Hardware Unboxed Analyzes Intel's Commissioned Core i9-9900K Benchmarks

LOL... What are you thinking Intel? They can't handle the great PR I guess. So much for playing fair and truly competitive.
 
pgaster said:
"AMD does the same thing."

I don't think so.


Check out the latest post on youtube:

" It's even worse than we thought, Principled Technologies are running the 2700X as a quad-core. "
Click to expand...

One of the first things that I have noticed that shills and fanboys do, when their side is caught red-handed doing something they shouldn't, is to globalize it in order to legitimize it.

I have always found the "everyone else does it" arguments to be a fallacy and at best uneducated, and at worst disingenuous.
 
pgaster said:
Game mode was introduced with and for Threadripper.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1172...-game-mode-halving-cores-for-more-performance

For the launch of AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper processors, one of the features being advertised was Game Mode


It's not advertised for anything AM4 that I have seen. It is being used inappropriately to make the 2700x look bad.
Click to expand...

I have a 2700 but no DDR4 yet so I can’t check for myself but, what I’m curious about is does the software give any indication what Game Mode will do when enabled. I.E. plainly say it halves the cores and is designed for CPUs with more than 8 cores?

If it isn’t plainly evident I could see the uninformed accidentally seeing the name and enabling it. It’s right in line with Autopilot in terms of being poorly named if that’s the case.
 
Nolan7689 said:
I have a 2700 but no DDR4 yet so I can’t check for myself but, what I’m curious about is does the software give any indication what Game Mode will do when enabled. I.E. plainly say it halves the cores and is designed for CPUs with more than 8 cores?

If it isn’t plainly evident I could see the uninformed accidentally seeing the name and enabling it. It’s right in line with Autopilot in terms of being poorly named if that’s the case.
Click to expand...

Assuming the user reads the user guide. It says there 'The Game Mode profile is pre-configured for optimal performance for most modern and legacy games with these fixed settings: 1. Legacy Compatibility Mode on, and 2. Memory Access Mode to Local. With Legacy Compatibility Mode on, core disabling control (3) is not allowed as the cores have been reduces by half of the processor's capacity for processors with more than 4 physical cores.'
 
Zion Halcyon said:
One of the first things that I have noticed that shills and fanboys do, when their side is caught red-handed doing something they shouldn't, is to globalize it in order to legitimize it.

I have always found the "everyone else does it" arguments to be a fallacy and at best uneducated, and at worst disingenuous.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Let’s remember to call out the BS wherever it’s found and not get caught up in “but they do/did it too!” Big AMD guy myself but shenanigans are shenanigans and bad information is bad for us consumers. This review is terribly incompetent at best and possibly skewed at worst.
 
Kaos_Drem said:
If Game mode is known to not work correctly on Ryzen why even have the option there? Its really not hard to have your software look for descriptors and configure itself based on that?
Click to expand...

Who says it's not working correctly?
It has it's place and works well for some old games.
It's not appropriate to use this for benchmarking the latest and greatest games, or at least to be fair you need to try both ways.
This move by Intel was deliberate. It's not the stock, default setting by this software, and the software isn't even needed in the first place.
Intel deliberately found a slimy way to cut AMD off at the knees and they ran with it. They hoped nobody would notice, but they did.
 
pgaster said:
Who says it's not working correctly?
It has it's place and works well for some old games.
It's not appropriate to use this for benchmarking the latest and greatest games, or at least to be fair you need to try both ways.
This move by Intel was deliberate. It's not the stock, default setting by this software, and the software isn't even needed in the first place.
Intel deliberately found a slimy way to cut AMD off at the knees and they ran with it. They hoped nobody would notice, but they did.
Click to expand...

I'm not 100% sold on deception as opposed to mere incompetence. Still, it deserves retraction, apology, and reissuance of test data.
 
lollerwaffle said:
Christ. These days if you build a 9900K system with a 2080Ti, you're basically building Hitler's PC.
Click to expand...

Proof found:
himmer.png
 

Attachments

  • himmer.png
    himmer.png
    268.6 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Ok so they were hand picked and did what they were told. A savvy tech journalist wouldn’t have fallen for it.

Patsy confirmed. I almost feel bad for them.
 
TheHig said:
Ok so they were hand picked and did what they were told. A savvy tech journalist wouldn’t have fallen for it.

Patsy confirmed. I almost feel bad for them.
Click to expand...

Contract is what it is. If someone wanted to pay me to benchmark a Threadripper with a marshmallow for a heatsink to see how far it goes, well, let's call it s'more time!
 
If mighty Intel was "truly" unbiased to show off their "amazing product" they would have used their $$$$$$$$ might to show off the best result possible (beyond exotic cooling) for themselves and AMD and not purposefully find ways to make themselves look great while systematically making AMD look "bad"

simple thing such as the cooler, use stock cooler for one but using a very great cooler for the other, why not use this great cooler for both?

64gb memory is not "standard" gamer usage (not IMO) but they likely could have settled on a "happy medium" so that both the Intel and AMD systems being tested were not being "hampered" by memory speed/timings as much as possible so that the "chips" are the only thing that end up having to do the boxing sort of speak.

ahh well, hopefully enough people see through the deceptions attempted here (doubtful)
 
dragonstongue said:
If mighty Intel was "truly" unbiased to show off their "amazing product" they would have used their $$$$$$$$ might to show off the best result possible (beyond exotic cooling) for themselves and AMD and not purposefully find ways to make themselves look great while systematically making AMD look "bad"

simple thing such as the cooler, use stock cooler for one but using a very great cooler for the other, why not use this great cooler for both?

64gb memory is not "standard" gamer usage (not IMO) but they likely could have settled on a "happy medium" so that both the Intel and AMD systems being tested were not being "hampered" by memory speed/timings as much as possible so that the "chips" are the only thing that end up having to do the boxing sort of speak.

ahh well, hopefully enough people see through the deceptions attempted here (doubtful)
Click to expand...

Anyone from [H] would know that deception is rampant here, but that's not the majority of the customer base. Average Joe's will not know and buy into the bullshit, hook, line and sinker..
 
Space_Ranger said:
Anyone from [H] would know that deception is rampant here, but that's not the majority of the customer base. Average Joe's will not know and buy into the bullshit, hook, line and sinker..
Click to expand...
In fairness, average Joe won't know the difference. Sad, and absolutely true.
 
Joust said:
Contract is what it is. If someone wanted to pay me to benchmark a Threadripper with a marshmallow for a heatsink to see how far it goes, well, let's call it s'more time!
Click to expand...

Probably, but how far does that go before you're outed as a shill and your reputation goes down the dumps.
 
I don't get the outrage. Everyone will tell you, "Don't trust paid for reviews and analysis!" Then we see a paid for review and we get, "OH MY GOD WE CAN'T TRUST THESE PAID FOR REVIEWS!" Who even takes time to pour over that shit. It is bad marketing to be sure, and seems to be done badly, but I honestly have to wonder if it was intentional. Kinda reminds me of JaysTwoCents thinking since he can install an AIO, he is now a hardware reviewer and analyst. Particularly to what the industry calls "analysts," this stuff happens EVERY DAY. Say Qualcomm wants to put a specific message out. They go to Mr. Analyst and say, "We will pay you $20,000 to do some testing for us." At that point, Qualcomm gives the analyst the exact parameters that the test will cover. Qualcomm already knows the exact results, they just need to point to Mr. Analyst as being "independent." The thing that most likely happened here is that Intel hired idiots and did not give them the exact parameters of how to test.
 
Stoly said:
On a side note, nvidia and AMD have also done "questionable" benchmarks
Click to expand...

Cheating to make your product look faster is qualitatively different than kneecapping the competition to make it look slower, which is what[1] happened here.

[1] The way I phrased it implies it was done on purpose. I acknowledge it might have been ignorance.
 
The biggest take away, aside from the obvious that PT is incompetent, is how modern CPUs continue a trend of relying heavily on other components in the system, and it's no longer simply a "raw power" numbers game.
 
Inacurate said:
The biggest take away, aside from the obvious that PT is incompetent, is how modern CPUs continue a trend of relying heavily on other components in the system, and it's no longer simply a "raw power" numbers game.
Click to expand...
Two months and still trying to get AMD to tell me why 2990WX is broken in Premiere Pro and HandBrake. HandBrake is not that big a deal as it can be easily worked around, but PP is a HUGE negative to the 2990WX. PP was the main reason I wanted one in my personal box. It scores the same as a 2700X.


1538671008bi9peb9gpf_5_5.png
1538671008bi9peb9gpf_5_8.png


 
Seems pretty clear. Ooops we did a little bad on Heat Sink and RAM. But they clearly knew, and at Intels direction, what Gaming mode was doing. They even admitted they had negative results with the 2700X, which was the target. It is Intel taking advantage of AMD's sloppyness.
AMD can't call it Gaming mode. It needed to be labeled TR Gaming and Ryzen legacy mode. Or more simply Optional Core Mode (OCM). This is AMD still allowing too many things slip between their fingers. Attention to detail has been a downfall for a long time.
 
ecuador said:
Eh, what are you talking about? This was the other way around, and it was one of the most dishonest things Intel has done. They used the fact that their compiler was the de facto standard to cripple programs for AMD cpus. The compiler, instead of checking just the flags for availability of MMX, SSE etc instructions it checked also whether the CPU was Intel and did not enable any extra instruction set optimizations otherwise.
Click to expand...

I thought it was obvious but oh well. Failing at my job, failing at sarcasm. Clearly not my week.
 
dgz said:
I thought it was obvious but oh well. Failing at my job, failing at sarcasm. Clearly not my week.
Click to expand...
Haha, are you crazy? With the things I see posted on forums by fanboys of one company or the other how can you possibly tell sarcasm if there is no other indication? :D
There is actually a thing called "alternative facts" now...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top