryzen was not really a "gamers" CPU. However when you check benchmarks that test the CPU as a whole like C20 even the 3700X trades blows with the 9900K, let alone the 3900X which is in a league of its own.

It is better in games, by a small margin. THAT is true.

 

[B1gbeard]

Has there been any indication that there is more in the tank for the 3xxx CPU's based on the 2xxx say? The 2xxx series seems to be in a pretty similar place to where it was on release. Just wondering if it made any ground up at all on the 8700k would it have been at that time?

 

[TrM]

Has there been any indication that there is more in the tank for the 3xxx CPU's based on the 2xxx say? The 2xxx series seems to be in a pretty similar place to where it was on release. Just wondering if it made any ground up at all on the 8700k would it have been at that time?

the new windows update did improve my 2700x in some games and exp in file extraction and a few other things but yes in the real world 2700x did gain on the 8700k but thats mainly the intel secuity patches not so much the 2700x getting a lot better jst 8700k being nerfed

 

[Nghtmare]

Has there been any indication that there is more in the tank for the 3xxx CPU's based on the 2xxx say? The 2xxx series seems to be in a pretty similar place to where it was on release. Just wondering if it made any ground up at all on the 8700k would it have been at that time?

Well most BIOS are broken, and full of bugs, PBO doesn't work properly, AGESA versions are all over the place, etc. It is also a new architecture, most apps/games that you see today use Intel CPUs at its full potential since they have been running the same 14nm architecture for a few years.