Soldato
-
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
- Thread starter Nelly
- Start date
I think people are being a bit harsh on PT - I've been following GN's coverage. At the end of the day PT are a generic testing house - they cover a large range of tech and marketting and mostly operate to the client brief specification. They don't have the specialisation for testing games, etc. that the likes of TPU and GN, etc. do the culprit here is Intel especially not bringing reviewers like TPU onboard earlier on.
The followup statement from Intel says it all - they are so far up their own backside it is unreal.
The followup statement from Intel says it all - they are so far up their own backside it is unreal.
Soldato
Actually it is not generic. The company is owned by Intel, literally.
Based on what? other than a throw away remark by one tech reviewer that wasn't intended literally.
Soldato
PT have a range of benchmarks that they developed called XPRT, which was basically paid for by Intel, as Intel invested heavily in PT in the mid 2k's to shift from the Sysmark shenanigans that they caused.
http://vrworld.com/2014/11/03/shades-sysmark-2001-intel-may-webxprt-problem/
Soldato
How much faster is Zen+ over Zen? Because if you look at DF benchmarks, the 7700k for example does show more than what I'd call a 12% lead over the 1800x at least in minimum fps. Most charts aren't showing that, only averages.
Intel is/was heavily involved in the development of those benchmarks yes (although that in itself isn't really unusual - many of the major tech companies are contributors on industry benchmark suites) and also a major customer of PT - there are 3 or more published results for Intel for every 1 of any other company (so obviously they will want to keep them happy) - but that is a far cry from being owned by Intel or a spin-off of Intel.
Soldato
why is 'Game' mode not disabled if not using a supported processor?
I was wondering about that - or atleast have some kind of CPU specific programming in how it functions (there might be valid reasons why people want to force it). Seems like another instance of AMD tripping themselves up unnecessarily.
Soldato
You really do like making things up, nothing on their acquisitions list about them owning PT
You do know they have worked with AMD too, they own them as well? and Nvidia....the conspiracy goes on and on...
Last edited:
What makes you think Ryzen is not a supported processor.
Two switches are activated and yes they are disabled for certain CPUs.
From the Ryzen Master manual:
So you cannot change memory mode if you don't have a Threadripper and you cannot cut the core count in half if the cpu has 4 cores or less.
As we know PT was busy pressing the button to cut the 2700X core count in half for testing and either they're lying about why or they were ignorant about what it does.
Here's someone testing Legacy Compatibility Mode on Ryzens quite some time ago and generally concluding it reduces performance.
The tooltip you are given tells you it may improve performance in older games and programs. Hence the compatibility name.
Doesn't sound relevant to a suite of modern games and yet PT stuck that on.
Soldato
why do you need these profiles? Can it not detect and apply knowing what program is currently running and what hardware is installed. If not a known application then asks for user input.
I never said Ryzen is not a supported processor.
Regardless though I think the AMD implementation leaves a lot to be desired - you'd think a company like PT "would" have tested with both modes to see which performed best for a given scenario (or maybe they did... hence the quotes around would).
????
Then you were saying something truly bizarre in a thread involving only Ryzen and TR AMD CPUs since as the above information said, all options are disabled if the CPU cannot use them.
It is a compatibility mode. It cripples the CPU into a more generic and lower threaded form in case of older programs not playing well with AMDs modular CPU design and/or the high thread count.
Unless you are quite sure a program has a problem you should not use those switches since you are crippling the cpu.
Soldato
So you shouldn't use a mode clearly labelled 'Game mode' in games unless you have tried both on and off previously and figured out which is best
What about 'Creators mode' is that as daft?
Some very disingenuous arguments being made in this thread. Any competent tester would ensure they understood what settings they were using. It's very odd how all the "accidental" mistakes in testing only hampered the products of the test's sponsor's competition.
Either PT were following Intel's instructions to the letter, in which case Intel most definitely know what they're doing or PT are not very good at their job. If you can't rely on their testing results what's the point of them other than someone to take the flak if your "accidents" are unearthed.
Everyone in the industry will know that RAM, temperature and disabling half the cores will make Ryzen perform worse. Except Intel and a professional testing house? Lol do me a favour
Either PT were following Intel's instructions to the letter, in which case Intel most definitely know what they're doing or PT are not very good at their job. If you can't rely on their testing results what's the point of them other than someone to take the flak if your "accidents" are unearthed.
Everyone in the industry will know that RAM, temperature and disabling half the cores will make Ryzen perform worse. Except Intel and a professional testing house? Lol do me a favour
Some very disingenuous arguments being made in this thread. Any competent tester would ensure they understood what settings they were using. It's very odd how all the "accidental" mistakes in testing only hampered the products of the test's sponsor's competition.
Either PT were following Intel's instructions to the letter, in which case Intel most definitely know what they're doing or PT are not very good at their job. If you can't rely on their testing results what's the point of them other than someone to take the flak if your "accidents" are unearthed.
Everyone in the industry will know that RAM, temperature and disabling half the cores will make Ryzen perform worse. Except Intel and a professional testing house? Lol do me a favour
These companies pretty much purely exist to make money, they aren't tech enthusiasts, etc. despite being professional testers they are kind of useless outside of marketing i.e. QA Consultants driver stability audit which was riddled with the same kind of methodology flaws as this stuff from PT - that and very few clients would want to pay what it cost to do exhaustive testing as to the why behind every aspect of testing which unfortunately ends up looking badly on the tester if their client only paid for a simplistic service.
Do you have any proof of this?
Soldato
AdoredTV said so few days back on his last video....
I don't believe for a second this is just a case of incompetence because Intel knew exactly what TP were doing since they validated their results before release.
This is likely Intel trying to pump their 9900K scores up as much as possible to justify the high price tag, and to get as many onto their platform before AMD's 7nm CPU hits the streets.
What's truly amazing is that Intel thought the tech press would not react to flawed benchmarks but when they actually did, Intel basically just said, well the 9900K still wins!... nobody was even talking about the 2700x being faster
I guess Christmas came early for AMD, thanks to Intel and their 9900K because this mess just makes it easier to wait for AMD's 7nm CPU generation
This is likely Intel trying to pump their 9900K scores up as much as possible to justify the high price tag, and to get as many onto their platform before AMD's 7nm CPU hits the streets.
What's truly amazing is that Intel thought the tech press would not react to flawed benchmarks but when they actually did, Intel basically just said, well the 9900K still wins!... nobody was even talking about the 2700x being faster
I guess Christmas came early for AMD, thanks to Intel and their 9900K because this mess just makes it easier to wait for AMD's 7nm CPU generation
Last edited: