• 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.

OcUK Coffee Lake-S review thread(Core i9 9900K,Core i7 9700K,Core i5 9600K)

Panos said:
Unfortunately seems Intel "benchmark" guiding has to promote 1080p.....
But here is with 2080Ti with 2560x1440.
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/intel_core_i9_9900k_processor_review,19.html

Except far cry 5, there is no difference at 2560x1440 and won't be any with lesser cards (2080/1080Ti/Vega) even on that game.
Also consider stock 2700X runs at 4Ghz. It can get another 15%-17% with better ram and OC to 4.3.
Click to expand...

Not many 2700X's do 4.3 at reasonable voltage/temperatures. 4.2 more realistic.
 
RavenXXX2 said:
Looks like Linus had the 95 watt TDP limit on his board meaning the chip was throttled. And **** you Asus, 4 phase VRM on a £270 mobo, avoid the Z390 Hero.

Click to expand...

Linus is a full blow Intel shill.

What he did was do the review on a board where the CPU boosted to 4.7Ghz and then ran power consumption tests on a cheap board that throttled the clock speeds to 4Ghz to keep the power low.

Linus = another Principle Technologies.
 
humbug said:
Yes, and i agree with 1080P testing, at the end of day its about testing the CPU's performance, you can't do that if the GPU is the bottleneck. :)
Click to expand...
I see you point. but it is also damaging for the industry. 10000's of kids will watch the review and blindly think than Intel is leaps faster than AMD (at all and any resolutions). Just unfairly increases mind share for Intel. Who is buying a £600 CPU and then gaming at 1080p?
 
beany_bot said:
I see you point. but it is also damaging for the industry. 10000's of kids will watch the review and blindly think than Intel is leaps faster than AMD (at all and any resolutions). Just unfairly increases mind share for Intel. Who is buying a £600 CPU and then gaming at 1080p?
Click to expand...

I think they will see the 15% difference in games between the 9900K and the 2700X and conclude the 9900K is not worth twice as much.

$600 is a lot of money for a CPU, its much more niche., $300 is more affordable to more people than $600, especially when the $300 CPU is not far behind the $600 CPU in performance.

The sales figures that we are aware of reflect this.
 
humbug said:
I think they will see the 15% difference in games between the 9900K and the 2700X and conclude the 9900K is not worth twice as much.

$600 is a lot of money for a CPU, its much more niche., $300 is more affordable to more people than $600, especially when the $300 CPU is not far behind the $600 CPU in performance.

The sales figures that we are aware of reflect this.
Click to expand...

Actually you know what, i'm going to turn this round, when people in the market for a new CPU watching that video see a $300 CPU getting 85% the frame rates of a $600 CPU they are going to think its a marvellous thing and buy it.
 
humbug said:
Actually you know what, i'm going to turn this round, when people in the market for a new CPU watching that video see a $300 CPU getting 85% the frame rates of a $600 CPU they are going to think its a marvellous thing and buy it.
Click to expand...

Which is fine, but you don't need a 9900K to beat a 2700x in games. A 8600K will do the job just fine.
 
gavinh87 said:
Which is fine, but you don't need a 9900K to beat a 2700x in games. A 8600K will do the job just fine.
Click to expand...

You don't need the 2700X, a 2600 clocked to the same speed will do the same job in games.
Its cheaper than an i3 8100.

You're missing the point, that being there isn't much gaming performance difference between AMD's high end mainstream and Intel's, but the price difference is huge, so no need to worry about benchmarking methodology that are largely unrepresentative of actual users.
 
humbug said:
You don't need the 2700X, a 2600 clocked to the same speed will do the same job in games.
Its cheaper than an i3 8100.

You're missing the point, that being there isn't much gaming performance difference between AMD's high end mainstream and Intel's, but the price difference is huge, so no need to worry about benchmarking methodology that are largely unrepresentative of actual users.
Click to expand...

Yes the price difference is a factor, especially now :/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom