Intel posting false 9900k performance numbers

[LGabrielPhoto]

Same, I thought Intel was ready for anything and not just a 12% increase... Some of us were discussing at work that the amount of money/time/Xeon advancements ment Intel had something up their sleeve, turns out they didn’t and they were coasting... Kinda funny to see the scramble that has been going on.

On features, so that is a tough one on why not to buy now. Yes buying an X470 means you would miss any new non cpu feature, pcie 4.0 etc... However PB2 was a CPU feature “I believe” that ended up being usable on x370/470. But it’s possible that any new CPU feature would require x5xx. Or if required maybe AM4 socket will be phased out and no longer used.

Also I am not following anything Gen 2 is supposedly bringing.

Which is why I was leaning towards the 9900k because I figured, it this thing can do at least 5Ghz all 8 cores then it should last me long enough that when the time comes to upgrade, I wont mind the platform change. We shall see...I cant even decide on a freakin case yet much less the CPU LOL

 

[Sherloc09]

Believe most are more angry at Intel for reducing the 9700K to 8c/8t, and then releasing the 9900k with the hyperthreading and making the entire release more expensive. The disenginuous benchmarks are something companies due, but are in the current situation exacerbating peoples enmity. I personally agree it's not in Intel's best interest to make an ephemeral cash grab to help keep their current stock price from falling due to the blows Ryzen and Threadripper have been laying into Intel with. The thing is, that in all this dialog, gamers specifically may be missing the forest for the trees. If we like to argue that AMD is the value king in gaming, we'd probably be misleading our non-tech constituents; believe from most of the benchmarks I've seen that in anything less than 4k the i5-8600k is more than a match for the 2700x, and beats it most of the time, in 4k most CPUs are bottlenecked by the GPU. The 8600k being less expensive then the 2700x makes it more a value processor, and would come with wider RAM compatibility and less platform headache for newer gamers.

My take is that getting the 9900k makes sense if you plan to keep the mainboard, cpu and ram for >6 years; once GPUs are able to handle 4k better, we may see the disparity in 4k benchmarks between 2700x and 9900k, probably looking similar to what we see with 1440p and maybe 1080p. So, optionally spend less now on 2700x, 2600x, etc. then upgrade in the coming years to either Zen2/Zen3 or whatever [presupposing it's supported on AM4], or just get the 9900k and hold out for those ~six years.

Tangentially, looking at Linus' video on the affects of RAM speed on different processors, we notice that in his opening remarks, the reason that increased RAM frequency doesn't always convert into increased performance is due to CPU bottlenecks, and that you can only feed the CPU so much before it tops out. Couple this with the video comparing 7700k [4c] to the 1700x [8c], noting that the 8c does in fact scale with increased RAM frequency, we could extrapolate that the 9900k may see a boost when using higher frequency RAM in the 3600+ mhz range. So I ask you this, would the 9900k conversation change drastically if the 9900k scales with higher RAM frequency, and the performance in 4k opens up as we get a 3080ti, 4080ti, etc? May make the 9900k a better value in years to come if this is accurate.

 

[Hagrid]

Believe most are more angry at Intel for reducing the 9700K to 8c/8t, and then releasing the 9900k with the hyperthreading and making the entire release more expensive. The disenginuous benchmarks are something companies due, but are in the current situation exacerbating peoples enmity. I personally agree it's not in Intel's best interest to make an ephemeral cash grab to help keep their current stock price from falling due to the blows Ryzen and Threadripper have been laying into Intel with. The thing is, that in all this dialog, gamers specifically may be missing the forest for the trees. If we like to argue that AMD is the value king in gaming, we'd probably be misleading our non-tech constituents; believe from most of the benchmarks I've seen that in anything less than 4k the i5-8600k is more than a match for the 2700x, and beats it most of the time, in 4k most CPUs are bottlenecked by the GPU. The 8600k being less expensive then the 2700x makes it more a value processor, and would come with wider RAM compatibility and less platform headache for newer gamers.

My take is that getting the 9900k makes sense if you plan to keep the mainboard, cpu and ram for >6 years; once GPUs are able to handle 4k better, we may see the disparity in 4k benchmarks between 2700x and 9900k, probably looking similar to what we see with 1440p and maybe 1080p. So, optionally spend less now on 2700x, 2600x, etc. then upgrade in the coming years to either Zen2/Zen3 or whatever [presupposing it's supported on AM4], or just get the 9900k and hold out for those ~six years.

Tangentially, looking at Linus' video on the affects of RAM speed on different processors, we notice that in his opening remarks, the reason that increased RAM frequency doesn't always convert into increased performance is due to CPU bottlenecks, and that you can only feed the CPU so much before it tops out. Couple this with the video comparing 7700k [4c] to the 1700x [8c], noting that the 8c does in fact scale with increased RAM frequency, we could extrapolate that the 9900k may see a boost when using higher frequency RAM in the 3600+ mhz range. So I ask you this, would the 9900k conversation change drastically if the 9900k scales with higher RAM frequency, and the performance in 4k opens up as we get a 3080ti, 4080ti, etc? May make the 9900k a better value in years to come if this is accurate.

View attachment 111919

How much faster is the 2700x compared to the 1700x? Not enough to come much closer to the 7700k?

 

[Sherloc09]

How much faster is the 2700x compared to the 1700x? Not enough to come much closer to the 7700k?

Correct, am saying the 2700x in most of what I've seen isn't as fast in gaming as an i5-8600k, which is cheaper than both the 2700x and 7700k, let alone 9900k. Individuals being critical of Intel for their disingenuous marketing campaign on the 9th series CPUs may forget that the 9900k and 9700k are enthusiast grade chips, and are for those wanting the ultimate in all categories, whereas Intel does offer value propositions that are potentially better than their competition in specific use cases. The most notable use case being 8600k vs 2700x in gaming. Below are two screenshots from a video comparing the CPUs. The 8600k wins out in the majority of the titles, and is less expensive + draws less power. The nail in the proverbial coffin is that these benchmarks are stock settings, and the 8600k overclocks good to well, whereas 2700x tops out around 4.3ghz.

TBH have seen benchmarks where the 8400 trades blows with the 2700x in lower resolution gaming scenarios [i.e. 1080p].

 

[OnceSetThisCannotChange]

The problem with 8600K is the same as for 7600K. When the games start using more than 6 threads eventually that CPU is obsolete. This may take a few years, but I do not think we will be waiting for this threshold to be passed for as long as we waited for 4 core CPU's to become obsolete, given renewed competition in CPU space. As one is getting 8600k to save money, it does not make sense in the longer run even for a few % higher scores today. In case money is not a concern today the buyer should be going for 8700K instead, or even better 9900K.

The issue for 9900K is that for the $ difference between it and 2700x you can get yourself a next tier GFX card which is likely going to have a more pronounced impact on the quality of your gameplay. For example, at the moment 2700x + 1080TI is cheaper than 9900k + 1080.

In total - if you are getting a 2800TI, you should get 9900K, otherwise money best spent is on the GPU and not on the CPU >>> if the money is a concern 2700x has more potential, both from expected platfrom longevity perspective (drop in next gen CPU's) or the fact that it has 16 threads.

Also if you want platform longevity and to get closer to Intel CPU's in games today, more money should be spent on RAM which can help close a lot of the gap between 2700X and 8600/8700K CPU's as is. Typically tests with 2700X are not made with tightest timings, and here is one test for RAM and the effect of timings on 1800X (I am not aware of a similar test for 2700X, but the results should be comparable).

DDR4 3333 speed with regular timings (14,14,14, 34, AUTO subtimings, 1t - XMP settings) vs DDR4 3333 (14,14,14 28, Manual subtimings, 1t).

The largest difference between those two is 23.5% for averages in Project Cars 2. The game referenced above, Rise of the Tomb Raider gained 15%, but those are best case scenarios. On average the difference between the two was 7% for average FPS and 11% for 0.1% lows. The difference vs 3200 speed at XMP settings, which is what reviewers typically use and DDR4 3333 with manual set subtimings is 9% on averages and almost 15% on 0.1% lows.

Regular reviewers do not really seem to optimize their Ryzen systems yet, typically they set XMP timings and are done with it. It is likely too much effort to manually tweak the subtimings for best effect, or they are just not aware of the benefits.

However if you are keen to take every bit of FPS for yourself from Ryzen platform today, there is a fair amount left on the table this way.

 

[DahlKen]

This seems right on par for Intel. Over-inflate the numbers on a old process chip to cover for the failing of even being able to begin work at the 10nm level. And the stocks continue to fall......