Intel's i9-9900K Is Only 12% Faster than AMD's 2700X at Gaming, but 66% Pricier

pcgeekesq said:
You don't want to pay for cake, then buy bread. There's plenty of both available.
Click to expand...

People bump up their TV price $200 all the time and it's barely worth noting. I don't know how to rate a desk chair as 12% better (better cushion or armrests?) but that's worth $200 if you sit in it for 8 years.
 
SixFootDuo said:
The 9900K at stock benches faster than an overclocked 2700x. Now, when you overclock that 9900K to 5.1Ghz on a high-end air / AIO water cooler, you're at like ... what? 20% faster than a 2700x?
Click to expand...

It already boosts to like 4.7-4.8 all core boost. So not much difference.
 
singe_101 said:
People bump up their TV price $200 all the time and it's barely worth noting. I don't know how to rate a desk chair as 12% better (better cushion or armrests?) but that's worth $200 if you sit in it for 8 years.
Click to expand...

Mmm. Without putting too find a point on it, my office chair MSRP > 2080ti MSRP.

Money and value. It's a thing.
 
MaZa said:
And I think these results were still with XMP disabled and with shitty timings that come with it. The difference should be even smaller.
Click to expand...

And the Ryzen used the stock Wraith cooler rather than a comparable Noctua.... Can't wait for the [Hard] review to see the real numbers might be even closer than 12% disparity.
 
adder1971 said:
And the Ryzen used the stock Wraith cooler rather than a comparable Noctua.... Can't wait for the [Hard] review to see the real numbers might be even closer than 12% disparity.
Click to expand...
It's probably closer, but Intel still has the clock advantage over AMD and that's where the biggest difference is. I'm really hoping for 4.7/4.8ghz out of the 3000 series from AMD as that would put AMD side by side with Intel without massive security issues that Intel has. I won't by anything Intel till all that is fixed.
 
readeh said:
It's probably closer, but Intel still has the clock advantage over AMD and that's where the biggest difference is. I'm really hoping for 4.7/4.8ghz out of the 3000 series from AMD as that would put AMD side by side with Intel without massive security issues that Intel has. I won't by anything Intel till all that is fixed.
Click to expand...

It'll be interesting to see for sure. I'm still rockin my i7-4790k/1080 ti but really interested to see how this all pans out with a trustworthy review.
 
adder1971 said:
And the Ryzen used the stock Wraith cooler rather than a comparable Noctua.... Can't wait for the [Hard] review to see the real numbers might be even closer than 12% disparity.
Click to expand...

Overclocked the disparity should increase, as Kyle already showed the 2700X being about as fast as it's going to get out of the box, while the 9900K still has some room to stretch its legs.
 
It's kind of like when a lawyer asks a question that he/she knows will be overruled, but asks it anyway to get it into the minds of the jurors, then withdraws the question. At least that's what they do on TV. ;)

A lot of people saw (or paid attention to) the initial claim of 50% faster (or whatever it was), but not as many people saw the retraction.
 
misterbobby said:
It is hard to believe at this point someone could still be so ignorant about hyper-threading in video games. The difference is night and day with hyper threading on a quad CPU in most modern games. A 2600 k is a hell of a lot more relevant today than the 2500 k and anyone that has a clue about modern gaming knows that.
Click to expand...

Would you mind actually proving me wrong? Because I clearly remember you HT types saying 2600k was more relevant than a 2500k almost 8 years ago and it still has not happened.

I have a mobile Ryzen in a fairly sleek aluminium body. SMT has nothing to do with how well it does in games.
 
dgz said:
Would you mind actually proving me wrong? Because I clearly remember you HT types saying 2600k was more relevant than a 2500k almost 8 years ago and it still has not happened.
Click to expand...

I've seen it.

That's enough for me.

misterbobby can run benchmarks if they like, but the premise is both logically sound and been evidenced in real-world gaming, that is gaming on a desktop that's actually used, not one that has been stripped down for benchmarking. Add in all of the stuff that you actually do on a desktop and four threads starts to get pretty crowded, especially in multiplayer games.
 
twzTechman said:
I am happy with my Ryzen 2700x. I also ran a 8700k for awhile as my main rig. With the same GPU (1080 at the time) my benchmarks were all higher with the 2700x. I think I am gonna stay with this Ryzen2700 CPU for awhile. Not seeing a good reason to go for a i9-9900.
Click to expand...
I'm suprised that IDF hasn't told you that you're wrong and that's impossible.
dgz said:
Would you mind actually proving me wrong? Because I clearly remember you HT types saying 2600k was more relevant than a 2500k almost 8 years ago and it still has not happened.
Click to expand...
I'm not a fan of HT, especially not for every appliciation. Pretty sure you can see the [H] review within the last year showing that though and I've seen multiple results from across the net where the 2600k has pulled far ahead, showing the HT to be worth it in the long run, especially in the latest MT games that push beyond four threads.
 
N4CR said:
I'm suprised that IDF hasn't told you that you're wrong and that's impossible.
Click to expand...

Hopefully they'd ask for clarifications on the benchmarks, just like they did for Intel's benchmarks. Also no need for the explicit trolling. juanrga ain't here.
 
The article fails to mention the i9 is also 100% Intel-ier than the Ryzen. That's gotta be worth something.
 
dgz said:
Would you mind actually proving me wrong? Because I clearly remember you HT types saying 2600k was more relevant than a 2500k almost 8 years ago and it still has not happened.

I have a mobile Ryzen in a fairly sleek aluminium body. SMT has nothing to do with how well it does in games.
Click to expand...
Have you been living under a rock? You are claiming that hyper-threading doesn't help in games when a dual-core can't even play most Modern games without hyper-threading. And even on a quad-core it is absolutely night and difference in many games especially on an older quad-core that would be more CPU Limited. Hell there are several games that will even peg all 8 freaking threads of my i7 and pretty much every single modern game made will peg my CPU if hyper-threading is off. And many of those games will stutter and hitch like crazy at times such as Mafia 3. I don't understand how people like you can't even pay attention to what's going on with tech and hardware yet here you are participating in a tech forum making foolish comments. How about I run a few benchmarks in addition to linking you to any modern CPU review?
 
misterbobby said:
Have you been living under a rock? You are claiming that hyper-threading doesn't help in games when a dual-core can't even play most Modern games without hyper-threading. And even on a quad-core it is absolutely night and difference in many games especially on an older quad-core that would be more CPU Limited. Hell there are several games that will even peg all 8 freaking threads of my i7 and pretty much every single modern game made will peg my CPU if hyper-threading is off. And many of those games will stutter and hitch like crazy at times such as Mafia 3. I don't understand how people like you can't even pay attention to what's going on with tech and hardware yet here you are participating in a tech forum making foolish comments. How about I run a few benchmarks in addition to linking you to any modern CPU review?
Click to expand...
Exactly! Single thread doss games died a long time ago.

I would expect to see about zero improvement from a gaming experience going from my 4.7ghz 6700K SLI 1080 TIs to using a 9900K. 1080p Benchmarks are irrelevant to how I game and mean nothing in my case. Now using the 9900k for other stuff would be a good upgrade but in that case Threadripper wins out.
 
adder1971 said:
And the Ryzen used the stock Wraith cooler rather than a comparable Noctua.... Can't wait for the [Hard] review to see the real numbers might be even closer than 12% disparity.
Click to expand...
At 4K probably 0%. 1440p probably 5% using a 2080Ti is my guess unless really turning up the settings and rendering at a higher resolution (what I do) making it also 0%.

I guess if someone thinks rendering 300 FPS plus on a 144 hz monitor makes it better, mostly it would not and using a frame limiter would be better in most cases. Then yeah, 9900k might be worth it if thinking 1080p reflects gaming experience, not for me.
 
misterbobby said:
Have you been living under a rock? You are claiming that hyper-threading doesn't help in games when a dual-core can't even play most Modern games without hyper-threading. And even on a quad-core it is absolutely night and difference in many games especially on an older quad-core that would be more CPU Limited. Hell there are several games that will even peg all 8 freaking threads of my i7 and pretty much every single modern game made will peg my CPU if hyper-threading is off. And many of those games will stutter and hitch like crazy at times such as Mafia 3. I don't understand how people like you can't even pay attention to what's going on with tech and hardware yet here you are participating in a tech forum making foolish comments. How about I run a few benchmarks in addition to linking you to any modern CPU review?
Click to expand...

You're once again high in claims but low on names. Besides, 2500k isn't a dual core. I didn't say anything about actual cores not making a difference. On the contrary, I specifically attacked HT.

Again, got any games where HT makes a difference? I'll take even low hanging fruits such as open world titles. Teach me a lesson, daddy.
 
dgz said:
You're once again high in claims but low on names. Besides, 2500k isn't a dual core. I didn't say anything about actual cores not making a difference. On the contrary, I specifically attacked HT.

Again, got any games where HT makes a difference? I'll take even low hanging fruits such as open world titles. Teach me a lesson, daddy.
Click to expand...
You said hyper-threading did not make any difference so I was telling you on a dual-core it is the absolute difference from being able to even play some games. And again nearly every modern game will use hyper-threading on a quad core too. It is amazing at your level of ignorance about modern gaming. But yes since you are clearly incapable of keeping up with modern benchmarks then I will link you some tonight when daddy gets home from work. But in the meantime here's a few examples such as Watch Dogs 2, Assassin's Creed Odyssey, Assassin's Creed Origins and Mafia 3.
 
dgz said:
You're once again high in claims but low on names. Besides, 2500k isn't a dual core. I didn't say anything about actual cores not making a difference. On the contrary, I specifically attacked HT.

Again, got any games where HT makes a difference? I'll take even low hanging fruits such as open world titles. Teach me a lesson, daddy.
Click to expand...

other than experiences no one can.

i've looked and not one review site has any frame-times or graphs or anything to prove one way or the other.

placebo effect i imagine.
 
Master_shake_ said:
other than experiences no one can.

i've looked and not one review site has any frame-times or graphs or anything to prove one way or the other.

placebo effect i imagine.
Click to expand...

you looked wrong then.. watch videos posted above.
 
misterbobby said:
You said hyper-threading did not make any difference so I was telling you on a dual-core it is the absolute difference from being able to even play some games. And again nearly every modern game will use hyper-threading on a quad core too. It is amazing at your level of ignorance about modern gaming. But yes since you are clearly incapable of keeping up with modern benchmarks then I will link you some tonight when daddy gets home from work. But in the meantime here's a few examples such as Watch Dogs 2, Assassin's Creed Odyssey, Assassin's Creed Origins and Mafia 3.
Click to expand...

Thanks. For what it's worth, yes HT helps on dual cores. Using a dual core for games would be silly so it hasn't occurred to me.

Never considered playing Assassin's creed, Watch dogs, or Mafia so I pretty much skip those benchmarks. Worthless as any test with "mark" in its name. For some reason almost no one is using Doom, though. Now that's a game that performs really well. It's almost as if everyone is buying hardware to play the latest and greatest turds EA, Activision and Ubi have in store over and over again. I don't get it.
 
noko said:
Exactly! Single thread doss games died a long time ago.

I would expect to see about zero improvement from a gaming experience going from my 4.7ghz 6700K SLI 1080 TIs to using a 9900K. 1080p Benchmarks are irrelevant to how I game and mean nothing in my case. Now using the 9900k for other stuff would be a good upgrade but in that case Threadripper wins out.
Click to expand...

Starcraft 2 and other RTS games beg to differ.
 
Araxie said:
you looked wrong then.. watch videos posted above.
Click to expand...

stock clocks?

if so the i5 has a 400mhz lower turbo clock speed.

makes a slight difference when you can't see all the information on each run just a number in the corner.

the second video is interesting.

if only he had run the same benchmarks with ht disabled.
 
Yeah, Starcraft 2 could use multi-core support. Even after 8 years, 4vs4 matches are still a lag fest.
 
Master_shake_ said:
even tech power ups results show Hyperthreading doing nada at 1080p

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7_8700K/12.html

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7_8700K/13.html

fuck any resolution really. 1080p 720p 1440p and 4k all within margin of error.
Click to expand...
On a 6 core CPU of course hyper-threading makes little to no difference at all. On a quad core CPU it is a huge difference. If I disable hyper-threading even at 1440p with my 1080 TI there are games where I lose 30 40 or even 50% performance. Some of those games become a stuttering mess at times as the CPU is fully pegged the whole time without hyper-threading on. I just can't believe people are this dumb around here and don't keep up with tech any better.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Not playing the games that others are playing does not diminish one's ignorance on the subject.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am not well versed in canned benchmarks. Got any tests where SMT makes a difference on a Ryzen? All I am asking is a little more effort on the data side. Forget the name calling and provocations.
 
misterbobby said:
on a 6 core CPU of course hyper-threading makes little to no difference at all. On a quad core CPU it is a huge difference. If I disable hyper-threading even at 1440p with my 1080 TI there are games where I lose 30 40 or even 50% performance. Some of those games become completely unplayable as the CPU is fully pegged the whole time without hyper-threading on. I just can't believe people are this dumb around here and don't keep up with tech any better.
Click to expand...

look at those graphs it negates every point you made.

it even shows i5 quads ahead of i7 ht'd hex cores

it's more likely crap you have running in the background.
 
Master_shake_ said:
look at those graphs it negates every point you made.

it even shows i5 quads ahead of i7 ht'd hex cores

it's more likely crap you have running in the background.
Click to expand...
And in their CPU reviews a lot of times they have an i3 ahead of an i7 or an overclocked CPU doing worse than the stock CPU. Their CPU tests all over the damn place.

Go look at Digital Foundry where they actually show the frame rate during game test and you will see that 4 Cores with hyperthreading does much better than 4 cores without hyper-threading in nearly all modern games. Hell if it helps anything I'll make you a nice little video or take you some nice pretty pictures showing you plenty of places in games that I own where hyper-threading off is an absolutely massive difference in frame rate compared to it on with my 4770k. And I don't have a fucking thing running in the background when I test games.
 
misterbobby said:
And in their CPU reviews a lot of times they have an i3 ahead of an i7 or an overclocked CPU doing worse than the stock CPU. Their CPU tests all over the damn place.

Go look at Digital Foundry where they actually show the frame rate during game test and you will see that 4 Cores with hyperthreading does much better than 4 cores without hyper-threading in nearly all modern games. Hell if it helps anything I'll make you a nice little video or take you some nice pretty pictures showing you plenty of places in games that I own where hyper-threading off is an absolutely massive difference in frame rate compared to it on with my 4770k. And I don't have a fucking thing running in the background when I test games.
Click to expand...

the one where 400 mhz meant 60 frames per second more on a 8700k vs a 8600K at 1080p on crysis 3?

those videos?

first video a few posts up.
 
misterbobby said:
Are those quad cores...
Click to expand...

no it's the difference between hyperthreaded and non hyperthreaded.

this is not possible. there isn't any other reviews that have ever shown this.

Untitled.png


how, tell me how
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
Master_shake_ said:
no it's the difference between hyperthreaded and non hyperthreaded.

this is not possible. there isn't any other reviews that have ever shown this.

View attachment 112520

how, tell me how
Click to expand...
It is that one area where there is just an absolutely massive difference among some CPUs and hyper-threading really helps there. I saw the same exact thing in my testing in that spot. I remember it well even when I had my 2500 k as it was pegged really bad there and most of the areas outside with tons of grass kept it at 100% to and it stood no chance of getting anywhere near 60fps. In fact Crysis 3 is one of the reasons that I upgraded to the 4770k as it tears through that part of the game no problem.
 
misterbobby said:
It is that one area where there is just an absolutely massive difference among some CPUs and hyper-threading really helps there. I saw the same exact thing in my testing in that spot. I remember it well even when I had my 2500 k as it was pegged really bad there and most of the areas outside with tons of grass kept it at 100% to and it stood no chance of getting anywhere near 60fps. In fact Crysis 3 is one of the reasons that I upgraded to the 4770k as it tears through that part of the game no problem.
Click to expand...



hyperthreading on and off shows only 10fps difference on the same cpu clock for clock in the grass

there is something else at play in that video.

cpu is maxed out so gpu bound not an issue.
 
Master_shake_ said:


hyperthreading on and off shows only 10fps difference on the same cpu clock for clock in the grass

there is something else at play in that video.

cpu is maxed out so gpu bound not an issue.
Click to expand...
Um you realize sitting in that one exact spot will not be the same performance everywhere in that area? And I can't really read the stats on that video and it doesn't look clear to me as I'm just looking at it on my small phone. I have no idea what resolution or what video card is being used there either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top