PC Games Intel performance testing fake.

[humbug]

Hardware Unboxed looks at PC Games Core 9000 games benchmarking.

PC Games published Intel paid canned results, they are fake.

Edit: i should explain what i mean by fake, the results published for the 2700X have been paid for by Intel, the performance figures for the 2700X are much lower than reality, at least in those that can be accurately reproduced.

Update 1: The company Intel paid for these results actually turned 4 of the cores on the 2700X off, effectively turning the CPU into a much lower end Ryzen 2400G.

Update 2: PC Games have updated the article, they have explained Hardware Unboxed initial findings but seemingly don't yet know about the fact that the 2700X had 4 of its cores disabled.

Still, good of them to follow up on it.

https://www.pcgamesn.com/intel-core-i9-9900k-vs-amd-ryzen-7-2700x-gaming-benchmarks

 

[humbug]

I think the main issue isn't that they are fake, its rather that there is no information on any test rigs and benchmark settings, and are released many days before the nda date, meaning it is advertising/propaganda dressed up as a review, and should be treated as advertising.

Did you watch it all? the benchmarking methodology is clearly defined, they ran in game benchmarks with results that are way under what they should be for the 2700X.

These are Intel's figures and they have the 2700X performing way down on reality, they are just plain fake results deliberately designed to make the 2700X look a lot slower than it actually is.

These results are also published before the NDA is up, deliberately so the results cannot be disputed for a while.

 

[humbug]

"Intentionally Misleading" would be a better term

I'm happy to use "Intentionally Misleading"

 

[humbug]

Imagine a marketing team using a best case scenario for their own product vs a worst case scenario for a competitor - Surely this has never happened in the entire history of man?

Its not just that, their results for the 2700X are much lower than reality, Steve does his own testing with some of the games they used and knew from that something was wrong, so he reproduced their test, and yes Steve scored much higher.

Their results are fake, made up.

 

[humbug]

Again, not fake, the articles even use the term 'misleading', crying fake at something you dont like comes across as polemic. The test setup is here http://www.principledtechnologies.com/Intel/PC_gaming_processor_study_interim_1018.pdf. they are clearly results from an unfair test, 'fake' would be using figures when you hadnt carried out a test.

No what he said was "garbage" while explaining the 2700X results they published are much lower than reality, you can argue 'word' semantics all you like they all describe the same fact that Intel's published results here are fake.

 

[humbug]

They disabled XMP for the Ryzen test but for the Intel enabled XMP and then manually overclocked. The real difference is only 8-12%.

Right. They even tweaked the timings on the Intel system.

 

[humbug]

If there was such a thing as one slide to sum it up its this one...

 

[humbug]

It's worse than that.



So they effectively turned off half of the 2700X's cores and tested it as a 4C/8T CPU...

Oh and the Intel CPU was ran with an expensive Noctua NH-U14S, while the 2700X used the stock cooler...

Wow ok....

It should be explained for those that don't know, running Gaming Mode in Ryzen Master turns off one of the two CCX's, so on whatever CPU you run it on you only have half the CPU cores, in this case 4, in my case 3, With SMT ofcorse, so 8 or 6 threads, vs 16 or in my case 12.
Its a stupid mode i don't know why Ryzen has it, its mainly for Threadripper to cut down inter-core latency, it makes no difference to performance on Ryzen, other than the effects of only having half the CPU cores.

 

[humbug]

Anyone in a position to do a quick 2700X AotS Bench with Game Mode On & Off? I've been looking around for one but can't find anything.

I don't have it.

 

[humbug]

Even Forbes has an article about this and Intel PR actually "responded" to their concerns.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasone...enchmarks-are-misleading-period/#881d3644e4ea

Intel PR:
"We are deeply appreciative of the work of the reviewer community and expect that over the coming weeks additional testing will continue to show that the 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900K is the world’s best gaming processor.
Principled Technologies conducted this initial testing using systems running in spec, configured to show CPU performance and has published the configurations used.
The data is consistent with what we have seen in our labs, and we look forward to seeing the results from additional third party testing in the coming weeks."

Why not just use the 2400G, essentially that's what Principled Technologies turned the 2700X into, saves having to turn the 4 cores off at all pathetic, Intel, this is real gutter stuff.

Well.... a predictable response from Intel, those "third party" testers will just have to contradict them then.

 

[humbug]

PC Games have updated the article, they have explained Hardware Unboxed initial findings but seemingly don't yet know about the fact that the 2700X had 4 of its cores disabled.

Still, good of them to follow up on it.

https://www.pcgamesn.com/intel-core-i9-9900k-vs-amd-ryzen-7-2700x-gaming-benchmarks

 

[humbug]

Problem is they have huge overheads to cover, they probably can't afford financially to lower prices mutch at the moment

I think there is probably some truth in this, they are a company whose investors expect to see Intel's balance books swelling relentlessly ever fatter and fatter, they are loosing oodles of retail sales to AMD at the moment and they can't have that show in those balance books, it makes investors wobble, plus with AMD selling healthy numbers of CPU's again they get stronger and stronger, Intel wont like that iether.

 

[humbug]

+1 ^^^^

 

[humbug]

Missing the point so hard your post reads like bait.

Anyone capable of reading a graph knows that Intel has faster cpus for gaming. They put their name on a grossly incompetent test that unfairly exaggerates this and are being mocked for it.

To claim "best gaming cpu" they didn't need to hold up lies but did anyway.

This, of course the 8700K is the best gaming CPU, the 9900K will push that a bit further.

That's not in dispute, the point is Intel commissioned and then slapped their name to a test whose architect was in every way it is possible to be grossly incompetent or deliberately set the test up to make the Intel CPU give the best possible results while the Ryzen CPU put out the worst possible results, including and not limited to actually disabling 4 of the 2700X cores, effectively turning it into a Ryzen 2400G.

 

[humbug]

Always a good read these threads.

What gets me is why are people so bothered???

It's like the haters always have something to say like it really means the world to them. If someone likes something they will buy it. What will be will be

Heh, always someone posting to say they're not bothered but couldn't help posting how not bothered they are

I'm more than happy with what i paid for what i have. No matter the game, bench or program, my rig is better and faster than a Ryzen rig, pound for pound so what do it have to worry about?

If something is better, bang for buck I'll buy it. Ive actually built more AMD rigs than i have Intel.

Koooowweeee do bugger off, you care far too much.

 

[humbug]

So "over 50%" turns into 12%. yeah, good job Intel..... £600

 

[humbug]

I don't think the 2700X could do a much better showing even with tweaked memory, i think 12% is about right, i think Hardware Unboxed and Tech Power Up may show even slightly bigger margins than that, Steve at HU got 12% to the 8700K with his 35 Game benchmark methodology so i can see his review resulting about 15% to the 9900K.

Having said that, >dg< just stop, you weren't happy with people calling Principle Technologies out on their flawed benchmarks, you wanted those to stick. now they fixed it you want it to be flawed. Stop....

 

[humbug]

why even debate value on a performance chip ? real enthusiasts want the best from their hardware. obviously we dont want ripping off but 500 -600 isnt bad for a 8 core 5ghz chip. look at what you been paying for previously far more for far less.

Right, so why stop at £600? why not £800, why not £1000....... lets not debate that eh?

 

[humbug]

Apologies I thought AMD processors were the same architecture as Intel ones not something completely different...................

They are completely different.

 

[humbug]

X86 is a set of extensions clipped onto the architecture, AMD's architecture allows them to add multiple dies together, Intel's doesn't.