• 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.

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....
 
Panos said:
Yeah watched it. wtf. He basically says "is not an issue" that the 2700X was running at a 2200G!!!!!!
Click to expand...

TBH im pretty impressed with the Ryzen bench results, only up to 50% behind with half the cores / threads disabled and ram not configured, basically what its saying is the 2200G is only 50% slower than Intels new flagship mainstream CPU, you've got to laugh, £90 2200G vs £500+ 9900K
 
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.
 
Vince said:
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.
Click to expand...

im not going to go into the utter depths of tech im breaking the simple terms down to what is the truth. amd have a 4ghz chip for gaming vs a 5 ghz intel chip. they lose at gaming that simple. there is no simplier than that. show me a decent load of benchmarks in recent games which show anything other than a intel chip at the top for gaming ? you cant no one can. intel just are better for gaming period. saying that mhz doesnt matter lol. mhz is intels selling point amds is cores.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
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.
Click to expand...

Right, so why stop at £600? why not £800, why not £1000....... lets not debate that eh?
 
people been paying 500-600 for 5ghz 4 cores for few years now yet now we get a 8 core 5 ghz mainstream chip its bad value ? faster than anything amd have to offer at games . how is that bad ? we would have it at 450 ish if we wernt gouged dont blame intel for that. blame retailers .which many seem to be forgeting about.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just too correct you it is not a 5ghz chip it is 5ghz on one core chip you need to overclock it to make it a 5ghz chip and as there are still no reviews (which is hilarious as people own them now and have them in there pc's) i have no idea how easy or hot that will make it.

Also the fact that 8700k in benchmarks is within 5% of the 9900k it is clear there is no point in anyone with an 8700k of upgrading unless you wanted one of the newer motherboards.

But here is the thing these things are the stupid price of £600's!!

As a uk pc builder if i want the latest intel or nvidia item you actually have to think about buying from the us cause even if you get charged import/vat there is a good chance it will be cheaper to buy there which is just crackers.
 
oweneades said:
Lol £600 for a mainstream CPU is not bad value...

I needed a good chuckle.
Click to expand...

us being price gouged is not the question here. it is the cpu good for the price. anyone arguing using us being gouged is quite frankly sillly. just buy it from usa. its a great cpu for the price and nothing else gaming wise is as good.

i dont get why people are arguing who arent buying cpus in this price bracket. if you only buy 100-200 cpus why even debate about a product you will never buy ?
 
Speculating:
If the performance delta is at/near 20% between the 9900K and 2700K OC'd max/stable that would make the 2700K more efficient then the 9900K. We already know the 2700K won't do 5Ghz. Yet, if true, would take a 5GHz 9900K to make any noticeable difference (if any at all) between smooth fidelity while gaming as more of a true measurement of performance vs 130FPS vs 160 FPS. Which is just "numbers" that lack depth, scope and meaning to actual in game immersion and overall experience.

In other words, what will it take to run the games you like smoothly at your native resolution?
1080p 60Hz, 100Hz, 120Hz, 144Hz?
1440p 60Hz, 100Hz, 120Hz, 144Hz
Some other resolution with your graphics card of choice?

How many will get a 9900K (and motherboard) with a 980 up to and including a AMD Fury X GPU?
How many will get a 9900K (and motherboard) with a 960 up to and including 580/1060 GPU?

IMO, at a guess, the market doesn't appear to indicate that 9900K is a feasible option at it's price point when you consider what the average consumer uses, if you use steam HW survey among other polls.
 
Last edited:
~>Dg<~ said:
people been paying 500-600 for 5ghz 4 cores for few years now yet now we get a 8 core 5 ghz mainstream chip its bad value ? faster than anything amd have to offer at games . how is that bad ? we would have it at 450 ish if we wernt gouged dont blame intel for that. blame retailers .which many seem to be forgeting about.
Click to expand...
To be fair, if it wasn't for AMD we'd still probably be on 4 cores, maybe 6 mainstream at bigger ££. So while intel may still be winning at games at lower end resolutions especially, although many wouldn't tell the difference anyway at 1440P+, it's thanks to AMD that Intel 8 cores non-HEDT for £500 or so is possible. If I'm right we've had the 7700K, 8700K and now 9700,900K all in two years. 6700K probably lasted 2years before that
 
Last edited:
The best news in my mind, is if Intel are moving to more cores/threads as well, game makers will start to support it far better.

Have to say, I'm intrigued by what the 7nm Ryzen will bring. That could really sink Intel for a while.

I don't think there can be a 2800x coming though, the perfect time to release it would have been now, before people start investing in the intel.
 
Back when Althlon was king Intel had a gaming developer relations in which helped developer better code their games to use SSE snd other features that gave them a leg up.
Fast forward today it's unclear how committed they are but it doesn't appear they are as zealous as they use to be.

IMO, they should return to that model of their developer relations. They should focus on giving developers the added, free, support they need to fully utilize Intel's latest, improved features more so then just core count alone. AVX2 comes to mind as well as a few others.

I'm not saying that developer's aren't using them. Games like Project Cars 2 uses AVX, for example. But games like Assassin's Creed don't seem to take advantage of the latest, improved features of the CPU (admittedly haven't found documents saying one way or another).

AMD would too need to do the same to leverage this.

Check it out though. Open up HWINFO64 and look at all the features your CPU offers and ask yourself, how much of this is in my favorite game(s)?
Why?
Because you paid for it to be in those games.

In the meantime let us all reflect that:
New PT Data: i9-9900K is 66% Pricier While Being Just 12% Faster than 2700X at Gaming
 
Last edited:
~>Dg<~ said:
us being price gouged is not the question here. it is the cpu good for the price. anyone arguing using us being gouged is quite frankly sillly. just buy it from usa. its a great cpu for the price and nothing else gaming wise is as good.

i dont get why people are arguing who arent buying cpus in this price bracket. if you only buy 100-200 cpus why even debate about a product you will never buy ?
Click to expand...

*Stares at 8700k* Yep I only buy £100-200 CPU's...

It's almost like this is a discussion forum or something....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom