cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
20,671
Intel has commissioned Principled Technologies to run benchmarks of the upcoming i9-9900K CPU and pit it against older Intel CPUs and some AMD CPUs such as the AMD Ryzen 2700X, Threadripper 2990WX, and Threadripper 2950X. PCGamesN wrote a glowing article that has since been heavily edited, about how Intel's new chip was up to 50% faster than AMD's best. Reading over the original PCGamesN article you would have thought that sliced bread had just been invented and Intel was delivering us from the Dark Ages. To PCGamesN's credit they did run this article acknowledging that Hardware Unboxed found bias in the benchmarks, but they still have the flawed and biased Principled Technologies charts showcased on their website for all to see.

Hardware Unboxed did a short analysis of a few of the benchmarks as their team felt that the i7-8700K benchmarks and the AMD Ryzen 2700X numbers were incorrect. They found that Principled Technologies had allegedly gimped the AMD CPUs by using different coolers, incorrect ram timings, and possibly even disabled some of the cores on the AMD Ryzen 2700X. To put this into perspective, on the Ashes of the Singularity benchmark that Hardware Unboxed ran, the AMD Ryzen 2700X was 18% faster and the i7-8700K was 4% slower, than the commissioned testing that Intel has published. They even showed how over a suite of games that the i7-8700K was only 9% faster than the AMD Ryzen 2700X in previous pure gaming benchmarks conducted by Hardware Unboxed. Yet in Intel's commissioned benchmark results, the AMD Ryzen 2700X was far, far, behind the Intel i7-8700K in performance metrics. This is why we never trust a manufacturer's benchmarks. Always wait for the review before buying hardware.

"Why is PCGamesN publishing this misleading data? Why aren't they tearing this obviously paid report; because they're very transparent that this is a paid report commissioned by Intel, why aren't they tearing it to shreds? Do they simply not know any better? I'm a bit worried or wondering if we might see other websites covering this report; perhaps paid to cover it. And I'm not accusing or saying that PCGamesN were paid by Intel. Doesn't look great and I suppose the very least it is very shoddy journalism."
 

jmilcher

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Messages
5,254
Even if the performance numbers were significantly higher, it's coming in at double the cost of the 2700x.

If you have to start advertising "5 GHz (2 core Max boost out of 8 physical cores ) " that looks meh to your enthusiast type consumer.

Not to mention the price of the Z390 boards is nuts. And so far no one has found any significant changes from Z370. Intel doing it's thing again.

I'm glad this round I settled on X470 and a 2700x. Now I'll wait for Zen 2 and pop one in my board.

Let's go AMD, and competition. Consumers win.
 

TheHig

Gawd
Joined
Apr 9, 2016
Messages
838
AMD does the same thing. I agree with cageymaru that we should never trust any manufacturer's benchmarks, or those where money has traded hands to a third party as in this case.


Exactly. Everyone has cherry picked marketing benchmarks. The GOOD 3rd party reviews show where the rubber meets the road.

Pretty shoddy article if the numbers are that far off though.
 

Monkey34

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 11, 2003
Messages
5,132
I agree with cageymaru that we should never trust any manufacturer's benchmarks, or those where money has traded hands to a third party as in this case.

Exactly.....but this only helps those who are at least moderately informed (and I hope the vast majority of us here are in that category). This kind of craptastic reporting, misleading benchmarking, and manufacturer self-gratification preys on the weak.

Be the first to throw out a "we're so much better" headline, and the uninformed masses fall for it; leaving the subsequent headlines to try and play damage control.
 

ccityinstaller

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
4,241
Even if the performance numbers were significantly higher, it's coming in at double the cost of the 2700x.

If you have to start advertising "5 GHz (2 core Max boost out of 8 physical cores ) " that looks meh to your enthusiast type consumer.

Not to mention the price of the Z390 boards is nuts. And so far no one has found any significant changes from Z370. Intel doing it's thing again.

I'm glad this round I settled on X470 and a 2700x. Now I'll wait for Zen 2 and pop one in my board.

Let's go AMD, and competition. Consumers win.

Well said.
 

1_rick

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
1,945
PCGamesN has now updated the showcase article to mention the disputed scores.

If you click through Hardware Unboxed's Patreon link from the video, he says that "Principled" Technologies enabled XMP and then adjusted timings for the Intel system, but not for AMD.
 

MaZa

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
3,326
AMD does the same thing.

I'm not so sure about that. Manufacturers giving false impressions in their marketing graphs is nothing new, everybody does that. But they are often very vague what they were testing against on purpose because it is AFAIK illegal in many places to give pure false information about your competitions product. IE in hypothetical situstion if Nvidia were claiming that their new GTX9001 does 500fps in game X while at the same time claiming AMD HD9000 does only 100fps while in reality it does 450fps Nvidia would get sued on the spot. I do not remember AMD doing this (correct me if I am wrong) but Intel is doing this right now and only reason they get around lawsuits is because its a 3rd party doing the "testing". Plausible deniablity and all that.
 

Shmee

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 12, 2014
Messages
1,148
Always wait for the real reviews. I am sure the Intel chip will be fast, just not as fast as they are saying it is.
 

DrBorg

Gawd
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
555
Regardless of how fast this chip is; it still has No internal mitigations of all the various attacks, and with the microcode and software mitigations for those problems, will be 20-40% slower than without them.

I wouldn't have even released this.

Gotta feed the suckers, tho: "OOH! It says 5GHZ!! * "

* (unreadable fine print that includes the slower actual speed)
 

ir0nw0lf

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 7, 2003
Messages
6,403
HUGE UPDATE from Hardware Unboxed, this is getting really good!

https://www.patreon.com/posts/21950120

Top tidbit:
The benchmarks carried out by Principled Technologies are even more bogus than we first thought. A few viewers pointed out that the Ryzen 7 2700X was listed as tested in the “Game Mode” within the Ryzen Master software and I foolishly thought they might have just made a simple copy and paste error in their document as they would have used this mode for the 2950X. This does explain why the Threadripper CPUs were faster than the 2700X in every test.

What this means is a CCX module in the 2700X was completely disabled, essentially turning it into a quad-core. I’ve gone ahead and re-run the XMP 2933 test with Game Mode enabled and now I’m getting results that are within the margin of error to those published by Principled Technologies.
 

Stoly

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
6,714
Anyone remember the first bulldozer benchmarks by AMD? Recall the "Massive Overclocking"?
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
5,795
Why doesn't PCGamesN throw these tests away? Short answer, capitalism. Long answer, nobody knows who PCGamesN is so getting paid by Intel compensates for the lack of people visiting their site. Benchmark tests are very manipulative as shown by AdoredTV, so every website seems to have different results.
 

Nightfire

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 7, 2017
Messages
3,280
Cageymaru is all over it, I was just going to post this. We all know the 9900k is going to be faster the the 2700x, but do they really need to fudge the results??

I have never heard of them but PCgamesN seems to be a bunch of shills.

Looking forward to the epic ball busting that will be done by Gamers Nexus
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,444

Nightfire

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 7, 2017
Messages
3,280
AMD does the same thing. I agree with cageymaru that we should never trust any manufacturer's benchmarks, or those where money has traded hands to a third party as in this case.

We can stop with the moral equivelancy defense. Every time brand x does something shady, we don't need a "well brand y does the same thing!!", especially without giving relative examples.
 

kju1

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 27, 2002
Messages
3,459
A paid review is a influenced review. Even if its not directly influenced you will subconsciously moderate yourself so as to not bite the hand(s) that feed you. Some exceptions do apply for cranky old guys ;)
 

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
22,230
I'm not so sure about that. Manufacturers giving false impressions in their marketing graphs is nothing new, everybody does that. But they are often very vague what they were testing against on purpose because it is AFAIK illegal in many places to give pure false information about your competitions product. IE in hypothetical situstion if Nvidia were claiming that their new GTX9001 does 500fps in game X while at the same time claiming AMD HD9000 does only 100fps while in reality it does 450fps Nvidia would get sued on the spot. I do not remember AMD doing this (correct me if I am wrong) but Intel is doing this right now and only reason they get around lawsuits is because its a 3rd party doing the "testing". Plausible deniablity and all that.

typically it's just fudging the graphs so that 10% looks more like 50% in a normal graph.. even though i'm not an intel fan i can't possibly see this being 100% intentional by intel.. this feels more like complete and utter incompetence by PCgamesN.. cough like the 2000 dollar computer being built by some one that's never used anything other than apple products...
 

MaZa

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
3,326
typically it's just fudging the graphs so that 10% looks more like 50% in a normal graph.. even though i'm not an intel fan i can't possibly see this being 100% intentional by intel.. this feels more like complete and utter incompetence by PCgamesN.. cough like the 2000 dollar computer being built by some one that's never used anything other than apple products...


True. You can make a mountain out of a mole hill if you zoom in close enough, but that is what I was referring to when I mentioned "false impression". But as long as the numbers themselves are accurate and no number was intentionally gimped then that is okay, it is up to the viewer to keep their eyes open and understand what they are seeing correctly. The zoomed in graph is technically still not a lie.

If the PCgamesN test came from Intel or not is impossible to tell unless someone leaks a paycheck or email. Plausible deniability, Intel can play dumb and nobody can prove a thing. :D
 

MaZa

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
3,326
Holy crap, maybe I gave Intel too much credit for the "plausible deniability" thing, because Forbes also covered this debacle and Intel PR rep actually contacted them and had balls to claim that the tests were "correct" and in spec? WTF!?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasone...enchmarks-are-misleading-period/#3be794c84e4e

UPDATE: Intel PR emailed me the following response to this situation:

“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.”
 

brink668

n00b
Joined
Jun 23, 2006
Messages
12
Game Mode is listed on the page 16 of the PDF report. Obviously purposeful.

https://www.principledtechnologies.com/Intel/PC_gaming_processor_study_interim_1018.pdf

"On AMD systems download and install the AMD Ryzen Master Utility.
a. Launch the utility, select Game mode, and click Apply."


Also clearly states "PC gaming processor study: Intel Core i9-9900K processor vs. competitors Commissioned by Intel Corp. October 2018"

Edited: For context
 

kju1

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 27, 2002
Messages
3,459

AceGoober

Live! Laug[H]! Overclock!
Joined
Jun 25, 2003
Messages
23,324
I'll wait for independent review from [H] before coming to any conclusion. Either way, the benchmarks seem way off.
 

fs123

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 26, 2010
Messages
132
Holy crap, maybe I gave Intel too much credit for the "plausible deniability" thing, because Forbes also covered this debacle and Intel PR rep actually contacted them and had balls to claim that the tests were "correct" and in spec? WTF!?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasone...enchmarks-are-misleading-period/#3be794c84e4e

What this means is that Intel has given the testers some 'recommended settings' to replicate their in-house results. The blame appears to lie squarely with Intel here. The fact that Intel is claiming 50% better performance than the 2700X suggests that this is no mistake.

Surely blatant misrepresentation like this must be a sue-able offense.
 

Gideon

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
2,882
AMD does the same thing. I agree with cageymaru that we should never trust any manufacturer's benchmarks, or those where money has traded hands to a third party as in this case.

I agree with you and looks like many others, then you look at some of their posts and you see them defending a manufactures benchmarks as fact. You can look at the Nvidia launch and see some do just that, thus why we need places like the [H] to show us the truth in the performance to expect. Always understand that a manufacturer is always going to show their new product in the best light possible. A paid third party site is really almost never a good source for solid info on a new product. Independent news is more important then most think and usually pretty close to what you should expect if you buy it.
 

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
22,230

Advil

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
2,007
Yeah, and I have a nicely modded 8700k, but when right now today using Amazon and Newegg as examples a 2700x is $299 on Amazon and the 9900k is $579 on Newegg...

"Houston we have a marketing problem!"

If they can't somehow claim it's around 50% faster that price tag is nearly impossible to swallow.

And it doesn't help that the 9900k is essentially the successor to the 8700k whether or not Intel calls it an "i9". The removal of the HT from the 9700k makes it more of an oddity than a comparable product. It's an "i5+" by any enthusiast's measure. It takes time to shift the specs of an entire product space and make people ok with it.
 

bigdogchris

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
18,389
https://www.pcgamesn.com/nvidia-confirms-gpp-doesnt-prevent-amd-gaming-brands

https://www.pcgamesn.com/nvidia-geforce-partner-program-amd-impact

PCGamesN said:
But we’ve done our own digging into the story and from what we’ve uncovered the truth of the matter is the transparency Nvidia are chasing is about making it clear which graphics card range from a company is based on GeForce tech and which are running AMD’s GPUs. It’s not about stopping a company from having a separate AMD-based gaming brand.
 
Last edited:

pcgeekesq

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 23, 2012
Messages
1,399
And it doesn't help that the 9900k is essentially the successor to the 8700k whether or not Intel calls it an "i9". The removal of the HT from the 9700k makes it more of an oddity than a comparable product. It's an "i5+" by any enthusiast's measure. It takes time to shift the specs of an entire product space and make people ok with it.

The 9700k 8-core non-HT has several advantages that may translate into higher single thread performance in lightly multi-threaded environments: there's no sharing of the L1 and L2 caches between threads, and I believe that HT is the source of some of the side-channel security risks (Spectre/Meltdown), so you don't need some of the performance-damaging mitigations on a 9700K.

I wouldn't be surprised if, when OC'd to the same clocks, the 9700K doesn't beat the 9900K in some games, though not by much.
 
Top