Chimpee

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 6, 2015
Messages
1,683
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.

I think the other advantage it probably will run a bit cooler with no hyperthreading. Anyway, Intel benchmark to make Intel looks good, what a shock! Always best to wait for veteran reviewers like [H].
 

MaZa

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
3,408
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.

Indeed. The PR rep probably thought he was giving a typical PR non-answer "we appreciate the reviewer community jadajadajada" but ended up damning their own company as the potential source of these questionable test methods anyway. :ROFLMAO:
 

Derfman

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 12, 2007
Messages
1,220
Indeed. The PR rep probably thought he was giving a typical PR non-answer "we appreciate the reviewer community jadajadajada" but ended up damning their own company as the potential source of these questionable test methods anyway. :ROFLMAO:

I think it's a mix of this and straight up hubris.

I've used my fair share of Intel processors so I am in no way an AMD fanboy (unless they buy me a steak dinner first), but Intel has a record of fighting dirty in the few instances where AMD has actually had a decent if not better part on their end.
 

dragonstongue

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
3,162
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

PCgame news (or whatever) Wfcctech, as well as a handful of others (as of late Guru3d) quote each other as "official" sources e.g "so and so reported X and Y a month ago so it likely is very credible news because they claimed to have gotten said information from a reliable source that wishes to remain anonymous"

so one site claims from the other site who claims from the other etc...i.e click baiting webhits, I suppose the more FUD they can throw around the more "potential" double thinking the "sheep" end up doing.

That being said, it would NOT be the first time Intel (or Nv) did nefarious BS (still do) to kill AMD sales (or stock price) to try forcing sales to their own side (specific settings, cherry pick results, have AMD stuff run in one way that demolishes their performance and they run in another way (without claiming it) even so far as running in an overclocked state to get the "best results" but in another paragraph saying was run at X speed X voltage or "completely stock".

I am very much in agreement with some folks that said along the lines of "they are good enough they do NOT need to do this" but they do anyways...guess they have to do some marketing BS to justify a higher asking price instead of focusing on making the best possible product they can make.

I suppose it does not take all that much enticing for a multi-billion $ corporation to flash a wad of cash in front of their nose or "gift" product to them for a glowing review as long as they "follow the instructions provided"
Intel absolutely has done this many times over as has Nv, am pretty sure Ryzen has caused no end of "pain" to Intel and they have been scrambling since.

Does not help that AMD has met or exceeded all metrics that industry was expecting of them, really caught Intel with pants down, Intel may have a nice lod of cash to sit on and top of the line FABS, but, they do not last forever if you keep "screwing up" like they have beeen with a few chipsets over last couple of years or failed die shrinks.

if they wanted an 8 core 16 thread for desktop going by the way they have been acting, they could have "easily done so years ago" and not waited for AMD to piss all over their morning cornflakes, as well as their chipset being able to support more than 1 generation of product, limiting feature sets, pci-e lanes and so forth, it sucks when shit the bed ^.^
 

w1zard

n00b
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
9
Serious question, so don't flame me. I haven't used AMD in a bit and therefore don't know the software. If you install Ryzen Master and select game mode...does it default to 4/8? If so...why? I understand most games don't utilize more than 4 cores but does keeping them active decrease performance on AMD cpu's?
 

jmilcher

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Messages
5,416
I think it's a mix of this and straight up hubris.

I've used my fair share of Intel processors so I am in no way an AMD fanboy (unless they buy me a steak dinner first), but Intel has a record of fighting dirty in the few instances where AMD has actually had a decent if not better part on their end.
I've gone team red for the first time since the Athlon64 days. I've had my fair share of both Intel and AMD. But this even more makes me realize I wasn't missing out on much by going with AMD for now. Drop the 9900k to within g $75 of the 2700k, and a decent Z390 withing $25 of a nice X470 Mobo, I'd be game.
 
D

Deleted member 93354

Guest
Maya was limited to 8 logical cores. 16 logical cores support patch is coming

AMD is so going to burn them the end of this month with ryzen 2
 

Brackle

Old Timer
Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
7,941
Laugh I am not shocked at all. I mean don't get me wrong Intel is stop king in gaming, but not by much. They really didn't need to have some 3rd party company cheat the benchmarks LOL. Seriously sad....Bring on the [H] results!
 

bigdogchris

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
18,462
I suspect the company doing the testing didn't realize the Game Mode disabled half of the cores and was meant for TR.
 

ZiggyDeath

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 3, 2017
Messages
222
Serious question, so don't flame me. I haven't used AMD in a bit and therefore don't know the software. If you install Ryzen Master and select game mode...does it default to 4/8? If so...why? I understand most games don't utilize more than 4 cores but does keeping them active decrease performance on AMD cpu's?

Realistically, Game Mode is really supposed to be only used on TR.

The reason why it defaults to 4c/8t is for several reasons: Compatibility and Turbo.

TR had issues with games that didn't like having too many threads, causing substantial performance drops. Some game engines basically wonked out. The 16t on Ryzen generally doesn't encounter this scenario.
The other is for a more aggressive turbo. The turbo spread between core usage on a TR is pretty substantial, in some cases 600mhz or more.
 

Slade

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 9, 2004
Messages
2,816
I need to read up more on Ryzen and its features as I'm planning to build a secondary system with it.
 

CaptNumbNutz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
22,823
Bad benchmark aside, am I the only one confused why "Game Mode" would disable half of an 8 core chip to begin with? I realize games tend to be sensitive to more GHZ than core amounts. However, a large amount of games can use more than 4 threads now, then you've got OS overhead and multi-threaded video card drivers. I'd think it would be in your best interest to keep as many cores active as possible. "Game Mode" would make a lot more sense to use on a ThreadRipper, not the lower end Ryzen's.
 
Last edited:

Icon_Charlie

Weaksauce
Joined
Aug 3, 2018
Messages
100
Intel over the years have done incredible and deceitful things to keep their monopoly. From False Advertisement to strong arming their main partners (remember the Dell situation over 10 years ago with the Athlons).

Intel is that aggressive and if they put out false and deceitful information, their army of spin doctoring marketing arm will go into action and simply say "whoops we made an error" OR nothing at all and sweep it under the covers.

Intel has not innovated anything over the years and since they are now force to create things they will use their army of marketing to deflect, strong arm tactics and misinformation to give them time to bring out their next gen CPU set.

Intel can afford to wage that kind of war.

ADDED: Something else to think about.

 
Last edited:

dgz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
5,838
But did they gimp the other company's product to make it look bad?

What, you don't remember AMD using compiler trickery to fucked Intel? Cheating was a family business. Let's not forget who's the real victim here.

310?cb=20170731160630.png
 

dragonstongue

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
3,162
seen this as well thought I would "share"
seems they have "similar mindset" of WHY do this Intel..if you likely had a lead (because AMD stuff was available to them as buyers if they chose and could have "tweaked" their design accordingly) nah, they have to go out of their way to BS to to try and increase sales...why?...because they know AMD has the "upper hand" right now.

granted yes Intel still is "king" for raw speed/IPC, but for the "core wars" AMD has pretty much been winning that battle since Athlon X2 launched so many years ago now.

anyways, here is that link.
https://www.extremetech.com/computi...intel-commissioned-against-amd-are-a-flat-lie

IMO do not care business you are in or whatever "man up" if you fuck up or actually do a "opps that was not intentional" this sweeping things under the rug or treating potential customer/consumers like they are plain idiots and will buy whatever crud you put out there just because of the "brand name" is crap way of doing things...I suppose the consumers/customers need to start waking up and not supporting such actions, the more they make, the less they care about "doing the right thing"

has Intel not proven this over the decades, I know Nv pretty much has done this, more and more "popular" they get, the more and more shaddy ass crap they do..

am done venting for now LOL.
 

ecuador

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
207
What, you don't remember AMD using compiler trickery to fucked Intel? Cheating was a family business. Let's not forget who's the real victim here.

View attachment 110533

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.
 

RealBeast

Gawd
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
648
What? I trust Intel 100%, okay maybe 90%, or 50% orrrr at least 10%.

Come on man, you're killin' my faith in corporate America. :cry:
 

Advil

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
2,024
This goes to show how far removed engineering gets from the sale of a product by the time it reaches market.

It's hard to even fathom that a processor design engineer never even looked over the marketing materials and benchmarks for a sanity check.

"Wait, we designed this thing. It's not physically possible for it to be 50% faster than the 2700X."

All the hands that data had to pass through and NO ONE was even a hardware enthusiast who has a firm understanding of the products and their generational performance?

Really?

What this needs to be is a wake up call to Intel management that they have once again strayed too far from their roots of design and engineering. Too heavy on the marketing and not heavy enough on knowledge.
 

haste.

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
1,651
Anyone remember the first bulldozer benchmarks by AMD? Recall the "Massive Overclocking"?
Evident the answer is no. Welcome to 2018, the year of extremes and memory loss (or too young too remember)
 

Gamer237

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 26, 2017
Messages
144
Christ. These days if you build a 9900K system with a 2080Ti, you're basically building Hitler's PC.

This goes to show how far removed engineering gets from the sale of a product by the time it reaches market.

It's hard to even fathom that a processor design engineer never even looked over the marketing materials and benchmarks for a sanity check.

"Wait, we designed this thing. It's not physically possible for it to be 50% faster than the 2700X."

All the hands that data had to pass through and NO ONE was even a hardware enthusiast who has a firm understanding of the products and their generational performance?

Really?

What this needs to be is a wake up call to Intel management that they have once again strayed too far from their roots of design and engineering. Too heavy on the marketing and not heavy enough on knowledge.

I’m pretty sure they knew what they were getting into. Its what they had at the time and if it didn’t sell their fubar’d. Nothing new to see here just intel following AMDs footsteps.
 

GoodBoy

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
2,195
Paid report says what the commissioning company wanted? That's pretty much the definition of a commissioned report. You can commission a report to say any damn thing you want...
 

Gamer237

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 26, 2017
Messages
144
Paid report says what the commissioning company wanted? That's pretty much the definition of a commissioned report. You can commission a report to say any damn thing you want...

Intel is just digging itself a bigger hole.
 

Elios

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Messages
7,259
ok its called "GAME MODE" i think thats fair then to use it for GAMING benchmarks just saying maybe AMD shouldnt call a mode that gimps the chip FUCKING GAME MODE
 

Hakaba

Gawd
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
986
ok its called "GAME MODE" i think thats fair then to use it for GAMING benchmarks just saying maybe AMD shouldnt call a mode that gimps the chip FUCKING GAME MODE

I might be wrong, but I think it was introduced for Threadripper. It was used to disable a die since games/programs were not functioning correctly with so many cores.

I think it should just be called compatibility mode, but it’s not my product/software.
 

Stoly

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
6,714
On a side note, nvidia and AMD have also done "questionable" benchmarks . One that comes to mind are the Fury 4K benchmarks, "the first 4K video card" according to AMD :rolleyes::rolleyes:

And lets not forget the RTX benchmards with DLSS, with 50%+ performance gains.
 
Top