-
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.
PC Games Intel performance testing fake.
- Thread starter humbug
- Start date
Another news report here: https://www.techpowerup.com/248518/...ile-being-just-12-faster-than-2700x-at-gaming
It's almost hilarious because the benchmark shows that the 9900K is just 12% faster vs the 2700X in the tested games but before PT said it was "up to 50% faster" 
Also they did not use an optimal memory config for the 2700X, so with better ram the results should diminish even further.
Also they did not use an optimal memory config for the 2700X, so with better ram the results should diminish even further.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Feb 2014
- Posts
- 3,150
- Location
- Somewhere Only We Know
NICE !!! wow a whole 12% speed increase over a RyZen 2700X, thats like 100fps vs 112fps, eye watering, NOT !!!, for the stupid price tag they've put on it, lets see how many people (Idiots) rush out to buy a £500 CPU and £400 Z390 motherboard for that 12%, I can build 2 RyZen 2700X systems for that.
They also switched off half the cores in the original benches for the RyZen 2700X vs the 9900K
@NinjaCool @Jamin280672
And lets not forget, the 2700X still with the Wraith cooler, which can only hold 4-4.1 at couple of cores.
The 9900K has 20-23% lead in clocks and better cooling also!
Yet we are talking about better timings halving the distance. Where the performance from those 5Ghz is gone?
I do worry those "hardware fixes" on the vulnerabilities, have hampered the Intel CPU. And these are only 2 done. The remaining will be done when the microcodes are released "soon" according to Intel. So all benchmarks done on Z390s won't include them?
And lets not forget, the 2700X still with the Wraith cooler, which can only hold 4-4.1 at couple of cores.
The 9900K has 20-23% lead in clocks and better cooling also!
Yet we are talking about better timings halving the distance. Where the performance from those 5Ghz is gone?
I do worry those "hardware fixes" on the vulnerabilities, have hampered the Intel CPU. And these are only 2 done. The remaining will be done when the microcodes are released "soon" according to Intel. So all benchmarks done on Z390s won't include them?
Yeah watched it. wtf. He basically says "is not an issue" that the 2700X was running at a 2200G!!!!!!
It's almost hilarious because the benchmark shows that the 9900K is just 12% faster vs the 2700X in the tested games but before PT said it was "up to 50% faster"
Also they did not use an optimal memory config for the 2700X, so with better ram the results should diminish even further.
disregard most benchmarks period. most are affiliated in some ways to brands.also benchmark games that favour or dont favour whichever bias they lean towards or against.the games they often use aswell that dont show the huge benefits that can be had.often its games people dont play or even the most popular mp games.
if you want to see how a cpu effects gaming look for big mp battlefield benchmarks and pubg. those two show how a cpu can really have a big deal on your performance playing.single player garbage games generally nothing inbetween.
i know what he means basically it doesnt really matter. why ? because intel have the clockspeed over amd. so basically a ryzen does 4ghz a intel chip now does 5ghz. in simple terms doesnt matter how many cores amd have they cant compete with the raw clock speed. in games. even ingames that cater for extra cores because even those games will be upto 6/8 max which with a 1ghz deficit behind it still doesnt catch up. thats why in benching terms across the platform the results are very similar from a lowish end amd chip to the highest ingames.
thats why a low end i5 can still beat a top end amd chip.raw mhz wins. intel has this amd doesnt.thats why you get extra cores . cause they cant compete.
thats why a low end i5 can still beat a top end amd chip.raw mhz wins. intel has this amd doesnt.thats why you get extra cores . cause they cant compete.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,688
Not really, it sounds like that at first but he's main line is that 'it is nothing new and doesn't just pertain to intel' so although he doesn't think it's OK he's seen this so many times in the past and people should just ignore it and basically be used to it by now.
While I disagree with Linus on this, I think his point was more "first party bench marks are always crap and should be ignored" rather than "these bench marks are fine".
The reason I disagree with his assessment is because these weren't presented like the normal first party ********. This was presented as an in depth 3rd part test, and as that its a huge crock and intel should be called out on it.
The reason I disagree with his assessment is because these weren't presented like the normal first party ********. This was presented as an in depth 3rd part test, and as that its a huge crock and intel should be called out on it.
Raw clockspeed means nothing, it meant nothing when the lower clocked athlon and barton chips where spanking the higher clocked p4 and it means nothing now. Even the lower clocked p3 was faster clock for clock than the p4. There are other examples all over the place and scattered through the history of the cpu, there are presentations from as early as the 1980's from apple on pipeline management and why their lower clocked chip was faster than a pentium of the time, you can't rightly sit there claiming that it's all about the ghz when everybody around you knows it's not and has never been.
We all know right now the intel chip is faster by a slim margin and that today and right now if you want to squeeze every frame out of a 2080ti @ 1080p then the intel chip is the one you want. At the end of the day it's about architecture, pipeline management, clockspeed, cache configuration, silicon and process quality as well as a host of other factors from a hardware perspective and on the software side there are considerations given intels market dominance over the past decade. I don't know at this point having read some of what has been posted if your trying to fool everybody else or yourself.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,688
I would tend to side with you on this as that was also my thinking. In previous infractions of this kind, from my hazy memory, it has always been internal marketing spiel but on this occasion Intel touted it as 3rd party. In effect saying, "look it is not just us but somebody totally independent from us that says we're 50% better in games so it must be true..."
So "disregard benchmarks...but look at these benchmarks"? You make no sense. If you only play specific games, just look for benchmarks of those games with the same GPU you have. If you're thinking about the future then you have no choice but to look at other, more general benchmarks. Saying that some games "favour" one company over another is irrelevant - you can't just ignore a benchmark because it doesn't suit your narrative. Most gaming benchmark suites choose from very popular games, which seems pretty fair to me. Not sure how much better you could do, really.
I do think the difference will be more than that if both are overclock to the max.
i dont get whats so hard to understand. if you have 6 cores or more then it just comes down to clockspeed in games. this is why intel is ahead. they have close to 1ghz lead. thats why amd give you more cores. its pretty simple to understand.more cores dont make up for that 1ghz. thats why a low end i5 can clock to close or at 5ghz is better at games than anything amd can offer. even though in everything else the i5 stands no chance. at the moment 6 cores high as possible mhz is the best cpu to have for games. soon it will be 8 and same.