# New PT Data: i9-9900K is 66% Pricier While Being Just 12% Faster than 2700X at Gaming



## btarunr (Oct 13, 2018)

Principled Technologies (PT), which Intel paid to obtain some very outrageous test results for its Core i9-9900K eight-core processor launch event test-results, revised its benchmark data by improving its testing methodology partially. Initial tests by the outfit comparing Core i9-9900K to the Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and 2990WX, sprung up false and misleading results because PT tested the AMD chip with half its cores effectively disabled, and crippled its memory controller with an extremely sub-optimal memory configuration (4-module + dual-rank clocked high, leaving the motherboard to significantly loosen up timings). 

The original testing provided us with such gems as the i9-9900K "being up to 50 percent faster than 2700X at gaming." As part of its revised testing, while Principled Technologies corrected half its rookie-mistakes, by running the 2700X in the default "Creator Mode" that enables all 8 cores; it didn't correct the sub-optimal memory. Despite this, the data shows gaming performance percentage-differences between the i9-9900K and the 2700X narrow down to single-digit or around 12.39 percent on average, seldom crossing 20 percent. This is a significant departure from the earlier testing, which skewed the average on the basis of >40% differences in some games, due to half the cores being effectively disabled on the 2700X. The bottom-line of PT's new data is this: the Core i9-9900K is roughly 12 percent faster than the Ryzen 7 2700X at gaming, while being a whopping 66% pricier ($319 vs. $530 average online prices). 






This whopping 12.3% gap between the i9-9900K and 2700X could narrow further to single-digit percentages if the 2700X is tested with an optimal memory configuration, such as single-rank 2-module dual-channel, with memory timings of around 14-14-14-34, even if the memory clock remains at DDR4-2933 MHz. 

Intel responded to these "triumphant" new numbers with the following statement:


> Given the feedback from the tech community, we are pleased that Principled Technologies ran additional tests. They've now published these results along with even more detail on the configurations used and the rationale. The results continue to show that the 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900K is the world's best gaming processor. We are thankful to Principled Technologies' time and transparency throughout the process. We always appreciate feedback from the tech community and are looking forward to comprehensive third party reviews coming out on October 19.



The media never disputed the possibility of i9-9900K being faster than the 2700X. It did, however, call out the bovine defecation peddled as "performance advantage data." 

The entire testing data follows:



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Metroid (Oct 13, 2018)

I'm waiting the reviews here at techpowerup, price-performance ratio.


----------



## MrAMD (Oct 13, 2018)

It costs having the best of the best. Bang for buck goes out the window when all you care for is the most bang.


----------



## ShurikN (Oct 13, 2018)

Doesn't this make the 9900K look kinda... mediocre. You can get a 8700K for MUUUUCH less money if all you care is high FPS


----------



## Skar78 (Oct 13, 2018)

Am I the only one who expects an 2800X as soon as the real performance is in?


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Oct 13, 2018)

I think for folks who would go balls to the walls spec for their beastly gaming PC, I don't think they even care about price at this point. So far as I know the i9-9900K is capable of clocking 5GHz on all 8 cores thanks to the soldered IHS, unlike the i7-8700K where you need to delid it in order to reach the same level of performance. Same core & thread count as the R7 2700X but has way higher turbo boost frequencies & sustains it better. Also, you don't need to spend more money on Ryzen-optimized RAM kits... even a typical 2666MHz DDR4 RAM kit does the job.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 13, 2018)

Skar78 said:


> Am I the only one who expects an 2800X as soon as the real performance is in?



Very likely. AMD is still at 105W TDP and has the freedom of increasing TDP headroom to 125W (it's not bound by some 95W MSDT "barrier" unlike Intel). So it could give Pinnacle Ridge >5.00 GHz boost+XFR clocks, a higher memory divider enabling DDR4-3600, and some other tweaks.



Metroid said:


> I'm waiting the reviews here at techpowerup, price-performance ratio.



I can confirm we will have a day-one review.


----------



## ShurikN (Oct 13, 2018)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> I think for folks who would go balls to the walls spec for their beastly gaming PC, I don't think they even care about price at this point. So far as I know the i9-9900K is capable of clocking 5GHz on all 8 cores thanks to the soldered IHS, unlike the i7-8700K where you need to delid it in order to reach the same level of performance. Same core & thread count as the R7 2700X but has way higher turbo boost frequencies & sustains it better. Also, you don't need to spend more money on Ryzen-optimized RAM kits... even a typical 2666MHz DDR4 RAM kit does the job.


But you do need to spend a LOT of money on proper cooling if you are going for that 5GHz all core. And that will be much more expensive than memory for Ryzen.
At which point you are no longer looking at a $530 CPU but a $650-700 one.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Oct 13, 2018)

If I'm already spending well over $2k, why I wanna skimp out on the processor? I would pick the 9900K over the 2700X coz its obvious that 1.) it clocks at 5GHz, 2.) it beaten the 2700X in more than half of the benchmarks, whether botched or honest & 3.) it's an Intel product. You don't need to fiddle around in the UEFI just so you can squeeze whatever performance there is in it, like AMD.


----------



## Skar78 (Oct 13, 2018)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> If I'm already spending well over $2k, why I wanna skimp out on the processor? I would pick the 9900K over the 2700X coz its obvious that 1.) it clocks at 5GHz, 2.) it beaten the 2700X in more than half of the benchmarks, whether botched or honest & 3.) it's an Intel product. You don't need to fiddle around in the UEFI just so you can squeeze whatever performance there is in it, like AMD.



Not about the money - but if the gap would be closer i would consider 2800X just to show the finger to intel.


----------



## Zubasa (Oct 13, 2018)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> If I'm already spending well over $2k, why I wanna skimp out on the processor? I would pick the 9900K over the 2700X coz its obvious that 1.) it clocks at 5GHz, 2.) it beaten the 2700X in more than half of the benchmarks, whether botched or honest & 3.) it's an Intel product. You don't need to fiddle around in the UEFI just so you can squeeze whatever performance there is in it, like AMD.


No need to fiddle around in the UEFI, or do you?
One of the first thing people buys Intel K-version CPUs is to go in the UEFI and try to overclock it to 5Ghz+, that is like the biggest advantage Intel has, sheer clock speeds.
Not to mention run all the stress tests to make sure the OC is stable.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Oct 13, 2018)

thing is, where's the 2800X? not here yet right? so, who's at the top for mainstream platform now? still Intel. Until AMD has a new processor to show at the table, I'm not buying their claims.


----------



## ShurikN (Oct 13, 2018)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> If I'm already spending well over $2k, why I wanna skimp out on the processor? I would pick the 9900K over the 2700X coz its obvious that 1.) it clocks at 5GHz, 2.) it beaten the 2700X in more than half of the benchmarks, whether botched or honest & 3.) it's an Intel product. You don't need to fiddle around in the UEFI just so you can squeeze whatever performance there is in it, like AMD.


Which is why I said the 8700K is a much better buy. Stock vs stock. Once you get into overclocking, the original price/performance ratios go down the drain.
You can spend the leftover money for a better GPU.


Zubasa said:


> No need to fiddle around in the UEFI, or do you?
> One of the first thing people buys Intel K-version CPUs is to go in the UEFI and try to overclock it to 5Ghz+, that is like the biggest advantage Intel has, sheer clock speeds.
> Not to mention run all the stress tests to make sure the OC is stable.


Great point.


----------



## Robcostyle (Oct 13, 2018)

I like how this greedy bluegreen couple tries to rip you for extra cash, just preteding to be “exclusive”, higher quality or better perfomance- 
Hell, even that, they are so unconfident in doing all that advertising, torning between all  they’re flushing, resulting in a complete mess about “what their product really is”
-and you know whats the most pretty in all this? THEY ARE NOT PREMIUM. They are not made from better materials than other stuff in semicond. market, they wont last longer, they dont have premium options. Hell, do Intel and ngreedia know what does PREMIUM means??? If they’ll sell their CPU’s in some Ferrari kind of shop, with cup of coffee and a manager kissing ur arse just to buy their stuff - that I will call premium over AMD. Nit just silly ~10% perfomance gain.

Rich people pay more for better service or good - and NEVER for the same stuff available for every, just in order to show they have more money. 
All in all, PC gaming is a leisure - and it shouldnt be considered as a major part of your expenses. This price hike tactics just initially false, from very beginning


----------



## btarunr (Oct 13, 2018)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> thing is, where's the 2800X? not here yet right? so, who's at the top for mainstream platform now? still Intel. Until AMD has a new processor to show at the table, I'm not buying their claims.



They made no claims about 2800X.


----------



## ratirt (Oct 13, 2018)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> If I'm already spending well over $2k, why I wanna skimp out on the processor? I would pick the 9900K over the 2700X coz its obvious that 1.) it clocks at 5GHz, 2.) it beaten the 2700X in more than half of the benchmarks, whether botched or honest & 3.) it's an Intel product. You don't need to fiddle around in the UEFI just so you can squeeze whatever performance there is in it, like AMD.


I've bought 2700X already and didnt even consider Intel as anything worth attention 'Besides with this price points they can use it themselves.


----------



## StrayKAT (Oct 13, 2018)

Robcostyle said:


> I like how this greedy bluegreen couple tries to rip you for extra cash, just preteding to be “exclusive”, higher quality or better perfomance-
> Hell, even that, they are so unconfident in doing all that advertising, torning between all  they’re flushing, resulting in a complete mess about “what their product really is”
> -and you know whats the most pretty in all this? THEY ARE NOT PREMIUM. They are not made from better materials than other stuff in semicond. market, they wont last longer, they dont have premium options. Hell, do Intel and ngreedia know what does PREMIUM means??? If they’ll sell their CPU’s in some Ferrari kind of shop, with cup of coffee and a manager kissing ur arse just to buy their stuff - that I will call premium over AMD. Nit just silly ~10% perfomance gain.
> 
> ...



I don't think you need to bundle them together (bluegreen).

In my eyes, all computers are fairly cheap. They used to be $5000+. And they weren't even workstation class.


----------



## Nkd (Oct 13, 2018)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> If I'm already spending well over $2k, why I wanna skimp out on the processor? I would pick the 9900K over the 2700X coz its obvious that 1.) it clocks at 5GHz, 2.) it beaten the 2700X in more than half of the benchmarks, whether botched or honest & 3.) it's an Intel product. You don't need to fiddle around in the UEFI just so you can squeeze whatever performance there is in it, like AMD.



yep and game at 1080p with all that expensive hardware. So doesn't that defeat the purpose of having ultra high end hardware if you are going to cap it to 1080p? lol


----------



## dgianstefani (Oct 13, 2018)

The big difference between comparing the 9900k and 2700x at stock speeds is the Intel option can OC to another 500mhz minimum, while the 2700x is basically running at its max frequency already. So take that 12% advantage and make it around 20% after tweaking. 

Ryzen at 4.2ghz all core vs Intel at 5.3 is a bit more than 12% I think.

And that's going with 8700k levels of OC. It's entirely possible the 9700/9900 can do 5.5.


----------



## dj-electric (Oct 13, 2018)

Metroid said:


> I'm waiting the reviews here at techpowerup, price-performance ratio.



9900K was never meant to meet good price to performance ratios.
I don't think anybody doubts that the 2700X has a much higher price to performance ratio.


----------



## Metroid (Oct 13, 2018)

ShurikN said:


> Doesn't this make the 9900K look kinda... mediocre. You can get a 8700K for MUUUUCH less money if all you care is high FPS




That would only be true if the 9700k would not exist. It's already proven that hyper threading adds more heat than performance and in the end may be possibly open for attacks. I was all for hyper-threading in the past, nowadays is not needed anymore.


----------



## Zubasa (Oct 13, 2018)

dgianstefani said:


> The big difference between comparing the 9900k and 2700x at stock speeds is the Intel option can OC to another 500mhz minimum, while the 2700x is basically running at its max frequency already. So take that 12% advantage and make it around 20% after tweaking.
> 
> Ryzen at 4.2ghz all core vs Intel at 5.3 is a bit more than 12% I think.
> 
> And that's going with 8700k levels of OC. It's entirely possible the 9700/9900 can do 5.5.


These CPUs are still Coffee Lake, generally when 2 cpus are on the same process, the higher core-count CPU often OC a bit less due to the extra heat output.
Also there are varience between each core in the same chip, you you might be somewhat limted by how far the worse core can go.
Yes you can OC each core individually but that is an awful lot of work for dubious gains.
So it remains to be seen how well these chips actually OC.


----------



## noel_fs (Oct 13, 2018)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> I think for folks who would go balls to the walls spec for their beastly gaming PC, I don't think they even care about price at this point. So far as I know the i9-9900K is capable of clocking 5GHz on all 8 cores thanks to the soldered IHS, unlike the i7-8700K where you need to delid it in order to reach the same level of performance. Same core & thread count as the R7 2700X but has way higher turbo boost frequencies & sustains it better. Also, you don't need to spend more money on Ryzen-optimized RAM kits... even a typical 2666MHz DDR4 RAM kit does the job.


You do not need ram optimized kits.


----------



## _Flare (Oct 13, 2018)

and where will it end up in this Chart ? i´m curious


----------



## m4dn355 (Oct 13, 2018)

PT and intel reputation are already shaken


----------



## HTC (Oct 13, 2018)

btarunr said:


> The bottom-line of PT's new data is this: the Core i9-9900K is roughly 12 percent faster than the Ryzen 7 2700X at gaming, while being a whopping 66% pricier ($319 vs. $530 average online prices).



As a fellow TPU member put it in an unrelated (GPU card) topic, the fastest comes with a premium ... 

As i replied in that same topic, there's premium, and theres "premiumed" premium ...

@ the very least, these "new performance numbers" are much more inline with what we'd expect before that whole "PT botched job".


----------



## Frick (Oct 13, 2018)

StrayKAT said:


> In my eyes, all computers are fairly cheap. They used to be $5000+. And they weren't even workstation class.



By that metric no progress is meaningful. RAM isn't expensive, SSDs cost/storage ratio has no impact at all and there's literally no such thing as a polluting car.


----------



## HTC (Oct 13, 2018)

btarunr said:


> Very likely. AMD is still at 105W TDP and has the freedom of increasing TDP headroom to 125W (it's not bound by some 95W MSDT "barrier" unlike Intel). *So it could give Pinnacle Ridge >5.00 GHz boost+XFR clocks*, a higher memory divider enabling DDR4-3600, and some other tweaks.



Very seriously doubt this.

*Don't this it's possible but*, if it were, what could really up the performance of AMD's chips is decoupling the Infinity Fabric from the RAM frequency to a divider that gave an extra ... say ... 1/8 th more speed. This by itself would boost performance and the benefits could by higher then going from 2133 average timings to 3200 "Stilt" timings, but it would also boost power consumption by as much as that 20W mentioned, if not more.

Enough OT.

What i'll be looking forward to with interest is the IPC change VS older / competition platforms: if @W1zzard would be so kind as to test all the CPUs planned for the review @ a suitable speed, without turbo / XFR, *while having good RAM timings*, i'm sure we TPUers would all appreciate it.


----------



## StrayKAT (Oct 13, 2018)

Frick said:


> By that metric no progress is meaningful. RAM isn't expensive, SSDs cost/storage ratio has no impact at all and there's literally no such thing as a polluting car.



I imagine most things were more expensive back then because we didn't rely on near-slave labor. I don't think that's progress.


----------



## Rahmat Sofyan (Oct 13, 2018)

intel helped AMD with free ads ... AMD owe to PT and of course to intel


----------



## _Flare (Oct 13, 2018)

and please do a verification @baseclock if intel holds its 95W TDP


----------



## Hossein Almet (Oct 13, 2018)

In Australia it is a 83% pricier:  $859 vs $469.


----------



## kastriot (Oct 13, 2018)

Money is meant to be spent especially when you have alot of it, so who cares about prices except XX% of people who don't have it..


----------



## Athlonite (Oct 13, 2018)

Hossein Almet said:


> In Australia it is a 83% pricier:  $859 vs $469.



meanwhile ya neighbours in New Zealand are paying absurd prices

Intel i9 9900K $948.99NZD (inc GST 15%) vs AMD Ryzen 7 2700X $508.99 (inc GST 15%) all prices in NZD and exclude shipping cost


----------



## StrayKAT (Oct 13, 2018)

Looks like Aussies are in the same place we were in the 80s/early 90s. I wouldn't want it to get worse for them. 

Seems like all of the dealing for slave wages mostly benefits us Americans. I don't like it, personally.


----------



## Mr.Mopar392 (Oct 13, 2018)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> thing is, where's the 2800X? not here yet right? so, who's at the top for mainstream platform now? still Intel. Until AMD has a new processor to show at the table, I'm not buying their claims.


then stick to Intel, no one needs your opinion to buy whatever they want to buy. or you salesman man or something.


----------



## yeeeeman (Oct 13, 2018)

_Flare said:


> and please do a verification @baseclock if intel holds its 95W TDP


Intel TDP is specified for base clock (3.6Ghz). You can imagine how much it will consume/dissipate at 4.7Ghz all cores. And no, the increase is not linear.


----------



## SIGSEGV (Oct 13, 2018)

so, 5Ghz vs 4.3Ghz and 12% improvement... looks hilarious. I don't know why to feel like I'm so proud to myself that I made the right decision to buy 2700X.


----------



## phill (Oct 13, 2018)

I do wonder if the game tests were all run at 1080P as that would make the biggest difference.  As I couldn't see any hardware settings for the two systems used, they might have not set memory timings, could have used different ram, so I'm going with the why the heck would I pay 66% more for only 12%??  

My 5960X is still running perfectly fine and I'm very excited for AMD's next CPUs that are to be released at some point...  The CPU war is back where it should be and with the shortages that Intel are facing with their CPUs becoming more and more expensive, I don't see anyone really buying Intel if they want price/performance.  

I'll just point you here.... with results from a rather overclocked Ryzen...  I know it's only CB 15 and I know you'd never be able to use the CPU at these speeds day to day (LN2 or whatever was used isn't cheap at all and not really idea for 24/7 conditions!! ) but just goes to show how good AMD's Ryzen can be... Thanks to @Johan45 for sharing his results


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 13, 2018)

Obviously comparing just gaming on a 8-Core chip is not telling the whole story.  If you just want gaming, buy the i7-9700K or even the i5-9600K, the i9 isn't really going to benefit you.


----------



## M2B (Oct 13, 2018)

5GHz is not possible with Zen+ on 12nm.


----------



## skline00 (Oct 13, 2018)

Let me begin my comments by saying I go back to the days of owning a Gateway 2000 386DX33 which I "hopped up" with an AMD 386-40? to gain a bit so I understand the philosophy of wanting the fastest.

I also own a Intel 5960xOC'd to 4.4 under custom water with a Gigabyte Aorus GTX1080TI with a waterblock; AMD 2700X stock under custom water with a GTX1080 under water and an EK block and finally an AMD 2600x with AIO cooler and GTX1070TI (the VR box portable).

No one doubted the 9900k would be the fastest gaming cpu. What is sad is the way Intel allowed a paid third part to test and release the final results without having the Intel engineers who know the true numbers check over the testing procedure first. GOOD GRIEF! Is the marketing department that strong that they put the clamps on the engineering department? What a screw up. Perhaps panic mode has Intel not executing properly.

Let's look a pros and cons.

PROS:
9900K will be the fastest gaming cpu for now.
CON
It will be @$200 more expensive than the 2700X
PRO
It will use the latest Intel mb/chipset
CONS
You will have to buy the 390 mb to get the most out of the 9900K
Your 8700K mb will  accept the 9900k but depending upon it's quality may not OC as well.
The AMD370 chipset (which I have) supported the 1800X which I upped to the 2700X AND will support at least the upcoming Zen2.

This thread will go on and on and on.

When Zen2 comes out, and it will, I wonder how much I will pay for the fastest chip and I wonder if it will match or beat the 9900K?


----------



## dj-electric (Oct 13, 2018)

skline00 said:


> You will have to buy the 390 mb to use the 9900K


9900K is fully supported on Z370 and H370, as well as B360 and H310 boards.


----------



## StrayKAT (Oct 13, 2018)

skline00 said:


> Let me begin my comments by saying I go back to the days of owning a Gateway 2000 386DX33 which I "hopped up" with an AMD 386-40? to gain a bit so I understand the philosophy of wanting the fastest.
> 
> I also own a Intel 5960xOC'd to 4.4 under custom water with a Gigabyte Aorus GTX1080TI with a waterblock; AMD 2700X stock under custom water with a GTX1080 under water and an EK block and finally an AMD 2600x with AIO cooler and GTX1070TI (the VR box portable).
> 
> ...



Zen2/7nm @5ghz sounds pretty sweet if that happens.. even to my Intel owning self. And a Vega 7nm would be the nice icing on the cake.

edit: By the time that comes out though, I think Intel will be just right behind with another product lineup too.


----------



## skline00 (Oct 13, 2018)

dj-electric you are correct and I have corrected my post.
What I misread was the overclocking ability of the Intel 370 mbs. BTW the same can be said for AMDs 370/470 mbs.

StrayKAT, I think Zen2 will be @4.5 to at most 4.6OCd while the 2700X is 4.2 to 4.3 MAX. The difference may also be the number of cores of the highest end Zen2. At least 8C/16T but rumors seem to be as high as 12C/24T. If AMD can release at stock a 12C/24T Zen2 stock that OCs to 4.5 look out.

What is also missing in this thread is that Jim Keller, of Ryzen renown, is now on Intel's payroll.
I doubt he had much, if anything to do with the 9900K but he sure knows how to bring people together to design a solid cpu lineup.


----------



## B-Real (Oct 13, 2018)

dj-electric said:


> 9900K is fully supported on Z370 and H370, as well as B360 and H310 boards.


With the only exception you cannot OC it, only in Z motherboards. Yet your first comment was about the 9700K be able to be OCd to 5,5GHz. You are so funny  trying. Anyway, how can anyone convince someone who has a 9900K and a 2080Ti LOL. You can't even give a single reason why you bought the 9900K with a 2080Ti as I assume you are not playing on a FHD monitor. On upper resolutions, that 12% difference disappears. That's the fact.


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 13, 2018)

btarunr said:


> Very likely. AMD is still at 105W TDP and has the freedom of increasing TDP headroom to 125W (it's not bound by some 95W MSDT "barrier" unlike Intel). So it could give Pinnacle Ridge >5.00 GHz boost+XFR clocks, a higher memory divider enabling DDR4-3600, and some other tweaks.
> 
> 
> 
> I can confirm we will have a day-one review.



Right. I know you've got red tinted glasses (Even if you don't put 'editorial' on your content, its obvious) but this is just the same old AMD fan utopia we've seen for decades and it never works that way, never will, and its clear as day Ryzen will need much more than 125W to hit 5 Ghz. Even a 6-core 8700K needs 130W+ in most cases to get there.

I think you can count yourself lucky if they can put 4.6 Ghz on the box.



newtekie1 said:


> Obviously comparing just gaming on a 8-Core chip is not telling the whole story.  If you just want gaming, buy the i7-9700K or even the i5-9600K, the i9 isn't really going to benefit you.



Thank you! Common sense...


----------



## CandymanGR (Oct 13, 2018)

As i've said before... intel. The white dove on innocence. The company that respects the clients. Pricing is so wise. Thank god for intel.

P.S. The benchmark comparison of processors from different brands, must be made based on price. Only.


----------



## siluro818 (Oct 13, 2018)

"There is no bad hardware. Only bad prices."


----------



## dj-electric (Oct 13, 2018)

B-Real said:


> Yet your first comment was about the 9700K be able to be OCd to 5,5GHz. You are so funny trying



Huh?! where did i claim that?


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 13, 2018)

dgianstefani said:


> The big difference between comparing the 9900k and 2700x at stock speeds is the Intel option can OC to another 500mhz minimum, while the 2700x is basically running at its max frequency already. So take that 12% advantage and make it around 20% after tweaking.
> 
> Ryzen at 4.2ghz all core vs Intel at 5.3 is a bit more than 12% I think.
> 
> And that's going with 8700k levels of OC. It's entirely possible the 9700/9900 can do 5.5.



There is no need to think. In single threaded scenario's you can see in the provided tests both Game and Creator Mode FPS remains the same on Ryzen. That is where you see the real absolute performance gap if you would all core OC the Intel 9900K. It _starts at 20%_ and goes up to ~ 40% in a pure single threaded scenario such as CS:GO.

That is, of course, if you are not GPU limited in any way.

And that changes the perspective entirely, too - now consider the fact that a 9700K will perform 100% the same with 8 cores available and likely clock a tiny bit higher too, and the 66% price gap is what, 35-40% for a potential 20-40%+ performance advantage.

But, this title does generate more clicks. I get it


----------



## notb (Oct 13, 2018)

HTC said:


> As a fellow TPU member put it in an unrelated (GPU card) topic, the fastest comes with a premium ...


That's me! :-D


> @ the very least, these "new performance numbers" are much more inline with what we'd expect before that whole "PT botched job".


No, they don't.
I wonder how many of you actually went through the data provided. ;-)
In some games the gap actually shrunk by as much as half. In some titles Creator Mode had no positive effect. There are games where "Game Mode" worked better after all.
Putting aside CS:GO and PUBG (200fps+), arguably the 3 most popular titles on the list look like this: (the gap before and after)
WOW: 32.7% -> 29.8%
Civ VI: 22.9% -> 16.9%
Fortnite: 22.7% -> 16.3%

And as another TPU fellow member mentioned, @btarunr may have issue with glass tint, which becomes very visible occasionally.
This time it's comparing "up to 50 percent" to "12.39 percent on average", which is just *sad.*

In fact "up to 50%" still stands .
Furthermore, it was said that the gap was seldom larger than 20%. If I counted correctly, in 10 out of 37 test. 27%... Anyone can judge if it's "seldom enough" for him.
BTW: If we set the threshold at 15%, it would be 17 out of 37.


----------



## Frick (Oct 13, 2018)

StrayKAT said:


> I imagine most things were more expensive back then because we didn't rely on near-slave labor. I don't think that's progress.



Most definitely no. It's part of it sure, but mostly it's because that's just how it works. Transistors used to be pretty exotic and complicated, now they aren't.


----------



## Vya Domus (Oct 13, 2018)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> You don't need to fiddle around in the UEFI just so you can squeeze whatever performance there is in it, like AMD.



Except if you want to get that 5 Ghz overclock.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Oct 13, 2018)

Frick said:


> By that metric no progress is meaningful. RAM isn't expensive, SSDs cost/storage ratio has no impact at all and there's literally no such thing as a polluting car.


only now you figured this out? I've been saying that for decades!


----------



## Frick (Oct 13, 2018)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> only now you figured this out? I've been saying that for decades!



I have no idea what you mean.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 13, 2018)

And your z370/90 board becomes useless next gen, at this stage your paying as much as a HEDT platform.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Oct 13, 2018)

Intel hired this firm to make their new CPU look good. This shady and/or incompetent crap did the exact opposite. I've been recommending Ryzen to most of my clients who don't specifically ask for Intel. Much better performance/price ratio. Looks like nothing is going to change.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 13, 2018)

lexluthermiester said:


> Much better performance/price ratio.


Even better price-performance ratio for those needing 8 cores now.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Oct 13, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Even better price-performance ratio for those needing 8 cores now.


Thing is, that is *with* multi-threading. AMD is kicking Intel in the jimmies with Ryzen.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 13, 2018)

lexluthermiester said:


> AMD is kicking Intel in the jimmies with Ryzen.


They are, however it's going to take a long time before the market evens out - that'd probably happen with zen 2


----------



## RealNeil (Oct 13, 2018)

Metroid said:


> I'm waiting the reviews here at techpowerup, price-performance ratio.



^^^This^^^

_Trusted site_ reviews are what I prefer reading. 
This is one of my trusted places to read about new technology.

 I can wait for it.


----------



## Animalpak (Oct 13, 2018)

How many ugly figures and controversy for my next CPU


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 13, 2018)

RealNeil said:


> _Trusted site_ reviews are what I prefer reading.


Same, I only trust techpowerup - I take others with a pinch of salt.



Animalpak said:


> How many ugly figures and controversy for my next CPU


What do you expect? It's a 8700k + 2cores 4 threads and soldered for over twice the price in the UK - you'd be mad to pay this much on a mainstream processor.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Oct 13, 2018)

StrayKAT said:


> They used to be $5000+.



When was this? My 3930k system, when it was top/near-top of the line, including the $750 780ti it had when new, $450 motherboard, and the 30" 2560*1600 I paid $700 for used, (this was before 4k, when 2560*1600 was the highest resolution you could get), my system never priced out higher than $3500.


----------



## jmcosta (Oct 13, 2018)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> I think for folks who would go balls to the walls spec for their beastly gaming PC, I don't think they even care about price at this point. So far as I know the i9-9900K is capable of clocking 5GHz on all 8 cores thanks to the soldered IHS, unlike the i7-8700K where you need to delid it in order to reach the same level of performance. Same core & thread count as the R7 2700X but has way higher turbo boost frequencies & sustains it better. Also, you don't need to spend more money on Ryzen-optimized RAM kits... even a typical 2666MHz DDR4 RAM kit does the job.



yeah I was a bout to say the same, for those that are looking for performance at this price point it doesn't really matter if its 100-200€ more or less. Many will spend over 2K just in GPUs lol
There are folk that want to save and its understandable to choose AMD instead since they have a great cost performance ratio.

anyway
Hopefully the i9 will have a excellent overclock ability, without a absurd thermal or power throttle


----------



## ShurikN (Oct 13, 2018)

jmcosta said:


> Many will spend over 2K just in GPUs lol


You've misspelled "very few"


----------



## Prima.Vera (Oct 13, 2018)

I want some benches not at 720p but at 1440p and 2160p. Please.


----------



## jmcosta (Oct 13, 2018)

ShurikN said:


> You've misspelled "very few"


 true, the general consumer. I just meant to say within a group that pursuit performance.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 13, 2018)

Prima.Vera said:


> I want some benches not at 720p but at 1440p and 2160p. Please.


Of course intel will use 720p - watch as 1440p and especially 2160p the difference is minimal


----------



## efikkan (Oct 13, 2018)

Insinuating that i9-9900K vs. 2700X are the "only" relevant choices for gaming, when the fact is that several cheaper Intel models will still beat the 2700X in gaming. Basing articles on such false comparisons is unfortunate bias, professionals should know better.

i9-9900K is certainly a good CPU, but 8 cores for gaming have no use unless you're doing dual streams or similar.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Oct 13, 2018)

efikkan said:


> but 8 cores for gaming have no use unless you're doing dual streams or similar.



https://www.techpowerup.com/247799/...uirements-revealed-8-threads-8-gb-ram-minimum


----------



## efikkan (Oct 13, 2018)

BarbaricSoul said:


> https://www.techpowerup.com/247799/...uirements-revealed-8-threads-8-gb-ram-minimum


That game only listed a CPU which happened to have 8 threads as minimum, it did not say 8 threads was a minimum. If you read the source and the article properly you would know that.

Threads are not comparable to cores.


----------



## theonek (Oct 13, 2018)

this intel is made for fans only....


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 13, 2018)

It's going to be interesting on the used market - 8700k's are typically found around £250 whilst preorders for the 9900k sit at £600 - Very poor value to have the "best" - whilst having a minimal performance boost.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Oct 13, 2018)

efikkan said:


> it did not say 8 threads was a minimum.



Really? Second sentence from the article-


> First of all is the fact that Capcom lists as minimum an Intel Core i7-4770, paired with 8GB of RAM and an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760.



If the minimum recommendations for the game is a 4c/8t CPU, the game requires 8 threads. If it didnt require 8 threads, they would have listed the i5 4670 as the minimum. And since Intel's newest i7 is a 8c/8t cpu (9700k), 8 threads, whether from 4 or 8 cores, is starting to become the norm. Some games have been able to use more than 4 threads for quite some time now, with some of those using every thread you provide it. Face it, building a gaming system with less than 8 threads/cores is not very advisable these days.

And yes, I am very aware of the difference between a thread and a core.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 13, 2018)

BarbaricSoul said:


> Intel's newest i7 is a 8c/8t cpu (9700k), 8 threads, whether from 4 or 8 cores, is starting to become the norm


And the value on a 8 core intel system? Well here's a hint, it costs a lot more than a 8700k - when it comes we'll compare the value between the two - since in terms of performance it's going to be around 5-10%.


----------



## efikkan (Oct 13, 2018)

BarbaricSoul said:


> If the minimum recommendations for the game is a 4c/8t CPU, the game requires 8 threads. If it didnt require 8 threads, they would have listed the i5 4670 as the minimum.


That's completely untrue. If you knew how SMT(like HT) works, you'd know that it creates more problems than it solves for gaming. SMT doesn't add more cores, it lets multiple threads compete over the same core. This usually have a negative impact on gaming, especially when it comes to stutter. SMT is not a good idea for synchronous tasks like gaming. Once you have 4 cores or more, HT does more harm than good for gaming.

They simply picked one CPU they tested, and that's it.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 13, 2018)

I agree with @efikkan here, it's cherry picked results, funny how the ryzen results were obviously faked, doesn't mean to say these results are too.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Oct 13, 2018)

efikkan said:


> They simply picked one CPU they tested, and that's it.



WOW, I'm done here.



Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> And the value on a 8 core intel system? Well here's a hint, it costs a lot more than a 8700k - when it comes we'll compare the value between the two - since in terms of performance it's going to be around 5-10%.



Where did I mention value? Value does not belong in a conversation when talking about Intel's top of the line CPU.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 13, 2018)

BarbaricSoul said:


> Where did I mention value? Value does not belong in a conversation when talking about Intel's top of the line CPU.


It does belong in this conversation unless your a fool with your money easily parted - this is being advertised at GAMERS - not software other than that, and it terms of gaming the performance gains are pathetic - 5-10% typical gains is puny in terms of high refresh rate gaming and an overclocked 8700k would smash a 9700k in value and performance most likely or at least pull out close.


----------



## R0H1T (Oct 13, 2018)

StrayKAT said:


> Looks like Aussies are in the same place we were in the 80s/early 90s. I wouldn't want it to get worse for them.
> 
> Seems like all of the dealing for slave wages mostly benefits us Americans. I don't like it, personally.


You mean you're a few months behind/away from Aussie prices


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 13, 2018)

BarbaricSoul said:


> Where did I mention value? Value does not belong in a conversation when talking about Intel's top of the line CPU.


Your also contradicting your own statement, your mentioning a 9700k which isn't the "top of the line"


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Oct 13, 2018)

I never said a thing about value. I only mentioned the 9700k because it is the newest listed in Intel's list of CPUs. And right now, it is Intel's top of the line CPU, until the 9900k is released.


----------



## M2B (Oct 13, 2018)

efikkan said:


> That's completely untrue. If you knew how SMT(like HT) works, you'd know that it creates more problems than it solves for gaming. SMT doesn't add more cores, it lets multiple threads compete over the same core. This usually have a negative impact on gaming, especially when it comes to stutter. SMT is not a good idea for synchronous tasks like gaming. Once you have 4 cores or more, HT does more harm than good for gaming.
> 
> They simply picked one CPU they tested, and that's it.




False.
a 4C/4T processor is utter garbage for some newer games such as AC Odyssey and struggles in BF1 Multiplayer.
Nowadays a 4C/8T CPU is much better for gaming compared to 4C/4T. but if you have 8 real cores then SMT does nothing.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Oct 13, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> unless your a fool with your money easily parted



Really? Why do you think I'm still using a 3930k in my main system. I'll say this much, it's not because I could not afford to upgrade.


----------



## R0H1T (Oct 13, 2018)

M2B said:


> *False*.
> a 4C/4T processor is utter garbage for some newer games such as AC Odyssey and heavily struggles in BF1 Multiplayer.
> Nowadays a *4C/8T CPU is much better for gaming compared to 4C/4T*. but if you have 8 real cores then SMT does nothing.


It depends on the games & the generation of (Intel) CPU you're talking about. For instance SMT helps tremendously in case of AMD Zen, for Intel it's hit & miss albeit mostly a hit.
If you go back to the days of Nehalem, you'll find that the HT gains have steadily increased over a period of time, but it's assumed that since Intel's IPC is already so high (*smeltdown* notwithstanding) their HT will forever be just an afterthought, AMD though needs SMT to draw the maximum performance out of its brand new uarch. It could be due to IF, that their IPC is a bit lower, or a number of other factors but SMT (or HT) gains really depend on the application (or games) & the hardware configuration.


----------



## champsilva (Oct 13, 2018)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> If I'm already spending well over $2k, why I wanna skimp out on the processor? I would pick the 9900K over the 2700X coz its obvious that 1.) it clocks at 5GHz, 2.) it beaten the 2700X in more than half of the benchmarks, whether botched or honest & 3.) it's an Intel product. You don't need to fiddle around in the UEFI just so you can squeeze whatever performance there is in it, like AMD.



You forgot to mention that resell is better on intel, Ryzen lost they price too quick.

Pick 1700 as example, $329 release price, now $179 brand new, meaning, you can sell as used max at $160, 1 1/2 year later and you lost $169.


----------



## R0H1T (Oct 13, 2018)

champsilva said:


> You forgot to mention that sell as used part is also expensive, Ryzen lost they price too quick.
> 
> Pick 1700 as example, $329 release price, now $179 brand new, meaning, you can sell as used max at $160, 1 1/2 year later and you lost $169.


You don't count on resale value of used parts when making a budget, do you? For instance AMD cards at the height of mining booms could fetch 2x or more of their asking value, does that count as a win? Also by the same token 5960x & 6950x must be paperweights by now? You'd be lucky to get a grand for 6950x, when in fact that chip debuted at well over *$1700 *


----------



## champsilva (Oct 13, 2018)

Vya Domus said:


> Except if you want to get that 5 Ghz overclock.


You can use software for that =p



R0H1T said:


> You don't count on resale value of used parts when making a budget, do you? For instance AMD cards at the height of mining booms could fetch 2x or more of their asking value, does that count as a win?



Well here in Brazil resale is very important, hardware is freaking expensive here, the 1800X when it was launched price was 715 USD, now is 285 USD.


----------



## Basard (Oct 13, 2018)

BarbaricSoul said:


> When was this? My 3930k system, when it was top/near-top of the line, including the $750 780ti it had when new, $450 motherboard, and the 30" 2560*1600 I paid $700 for used, (this was before 4k, when 2560*1600 was the highest resolution you could get), my system never priced out higher than $3500.


Back when 8MB RAM was high end.....


----------



## R0H1T (Oct 13, 2018)

champsilva said:


> You can use software for that =p
> 
> 
> 
> Well here in Brazil resale is very important, hardware is freaking expensive here, the 1800X when it was launched price was 715 USD, now is 285 USD.


It's expensive in India as well, there's also not much of a resale market for computer hardware, unlike the US or much of western Europe. Therefore when we make a budget, we already take into account what we can afford now, so that the resale value of old parts isn't a hindrance in upgrading.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 13, 2018)

BarbaricSoul said:


> Really? Why do you think I'm still using a 3930k in my main system. I'll say this much, it's not because I could not afford to upgrade.


I wasn't referring to you directly, I'm referring to your statement regarding value.


----------



## GoldenX (Oct 13, 2018)

Ladies and gentlemen, today we present you: Intel, how to f*ck it up fully.
What's next, the dual core Pentiums at $200, being 5% faster than the Athlons at $60?


----------



## B-Real (Oct 13, 2018)

notb said:


> That's me! :-D
> 
> No, they don't.
> I wonder how many of you actually went through the data provided. ;-)
> ...


And now get the real-life usage of a 1080Ti which is minimum 1440P, maybe more often 4K, both of where the difference shrinks to about zero. Moreover, what can you do with 400 fps when the maximum is a 240 Hz monitor?...  And do not forget that they only changed the game mode, they didn't check the memory concerns Techspot and other sites mentioned.



jmcosta said:


> yeah I was a bout to say the same, for those that are looking for performance at this price point it doesn't really matter if its 100-200€ more or less. Many will spend over 2K just in GPUs lol
> There are folk that want to save and its understandable to choose AMD instead since they have a great cost performance ratio.
> 
> anyway
> Hopefully the i9 will have a excellent overclock ability, without a absurd thermal or power throttle



Remember the Techpowerup poll "Are you getting the new Geforce RTX 2000?" Here you go.
6% That's the figure who preordered. 24% was waiting for the benchmarks, 22% was doubting it and 48% voted for skipping the gen. How many of the 24 and 22% were concvinced after the reviews? Maybe 4-5%.



Tsukiyomi91 said:


> If I'm already spending well over $2k, why I wanna skimp out on the processor? I would pick the 9900K over the 2700X coz its obvious that 1.) it clocks at 5GHz, 2.) it beaten the 2700X in more than half of the benchmarks, whether botched or honest & 3.) it's an Intel product. You don't need to fiddle around in the UEFI just so you can squeeze whatever performance there is in it, like AMD.



Again: you get that 1x% difference with a last gen flagship GPU, current gens second strongest. Have you checked how many % of gamers bought a 1080Ti with its correct pricing? I help you: 1,54% according to Steam survey. Let's be generous and say it's 2-2,5%. Most players buy GPUs equal to a 1050--1060-1070. LOL in short.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 13, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> It does belong in this conversation unless your a fool with your money easily parted - this is being advertised at GAMERS - not software other than that, and it terms of gaming the performance gains are pathetic - 5-10% typical gains is puny in terms of high refresh rate gaming and an overclocked 8700k would smash a 9700k in value and performance most likely or at least pull out close.



I don't think that that was Intel's exact intent though. I mean, AMD has and 8-core CPU with SMT for the mainstream market and now Intel has an 8-core CPU with HT. They both handle 16 threads. So let's do some testing, when retail pricing is unknown... and lets push them at the maximum memory speed they officially support.

What are JEDEC timings for 2666 MHz and 2933 MHz?


In the end, Intel wins these tests done by PT regardless, performance-wise. So yeah, they charge a premium for it. If they wanted to directly compete with AMD, they'd have given the same price, and killed ALL of AMD's sales.

But they didn't.

Intel's done AMD a great favor with their pricing here, and rather than be mad about it, we should all be happy.


----------



## coolernoob (Oct 13, 2018)

MrAMD said:


> It costs having the best of the best. Bang for buck goes out the window when all you care for is the most bang.


your logic... can I just walk in the store quote you and they (in store) will be like: "oh, yes sir, take one for free, everybody need the bang... have a nice day" ?


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Oct 13, 2018)

Basard said:


> Back when 8MB RAM was high end.....



Yeah, that was when I upgraded my 2600k system to a 3930k system, and added the 780ti, and pricing it out at $3500


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 13, 2018)

cadaveca said:


> Intel's done AMD a great favor with their pricing here, and rather than be mad about it, we should all be happy.


I agree, they're basically making ryzen an easier sale - the value is more obvious than ever.


----------



## Xuper (Oct 13, 2018)

oh Some of Intel defenders are really hurting , I won't buy CPU because it's best game CPU , I Just prefer to either buy GTX 2080 or a good 4K 40inch Monitor if I have enough budget.


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 13, 2018)

BarbaricSoul said:


> If the minimum recommendations for the game is a 4c/8t CPU, the game requires 8 threads.



The 8 threads is not necessarily the reason the i7-4770 was listed as the minimum.  The higher clock speed could be the reason as well.  Of course, I'm of the opinion that they just were lazy with testing the requirements and didn't bother to test with anything lower, so that is what they listed.  I'm interested in when it is actually released to see what it will actually run on.  Knowing the gameplay of DMC, I really can't see it needing 8 threads, especially when the recommended GPU is only a GTX960.  I've never seen that type of CPU power needed in a non-RTS game.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 13, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> I agree, they're basically making ryzen an easier sale - the value is more obvious than ever.


This provides the opportunity for AMD to grow the market a bit, as well as provide time for Intel to fix any foundry issues, and for Intel get their discrete GPU designs tight. In the meantime, AMD's marketing failures will come to light, driver issues and such will affect them, and Intel will be waiting for the right moment to pounce and snatch all that market back without a problem.

AMD simply CANNOT make enough CPUs to take the whole market, and they have some good engineers too, so why not let them get some money and do some more good work for a while? Both sides win in this one, but I think some people are missing this aspect of it all.



newtekie1 said:


> Knowing the gameplay of DMC, I really can't see it needing 8 threads, especially when the recommended GPU is only a GTX960.  I've never seen that type of CPU power needed in a non-RTS game.



I can see how the timings and such of everything that is going on might need to have things running simultaneously, and how this can help them with future titles as well. Speaking as someone that has played every game in the series since it began, and what's required of it to remain relevant... it kinda makes sense to want at least 8 threads. But I have to say.. 8 REAL threads, not some BS HT threads. Oh wait, what does both Intel and AMD offer now?


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Oct 13, 2018)

If POS Principle Tech's benches show just 12% performance gap, being favourable to Intel still no doubt, my estimate of actual game performance being under 10% faster than the 2700X looks like it will be on the money.

TPU's Gaming Performance Summary will show a gap under 10% I am betting. And in the UK, the cost is DOUBLE that of a 2700X, all for 10-12% more performance, and only at 1080p?!? Get out of here. Wouldn't even be compelling at £375 let alone £575-600.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Oct 13, 2018)

dgianstefani said:


> The big difference between comparing the 9900k and 2700x at stock speeds is the Intel option can OC to another 500mhz minimum, while the 2700x is basically running at its max frequency already. So take that 12% advantage and make it around 20% after tweaking.
> 
> Ryzen at 4.2ghz all core vs Intel at 5.3 is a bit more than 12% I think.
> 
> And that's going with 8700k levels of OC. It's entirely possible the 9700/9900 can do 5.5.



Nonsense.

Read TPU's review of the 8700K and the summary: overclocking it to 5Ghz all-core adds......1-3% more gaming performance. *ONE to THREE percent*, yet you think you'll get another 8% going from 5ghz 2-core boost to (realistically), 5Ghz all-core boost? Come back down to earth.

Also, let's be honest, 5Ghz on all 8-cores is going to draw a horrendous amount of power and will be extremely hot and hard to tame. And before you try and claim 9900K can achieve well over 5Ghz on all 8-cores, I'll believe it when I see it from retail CPUs not cherry-picked reviewer samples.


----------



## Upgrayedd (Oct 13, 2018)

Everyone all fired up over the commissioned review. The most hilarious and shady thing that's happening here is the actual existence of Game Mode and Creator Mode..notice how they went from 110fps to 45fps in FarCry5 by enabling all cores. Monolithic ftw.


----------



## M2B (Oct 13, 2018)

Shatun_Bear said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> Read TPU's review of the 8700K and the summary: overclocking it to 5Ghz all-core adds......1-3% more gaming performance. *ONE to THREE percent*, yet you think you'll get another 8% going from 5ghz 2-core boost to (realistically), 5Ghz all-core boost? Come back down to earth.
> 
> Also, let's be honest, 5Ghz on all 8-cores is going to draw a horrendous amount of power and will be extremely hot and hard to tame. And before you try and claim 9900K can achieve well over 5Ghz on all 8-cores, I'll believe it when I see it from retail CPUs not cherry-picked reviewer samples.




If you are GPU bound overclocking won't make a noticeable difference, i7-8700K is already a beast in gaming and even at stock clocks it won't be a limiting factor in most games so overclocking won't make a big difference. but that doesn't mean the CPU itself doesn't scale well.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i3-8350k-cpu,5304.html

checkout this review, i3-8350K at 5GHz is in another level compared to itself at stock clocks.
video Games will be more CPU-Heavy and GPUs will be much faster in future, that's where and when you start to see the true benefit of great overclocking potential in older/weaker CPUs.


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 13, 2018)

cadaveca said:


> I can see how the timings and such of everything that is going on might need to have things running simultaneously, and how this can help them with future titles as well. Speaking as someone that has played every game in the series since it began, and what's required of it to remain relevant... it kinda makes sense to want at least 8 threads. But I have to say.. 8 REAL threads, not some BS HT threads. Oh wait, what does both Intel and AMD offer now?



I just don't see the game needing 8 threads unless they did some really bad designing.  Plus, they technical specs said i7-4770 or better, it never said 8 threads, so a 6-thread 8600k would, IMO, be better and for all we know run the game just fine.

But, like I said, I think they were just being lazy with the requirements and just picked a high end processor just to not have to hear about the game running poorly because of people trying to run it on Pentiums and crap.


----------



## Batou1986 (Oct 13, 2018)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> 3.) it's an Intel product. You don't need to fiddle around in the UEFI just so you can squeeze whatever performance there is in it, like AMD.


That's not even remotely true the only thing I have changed in my UEFI is RAM to XMP fans other misc stuff unrelated to the CPU, My 2600X happily runs at 4.2ghz 90% of the time without any fiddling.
I don't usually agree with toms hardware but they said it best 





> If you spend some money on good cooling, there's no reason to manually overclock Ryzen 7 2700X. Thanks to XFR2, AMD's flagship should remain stable above 4 GHz, even under full load. Try to go any higher and you'll pay a hefty price in heat, power, and possibly long-term reliability.


 Full article here
Now if you want your 9900k to do 5ghz on more than one or two cores prepare for lots of UEFI time.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Oct 13, 2018)

M2B said:


> If you are GPU bound overclocking won't make a noticeable difference, i7-8700K is already a beast in gaming and even at stock clocks it won't be a limiting factor in most games so overclocking won't make a big difference. but that doesn't mean the CPU itself doesn't scale well.
> 
> https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i3-8350k-cpu,5304.html
> 
> ...



Yes but that guy fundamentally doesn't understand the benefit of CPU frequency to game performance and he doesn't understand current Intel CPU overclocking headroom at all.

I've seen this repeated a few times, apparently the 9900K will be capable of overclocking to '5.3Ghz all-core' which is just unrealistic. I mean, it could under LN2, but you know what I mean. That's the first fallacy/fantasy. The second fallacy/fantasy from that poster is that by overclocking your 9900K at home you'll get another 8% gaming performance over stock (it already has a very high boost clock of 5Ghz on not just one but two cores). What is a realistic all-core overclock for a CPU that is essentially a soldered 8700K with two more cores and 4 more threads? Let's be generous and say 5.1Ghz. Stock 2-core 5Ghz boost vs 8-core 5ghz boost is not going to add anything more than 1-3% gaming performance on average, if that.


----------



## Dave65 (Oct 13, 2018)

Skar78 said:


> Not about the money - but if the gap would be closer i would consider 2800X just to show the finger to intel.



Exactly, Intel doesn't deserve my money.


----------



## RH92 (Oct 13, 2018)

Skar78 said:


> Am I the only one who expects an 2800X as soon as the real performance is in?


Ryzen 3000 series is just around the corner so yeah.....


----------



## R-T-B (Oct 13, 2018)

BarbaricSoul said:


> When was this? My 3930k system, when it was top/near-top of the line, including the $750 780ti it had when new, $450 motherboard, and the 30" 2560*1600 I paid $700 for used, (this was before 4k, when 2560*1600 was the highest resolution you could get), my system never priced out higher than $3500.


80s/90s.  There was a time...


----------



## Basard (Oct 13, 2018)

BarbaricSoul said:


> Yeah, that was when I upgraded my 2600k system to a 3930k system, and added the 780ti, and pricing it out at $3500


No.... Eight MEGAbytes is when systems could cost 5k....  I remember Thinkpads costing over $8k back then--with 486 chips.

You can still build a 5k system nowadays though.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 13, 2018)

Basard said:


> No.... Eight MEGAbytes is when systems could cost 5k....  I remember Thinkpads costing over $8k back then--with 486 chips.
> 
> You can still build a 5k system nowadays though.



But people nowadays don't know how to use a 5K system, nor do they value it at all. All the comments about pricing in this thread show this clearly.

What this threads shows me personally is that people don't truly value high-end hardware, and that we have an excess of compute power available for small cost.


----------



## Basard (Oct 13, 2018)

cadaveca said:


> But people nowadays don't know how to use a 5K system, nor do they value it at all. All the comments about pricing in this thread show this clearly.
> 
> What this threads shows me personally is that people don't truly value high-end hardware, and that we have an excess of compute power available for small cost.



The only thing that I would personally use it for is crunching.  But I do see great value in high-end, expensive hardware--especially if you have work to do that requires it.  I also see the value for gaming, with e-sports and all.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 13, 2018)

Basard said:


> The only thing that I would personally use it for is crunching.  But I do see great value in high-end, expensive hardware--especially if you have work to do that requires it.  I also see the value for gaming, with e-sports and all.


Yet, few seem to understand multi-threaded compute or how doing so can reduce latency. Like @newtekie1 and DMC... latency of all that's going on, and syncing all those data streams properly to a specific FPS cap (and why there are FPS caps) seems unimportant, and cache amounts are unimportant. People tend to look at raw performance in interesting ways these days, and maybe don't understand the benefits things outside the CPU core can offer.

Finding ways to show this properly might be very difficult though.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 13, 2018)

cadaveca said:


> What this threads shows me personally is that people don't truly value high-end hardware, and that we have an excess of compute power available for small cost.


Excluding me, I don't value "high-end" hardware on the main stream for processors - only a HEDT platform is considered truly high end to me.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 13, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Excluding me, I don't value "high-end" hardware on the main stream for processors - only a HEDT platform is considered truly high end to me.



OK, sure, but then...

If you are playing the same type of game over and over with older hardware, then what benefits do new hardware offer?

The same performance, with less power use, and lower cost? Less noise?

Why does everyone need to only consider the top dog in each platform? How are these new top dogs even relevant?

Why is HEDT called High End DeskTop?

LuLz.

I mean, I got mITX 7980XE with 32 GB of ram and triple M.2 devices, with a SATA 6Gb/s boot disc, GTX 1080.

I got mATX TR 1950X with 64 GB of ram, dual M.2, and huge 6 TB mechanical along with SATA 6 Gb/s boot disc, GTX 1080 for video

I got i5-8400 with 16 GB of ram, M.2, SATA 6 Gbps, and a 1060.

I got 2200G with 16 GB of ram.

Where does the mythical CPU in this thread fit in? Mid-grade? What should it REALLY cost? Seems aptly priced, if you ask me.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 13, 2018)

cadaveca said:


> Why is HEDT called High End DeskTop?


Why? Because it's the best possible performance the manufacturer has to offer - I'd have a 7980xe already over my 7740x but I've been awaiting the skylake-x refresh and the cash to custom loop my entire system.


cadaveca said:


> Where does the mythical CPU in this thread fit in? Mid-grade? What should it REALLY cost?


Half the price proposed, £300 should be the max for a mainstream processor at £600 it's simply a joke - it should be considered the mid range of the HEDT platform at that cost. I mean intel has priced it as it is and I'm not complaining since it's going to make a competitive market even more so now, people will still buy it but it's done amd a favor to get back in the game.


----------



## Vya Domus (Oct 13, 2018)

cadaveca said:


> But they didn't.



More like they can't, when your business relies on high margins on products it's hard to steer away from that in an instant.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 13, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Half the price proposed, £300 should be the max for a mainstream processor at £600 it's simply a joke - it should be considered the mid range of the HEDT platform at that cost. I mean intel has priced it as it is and I'm not complaining since it's going to make a competitive market even more so now, people will still buy it but it's done amd a favor to get back in the game.


For me, this should be the price of a top-level quadcore, not a 6-core or an 8-core. AMD screwed the market with Ryzen, and now people expect too much for too little, IMHO.

I paid $1250 CAD for my QX9650. That was a 3.0 GHz quad with 12 MB of cache, and a 130W TDP, a decade ago.


That wasn't HEDT.

So today, a decade later, we got a chip with twice the cores, capable of 166% the speed, with similar cache, for $600? I call that not bad, really.

This new CPU isn't the ever-popular E6600 replacement... It DIRECTLY replaces that old QX9650. It SHOULD cost $1250 CAD.



Vya Domus said:


> More like they can't, when your business relies on high margins on products it's hard to steer away from that in an instant.



See above. we've gone from $1000 USD top-level chips to $600. That's fine by me. In the grand scheme of things, we're getting a deal as of late, and that deal was in place in order to grow the market. That didn't work that well, so now they've been forced to increase those margins a bit again. At least they didn't jump back to what they did a decade previous. I don't blame Intel one bit.


----------



## Vya Domus (Oct 13, 2018)

cadaveca said:


> AMD screwed the market with Ryzen, and now people expect too much for too little, IMHO.



That's certainly a weird thing to say and with an elitist allure to it. But what market exactly did they screw ? There were no 8 cores in the mainstream to begin with or anything of the sort.

Hope they keep fucking up like this forever, I enjoyed buying an 8c/16t CPU with great IPC for little over 250$.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 13, 2018)

Vya Domus said:


> That's certainly a weird thing to say and with an elitist allure to it. But what market exactly did they screw ? There were no 8 cores in the mainstream to begin with or anything of the sort.
> 
> Hope they keep fucking up like this forever, I enjoyed buying an 8c/16t CPU with great IPC for little over 250$.



Well, you know, I'm just looking at the big picture since I left being an enthusiast buying these top-end chips to being a reviewer/writer that gets them for free, and how the market has shifted since then, as I've recently returned to being that enthusiast, and not a reviewer. So now that I have to buy my hardware again, what do I have to spend? Less for more? I mean, yeah, sure those AMD chips are great, and I don't knock that at all, but the shift in people's perceptions of what's needed, and what they expect, to me, is grossly exaggerated, and a big part of why is that $250 8-core, yep.

You've only proved my point.

Now, I'm not saying you are wrong, at all, but man, how things have changed... boy how they have changed.

I've got my mITX 7980XE CPU on my desk in front of me. It's crazy how much more I am getting now for what to me, is so little, both in size, and power use.


----------



## SDR82 (Oct 13, 2018)

Zubasa said:


> No need to fiddle around in the UEFI, or do you?
> One of the first thing people buys Intel K-version CPUs is to go in the UEFI and try to overclock it to 5Ghz+, that is like the biggest advantage Intel has, sheer clock speeds.
> Not to mention run all the stress tests to make sure the OC is stable.



Nope, I pre-ordered the 9900K and I'm not going to overclock it


----------



## Blueberries (Oct 13, 2018)

Price to gaming performance is a useless metric when you're comparing CPUs far beyond gaming tier.


----------



## Dave65 (Oct 13, 2018)

dgianstefani said:


> The big difference between comparing the 9900k and 2700x at stock speeds is the Intel option can OC to another 500mhz minimum, while the 2700x is basically running at its max frequency already. So take that 12% advantage and make it around 20% after tweaking.
> 
> Ryzen at 4.2ghz all core vs Intel at 5.3 is a bit more than 12% I think.
> 
> And that's going with 8700k levels of OC. It's entirely possible the 9700/9900 can do 5.5.



Trying to put a square peg in a round hole... Try harder next time!


----------



## GreiverBlade (Oct 13, 2018)

siluro818 said:


> "There is no bad hardware. Only bad prices."


unless AMD ... price aren't "that" bad, with them ...

oh well confirmed either next Ryzen gen or a 2700X, the 9900K is not worth it, and i doubt the 9600/9700 will do better ... in term of price and well 12% faster is a joke

perf report oh well as long as the 2700X isn't under 60fps it's all right (ashes of singularity? crazy? mah that one is a joke too ... and 55 to 35 is not that horrible ) and it isn't in any of the game i play
no stomping no overwhelming domination (7 month later ... ) except in price (for overwhelming domination) and "look at our benchmark we are better" (for stomping their feet on the ground)


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 13, 2018)

cadaveca said:


> For me, this should be the price of a top-level quadcore


Well that's a joke.


cadaveca said:


> AMD screwed the market with Ryzen, and now people expect too much for too little, IMHO.


Amd fixed the market*


cadaveca said:


> I paid $1250 CAD for my QX9650. That was a 3.0 GHz quad with 12 MB of cache, and a 130W TDP, a decade ago.


Great job for intel ripping you off - that's when they had no competition.


----------



## notb (Oct 13, 2018)

BarbaricSoul said:


> https://www.techpowerup.com/247799/...uirements-revealed-8-threads-8-gb-ram-minimum


You know this is not true, right? A clickbait title, that's all.


----------



## R0H1T (Oct 13, 2018)

cadaveca said:


> Well, you know,* I'm just looking at the big picture* since I left being an enthusiast buying these top-end chips to being a reviewer/writer that gets them for free, and how the market has shifted since then, as I've recently returned to being that enthusiast, and not a reviewer. So now that I have to buy my hardware again, what do I have to spend? Less for more? I mean, yeah, sure those AMD chips are great, and I don't knock that at all, but the shift in *people's perceptions of what's needed, and what they expect*, to me, *is grossly exaggerated*, and a big part of why is that $250 8-core, yep.
> 
> You've only proved my point.
> 
> ...


Alright so does Intel need to charge $500 for an 8 core part, when they own their fabs & pretty much have an iron grip on supply chain & OEM, ODM like HP, Dell, ASUS et al? Do you think it's a coincidence that their supply chain is facing shortages when consumer chip prices are going through the roof, are people still buying overpriced stuff only because it's Intel? What about the enterprise sector, does the coupon code "EPYC" work anymore?

You sound like someone who'd be fine with Intel overcharging for small or some times non existent upgrades. Do you realize how the consumer market is aiding & abetting this greedy company, or Nvidia ~ like the Dells, HPs did in the past ~ even if unwittingly?


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 13, 2018)

cadaveca said:


> Yet, few seem to understand multi-threaded compute or how doing so can reduce latency. Like @newtekie1 and DMC... latency of all that's going on, and syncing all those data streams properly to a specific FPS cap (and why there are FPS caps) seems unimportant, and cache amounts are unimportant. People tend to look at raw performance in interesting ways these days, and maybe don't understand the benefits things outside the CPU core can offer.
> 
> Finding ways to show this properly might be very difficult though.



It isn't that I don't understand multi-threading or how it can help latency.  I just don't believe that 8 threads is needed to achieve the types of latencies needed for any game, even DMC.


----------



## JalleR (Oct 13, 2018)

sooo what i´m reading is..

Gaming on (ry)Zen








Gaming on Intel


----------



## notb (Oct 13, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> And your z370/90 board becomes useless next gen, at this stage your paying as much as a HEDT platform.


To be honest, there's most likely just one Zen generation coming to AM4. AMD said they'll replace the platform in 2020, AFAIR.
Just a tiny part of the market replaces CPUs every generation. This means if you buy into an either system today, you'll most likely have to replace the mobo next time.


Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> 5-10% typical gains is puny in terms of high refresh rate gaming


5-10% is the performance increase we get every year (not including occasional core count increase). In other words, 9900K is a year or more before the competition. Not bad, right?


B-Real said:


> And now get the real-life usage of a 1080Ti which is minimum 1440P, maybe more often 4K, both of where the difference shrinks to about zero. Moreover, what can you do with 400 fps when the maximum is a 240 Hz monitor?


There's a good reason why low-res tests are important. Read about it.
I precisely said the >200fps results aren't interesting, but they give you some idea about CPU performance nevertheless (and how well it copes with high fps).


Shatun_Bear said:


> TPU's Gaming Performance Summary will show a gap under 10% I am betting.


It's hard to say what TPU review will show, looking at what's happening lately. But you may be surprised by results at least from some reviewers. 


Vya Domus said:


> That's certainly a weird thing to say and with an elitist allure to it. But what market exactly did they screw ? There were no 8 cores in the mainstream to begin with or anything of the sort.


The CPU market, obviously. You think that pushing prices down is good for the consumer? Have you ever heard or experienced a phenomenon called "price war"?
It's never good for consumers in the long term. But enjoy your cheap gaming CPU if that's all you care for...


----------



## dj-electric (Oct 13, 2018)

Intel is selling the 9900K CPU for 499$ because it does not want to participate in said price war. It is purely by Intel's choice and has a very clear (seems like at least to some of us) what the intention is behind it


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Oct 13, 2018)

cadaveca said:


> *For me, this should be the price of a top-level quadcore, not a 6-core or an 8-core. AMD screwed the market with Ryzen, and now people expect too much for too little, IMHO.*
> I paid $1250 CAD for my QX9650. That was a 3.0 GHz quad with 12 MB of cache, and a 130W TDP, a decade ago.
> That wasn't HEDT.
> So today, a decade later, we got a chip with twice the cores, capable of 166% the speed, with similar cache, for $600? I call that not bad, really.
> ...



This has got to be the most stupid thing I've read on here in a long time. Intel should charge more and AMD 'screwed the market' by offering more value to us consumers?!


----------



## dgianstefani (Oct 13, 2018)

Exactly. A very basic point so many here seem to be missing. You're not going to be CPU bottlenecked even with a 8600k OC, let alone an 8700k, 9600k, 9700k or a 9900k. People just like to quote apples to apples gaming performance as if average FPS is all that matters.

Fact: Intel 99th percentile low FPS are generally higher than Ryzen average
Fact: An OC'd 8350k (£150) or even a i5 8400 stock (£160) can and will do better than a Ryzen 2700x (£300) in 1080p gaming.
Fact: Intel doesn't give a f**k about your perceived injustices, they make the fastest products and can charge what they like. Considering Intel is beating a 12nm Ryzen with twice the cores/threads against a 14nm+ quad core, 2 year old 7700k in gaming and believe it or not, a lot of Adobe software, I don't really think they're that bothered by your opinion on their latest flagship.
Fact: Ryzen CPU's are great, they're just not as great as Intel ones if a hundred pounds or so surcharge doesn't matter to you.
Fact: AMD is not your lord and saviour, and neither is Intel, buy logically and trust benchmarks that are relevant.
Fact: Being a fanboy and beating on people that disagree with you is not very mature.


----------



## Upgrayedd (Oct 13, 2018)

cadaveca said:


> For me, this should be the price of a top-level quadcore, not a 6-core or an 8-core. AMD screwed the market with Ryzen, and now people expect too much for too little, IMHO.
> 
> I paid $1250 CAD for my QX9650. That was a 3.0 GHz quad with 12 MB of cache, and a 130W TDP, a decade ago.
> 
> ...


Was this a commissioned comment?


----------



## efikkan (Oct 13, 2018)

notb said:


> 5-10% is the performance increase we get every year (not including occasional core count increase). In other words, 9900K is a year or more before the competition. Not bad, right?


Sure, but I still would consider that a "gross oversimplification". Firstly as you know, pretty much all Skylake CPUs >4 GHz are performing close to the same in gaming, so even the i5-9600K($262) will be more than sufficient for gaming.

Even if we assume your 5-10% annual gain, it's not like current AMD CPUs are where Intel's CPUs were one year ago when it comes to gaming. The good news for AMD is that for gaming the CPU only have to be _fast enough_ not to bottleneck the GPU, any performance beyond that might help other workloads, but there are diminishing returns gaming. Even with more demanding games, this is not going to change much for the worse. The bad news is that games represent some of the least scalable types of CPU load. Even just talking about IPC will be too simplified here, since that's more a measurement of throughput across a wide range of workloads, and have many nuances, which pretty much require an engineering degree in software and hardware design to fully grasp. You can put in more resources like ALUs or FPUs, it will help a lot for computational intensive workloads, but does nearly nothing for workloads bottlenecked by cache misses and branch mispredictions. On the other hand, improving the prefetcher will do a lot for such workloads, including gaming. Bumping clocks to compensate for this is not a solution either, since it will not help with the bottlenecks of a prefetcher. So to put it simply, a new hypothetical CPU which may get 10% more single thread performance in average, even through a mix of IPC and clock speed improvements, might still just see a 2% improvement in games.

AMD does have a lot of good design choices in Zen, but they still have a long way to go for their prefetcher. This will probably take several iterations to close the gap almost completely, and it will require a lot of die space, but I do expect them to eventually get there. Probably not next year, but maybe in 3-5 years. I would love for AMD to exceed my expectation, but that would require major improvements in their prefetcher.


----------



## Xzibit (Oct 13, 2018)




----------



## Vya Domus (Oct 13, 2018)

I find it interesting how this turned into an argument about how Intel should keep charging more and how that's actually great for us.

Quite astonishing.


----------



## GoldenX (Oct 13, 2018)

JalleR said:


> sooo what i´m reading is..
> 
> Gaming on (ry)Zen
> 
> ...


I'm a first gen. Ryzen user, to set the memory just right I enabled XMP and then changed frequency to 3333MHz, that's it, same as Intel. After that, happy gaming.
You never overclocked before? Or just a bad troll.


----------



## R-T-B (Oct 13, 2018)

Upgrayedd said:


> Was this a commissioned comment?



Nope, I can tell you Dave is using his own thoughts here.  For better or worse.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 13, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Great job for intel ripping you off - that's when they had no competition.



They didn't rip me off; I was into benchmarking under LN2, and I wanted the CPU with the best benchmark capabilities. Just so happens that the CPU I got was #3 or #4 out of all qx9650, ever. As someone that benchmarks, that cost isn't something you let stand in the way of trying to get a record spot.

That's when Intel's good chips had a "T" next to the s-spec batch number for their really good ones. I found one at the local PC store and dropped cash in an instant. It was totally worth it.



R0H1T said:


> Alright so does Intel need to charge $500 for an 8 core part, when they own their fabs & pretty much have an iron grip on supply chain & OEM, ODM like HP, Dell, ASUS et al? Do you think it's a coincidence that their supply chain is facing shortages when consumer chip prices are going through the roof, are people still buying overpriced stuff only because it's Intel? What about the enterprise sector, does the coupon code "EPYC" work anymore?
> 
> You sound like someone who'd be fine with Intel overcharging for small or some times non existent upgrades. Do you realize how the consumer market is aiding & abetting this greedy company, or Nvidia ~ like the Dells, HPs did in the past ~ even if unwittingly?



You bet I'm fine with it. I don't mind paying top dollar for excellence. I'm not part of the "I'm entitled to the best no matter what" generation. I want top dollar for my own work, too, so to me, if I ask for top dollars, then it is only fair that others do the same. Of course, if you want to be underpaid, then your stance makes sense, to me.

A top-level CPU of any generation should be considered a luxury, and priced accordingly. They should be rare, and not mass-produced. They should NOT be in everyone's computer. Nobody REALLY needs that in their personal PC, anyway. Work PC, depending on that work, sure, it might be required, but for home users... totally not required. Considering the number of people that say you don't need 8 cores or 16 threads for gaming, then yep... I really do think Intel is undercharging, and although many don't want to admit it, their stance is quite close ot mine in that it's excessive.. so excessive price is warranted, in my books.

You all and what I view as your "overly-entitled" opinions is part of why I don't do reviews any more. It's very hard for me to relate to your thinking. I guess I'm just old.



Upgrayedd said:


> Was this a commissioned comment?


I wish. I know it says staff next to my name, but that'll change soon enough. I have no part in this industry any more. I'm just a normal user, just like you.

I'm sorry my opinion is different than yours, but its truly how I feel. Great things need high prices. I don't buy cheap stuff, either... I wait and save my pennies.



newtekie1 said:


> It isn't that I don't understand multi-threading or how it can help latency.  I just don't believe that 8 threads is needed to achieve the types of latencies needed for any game, even DMC.


I don't think 8 threads is required either, but the added cache and overall core design offered by that CPU (not at max speed) does help for sure in keeping those latencies low. Note that it's a 65W i7-4770 (3.4 GHz), and not a 95W i7-4770K.



R-T-B said:


> Nope, I can tell you Dave is using his own thoughts here.  For better or worse.


Well, you know I demand perfection, and expect to pay for it. Not everyone can understand this line of thinking, but then, not everyone can afford to. Oh well. Different mindsets, but that's cool. I appreciate that popular opinion differs than mine, for sure.



GoldenX said:


> I'm a first gen. Ryzen user, to set the memory just right I enabled XMP and then changed frequency to 3333MHz, that's it, same as Intel. After that, happy gaming.
> You never overclocked before? Or just a bad troll.



You know full well you got the right memory to work with Ryzen, and that Ryzen was rife with memory issues at launch, and while they improved over time, are still not exactly perfect. I mean, my TR-1950X has ZERO problems running 3600 MHz, so clearly some of the CPUs are capable of high memory speeds, but not all are, and many boards have poor BIOSes for memory clocking.


----------



## Xaser04 (Oct 13, 2018)

GoldenX said:


> I'm a first gen. Ryzen user, to set the memory just right I enabled XMP and then changed frequency to 3333MHz, that's it, same as Intel. After that, happy gaming.
> You never overclocked before? Or just a bad troll.



Sounds pretty similar to my experience on both platforms (8700K & 2700X) - Install memory, enable XMP, check everything is as it should be and then.. enjoy. 

Meanwhile my other Ryzen system gets a little more.... UEFI playtime. Saying that is does look like this:


----------



## swirl09 (Oct 13, 2018)

StrayKAT said:


> In my eyes, all computers are fairly cheap. They used to be $5000+. And they weren't even workstation class.



Like most things in life, it goes through cycles. Its been on the up recently, so it does feel like we're paying a lot atm. But they certainly are not at a peak, I remember paying hundreds for just a CD-ROM drive when they were the new thing. The list goes on, but stuff wasnt cheap and you didnt have the selection on certain parts that you do now either.

Having said that, the price of RAM does feel extortionate, simply because of what you could get a few years ago. As I was putting together a mock basket today, it felt odd going from 32gb of 3200 cl14 to .... 32gb of 3200 cl14 ram o.0 while paying *double *:O

Am waiting for real i7 and i9 benches and to see if AMD responds. Hadnt originally planned on building a new machine til next year, but with the early arrival of the Ti, I would like something new now.


----------



## GoldenX (Oct 13, 2018)

Xaser04 said:


> Sounds pretty similar to my experience on both platforms (8700K & 2700X) - Install memory, enable XMP, check everything is as it should be and then.. enjoy.
> 
> Meanwhile my other Ryzen system gets a little more.... UEFI playtime. Saying that is does look like this:


Those Founders Edition coolers look so good.


----------



## Xaser04 (Oct 13, 2018)

Purely for testing purposes I am on the hunt for another 690 and Titan (OG).


----------



## Batailleuse (Oct 13, 2018)

2900Mhz memory for ryzen tho. They  sshould have tested with 4200Mhz on both and then the difference would be less Than 5% overall because ryzen scales way much better off ram speed than Intel.


----------



## Deleted member 158293 (Oct 14, 2018)

Latest GPU & CPU hardware releases are for...

High paying enthusiast or spendthrift chumps?

I'm definitely leaving towards chumps.


----------



## GoldenX (Oct 14, 2018)

cadaveca said:


> You know full well you got the right memory to work with Ryzen, and that Ryzen was rife with memory issues at launch, and while they improved over time, are still not exactly perfect. I mean, my TR-1950X has ZERO problems running 3600 MHz, so clearly some of the CPUs are capable of high memory speeds, but not all are, and many boards have poor BIOSes for memory clocking.



It' a very old DDR4 module, it's not Ryzen optimized, it's not Samsung B-die, it's a common, cheap 2400MHz kit, so no excuses, it worked even with the first BIOS.
Newer BIOS versions allowed me to reach 3333 instead of 3200, that's all that changed over time. Maybe expensive RAM is harder to configure?


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 14, 2018)

GoldenX said:


> It' a very old DDR4 module, it's not Ryzen optimized, it's not Samsung B-die, it's a common, cheap 2400MHz kit, so no excuses, it worked even with the first BIOS.



If it's on your B350 board listed in your system specs, then that actually makes sense... the AGESA update that fixed memory issues was out by then. B350 launch was pretty good compared to X370. Many OEMs had figured out the BIOS side of things by then, but there are still many X370 boards with poop BIOSes and memory issues, unfortunately.


----------



## GoldenX (Oct 14, 2018)

That's the risk of being an early adopter, I remember Intel chipsets with SATA controllers losing performance over time.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 14, 2018)

GoldenX said:


> That's the risk of being an early adopter, I remember Intel cheapsets with SATA controllers losing performance over time.


Yeah, sometimes being an early adopter sucks big-time. I had many struggles over the years with pre-launch hardware from both camps. AMD's launch BIOS situation really soured a lot of people on Ryzen, which is unfortunate. I mean, I have the choice of 7900X, 7980XE, TR 1950X for my personal rig, and the intel chips are collecting dust at the moment because I like my AMD system better. I mean, I'm running my TR1950X in a Artic Freezer33 air cooler, and have ZERO complaints, even though this is supposed to be a sub-optimal cooling choice for this chip.

AMd really screwed the launch of Ryzen and X370, sending reviewers out ram kits that weren't Samsung-B with the boards and CPUs in the launch kits, but me, I had tonnes of ram to choose from, and was maybe he only reviewer that used those memory chips for a launch article, and ended up giving ASRock's Taichi board a 10/10 because it worked so well, when everyone else was struggling with their ASUS boards and complaining.

Like don't get me wrong, I think Intel is right to charge so much for their chips, but a big part of that is that those that don't want to pay those prices do have the option of buying an AMD rig for far less. Like  I posted earlier, we should be thanking Intel for making AMD look so much better!


----------



## ORLY (Oct 14, 2018)

I suppose they tested it with 1080ti. With 2080ti the difference would be bigger.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Oct 14, 2018)

notb said:


> 5-10% is the performance increase we get every year (not including occasional core count increase). In other words, 9900K is a year or more before the competition. Not bad, right?.


while being released 7 month after the competition ... SOOOOOO: ROFL!


----------



## R0H1T (Oct 14, 2018)

cadaveca said:


> They didn't rip me off; I was into benchmarking under LN2, and I wanted the CPU with the best benchmark capabilities. Just so happens that the CPU I got was #3 or #4 out of all qx9650, ever. As someone that benchmarks, that cost isn't something you let stand in the way of trying to get a record spot.
> 
> That's when Intel's good chips had a "T" next to the s-spec batch number for their really good ones. I found one at the local PC store and dropped cash in an instant. It was totally worth it.
> 
> ...


I can see where you're coming from, however if games & other applications, which can utilize more cores, are to be mainstream/better than they currently are ~ users need access to cheap(er) cores. There's also the fact that the 9900k isn't the flagship for desktops, at least I don't consider MSDT as flagship.

That's what I have serious a problem with, the market leader today can charge whatever they want & basically get away with it. The likes of Apple, Intel, Nvidia et al can charge obscene amounts of money, exploit slave labour, hazardous working conditions, economies of scale & even trade wars to basically suck out a disproportionate amount of money from the normal user that it's insane, thinking about the piles of cash they have. You're saying Intel is undercharging, how do you explain their ever increasing profits then?

Lastly I see this phrase often times repeated these days, what's "entitled to" supposed to mean in this case? Shouldn't corporations be held accountable to a particular standard, are they entitled to "free money" or no/less scrutiny in perpetuity?


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 14, 2018)

R0H1T said:


> Lastly I see this phrase often times repeated these days, what's "entitled to" supposed to mean in this case? Shouldn't corporations be held accountable to a particular standard, are they entitled to "free money" or no/less scrutiny in perpetuity?



Complaining doesn't really do squat, though. You do have other options for each company you mentioned. Some people pay the price of not caring, and getting the luxuries they want, but that's their choice. No business is beholden to those that truly aren't interested... they are beholden to those that buy their products and pay their bills. 

It's when you don't have a choice that these things should be a problem.

Yet while I do hear where you are coming from, I maybe don't agree that Intel has any requirement to met the needs of everyone. Those that don't like what they do can spend their dollars on other products. That's the benefit of there not being a true monopoly, and why price fixing is illegal. Otherwise, it's all fair game and a company can set whatever price they like for their products, like NVidia has seemingly done with the ultra-expensive RTX 2080 TI. That pricing will force some people elsewhere, and that's perfectly OK.


----------



## GoldenX (Oct 14, 2018)

GreiverBlade said:


> while being released 7 month after the competition ... SOOOOOO: ROFL!


No, that's comparing it to Ryzen 2, if you want to compare a 16 thread 14nm Intel consumer CPU, you have to compare them to the first gen Zen, so, over a year late.


----------



## medi01 (Oct 14, 2018)

It's curious how tone against Intel is quite negative all the way, while anything with "nVidia" in it sounds like  a copy paste from their press release.


----------



## Phyrce (Oct 14, 2018)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> I think for folks who would go balls to the walls spec for their beastly gaming PC, I don't think they even care about price at this point. So far as I know the i9-9900K is capable of clocking 5GHz on all 8 cores thanks to the soldered IHS, unlike the i7-8700K where you need to delid it in order to reach the same level of performance. Same core & thread count as the R7 2700X but has way higher turbo boost frequencies & sustains it better. Also, you don't need to spend more money on Ryzen-optimized RAM kits... even a typical 2666MHz DDR4 RAM kit does the job.




You don't need to delid to hit 5GHZ on the 8700k, just really good cooling. Most people who delid, like myself, hit 5.2 - 5.3 pretty easily. I was able to hit 5GHZ Stable with a 280mm AIO prior to my delid, i was not happy at all with the temps under synthetic loads however (in the mid 80s C)


----------



## medi01 (Oct 14, 2018)

btarunr said:


> The entire testing data follows:


Am I the only person who does not see the resolution at which tests were made?


----------



## btarunr (Oct 14, 2018)

medi01 said:


> Am I the only person who does not see the resolution at which tests were made?



They're all 1080p. Their justification is they're simulating a CPU-limited scenario.


----------



## king of swag187 (Oct 14, 2018)

AM4 is more price for performance but not more performance at this point, unfortunately if you want the best on the market you got to saddle up and pay for it big time


----------



## Smartcom5 (Oct 14, 2018)

*The actual poll's results reflecting pretty much the percentage that processor may have an advantage over – in terms of performance (+12%) versus extra charge (+88) …*





Isn't it incredibly ironic?!


----------



## dj-electric (Oct 14, 2018)

Who would have guess, a niche and expensive product will get less popularity among people.

Shocking.


----------



## Metroid (Oct 14, 2018)

Smartcom5 said:


> *The actual poll's results reflecting pretty much the percentage that processor may have an advantage over – in terms of performance (+12%) versus extra charge (+88) …*
> 
> View attachment 108634
> Isn't it incredibly ironic?! View attachment 108637



Now tell them to make a similar poll 9700k x 2700x, I believe 90% will choose the 9700k over the 2700x.


----------



## ppn (Oct 14, 2018)

Metroid said:


> Now tell them to make a similar poll 9700k x 2700x, I believe 90% will choose the 9700k over the 2700x.



Yeah how that works

2700  € 278,
9700K  € 499

Can € 231 buy me 2080Ti instead of 2080. Not today. 1080Ti instead of 1080. But 2070 is closer to Ti, so there is no faster card that is wort it.


----------



## GoldenX (Oct 14, 2018)

ppn said:


> Yeah how that works
> 
> 2700  € 278,
> 9700K  € 499
> ...


Nice example of using retarded blue CPU prices to justify retarded green GPU prices.


----------



## efikkan (Oct 14, 2018)

Metroid said:


> Now tell them to make a similar poll 9700k x 2700x, I believe 90% will choose the 9700k over the 2700x.


Imagine if they would make a poll without false choices?
i7-9700K, i5-9600K, i7-8700K, i7-8700 and i5-8600K are all better choices for gaming and overall than 2700/X.

And for gaming-only with no OC, i5-8400 and i5-8500 would offer great value at $182, while offering better gaming performance than AMD can offer.


----------



## XiGMAKiD (Oct 14, 2018)

> Yes, try being an enthusiast some time


Did you mean: Yes, try *getting ripped off* some time

Silly quick poll


----------



## trog100 (Oct 14, 2018)

attempting to create an artificial CPU limited gaming situation is pretty stupid anyways.. in a real world gaming situation the GPU is king.. always has been and always will be.. 

both gpu and cpu wise the "best" is now better than it needs to be and people that want it are gonna have to shell out a fair bit more for it.. luckily there are perfectly adequate less costly gaming options..

trog


----------



## FireFox (Oct 14, 2018)

ShurikN said:


> But you do need to spend a LOT of money on proper cooling if you are going for that 5GHz all core.



What's a proper cooling for you and shouldn't the 9900K be soldered?


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 14, 2018)

cadaveca said:


> That's when Intel's good chips had a "T" next to the s-spec batch number for their really good ones. I found one at the local PC store and dropped cash in an instant. It was totally worth it.


Fair enough, for me paying that money out for a quad core in current days would be pathetic however you used it for bench marking which will justify the cost if you've got the cash - in this current era consumers have actually found out they buy what meets their needs, both companies are here to make money and the only way amd can compete is by giving us products at the lowest cost possible against the intel counterpart along with still making money. My overall point is at £600 for a 8c16t is too steep for me to justify -If I were to move from x299 I would buy a 8700k purely because it's a more cost effective solution in the used market where it goes around £235~ at places like CEX in the UK. Paying well over twice that for 5-10% is a joke to me.



notb said:


> To be honest, there's most likely just one Zen generation coming to AM4. AMD said they'll replace the platform in 2020, AFAIR.
> Just a tiny part of the market replaces CPUs every generation. This means if you buy into an either system today, you'll most likely have to replace the mobo next time.


And zen 3 would be the 3rd ryzen processor series to be on am4 unlike intel doing 2 series a board, and it's 7nm - will you be able to replace your £600 9900k and £200~ z390 board with a 7nm processor that yields immense gains? No. Zen is hold back by single threaded performance and clock speed - zen 3 will fix that - I'm not saying AMD is better than Intel here or bashing your intel processor, I'm saying they are both for different use cases and at the current moment AMD has succeeded in compatibility and performance, now compare the 8700k to the 9900k - 10%~ across one processor series, wait until zen 3 and we'll compare the 1800x to the top end zen 3 processor and we'll show you the real gains - and before you say it was slow to start with - that's no valid point here.


notb said:


> 5-10% is the performance increase we get every year (not including occasional core count increase). In other words, 9900K is a year or more before the competition. Not bad, right?


Yeah not bad - give it more years of 14nm++++++++'s and we'll finally be on 10nm and getting a bigger gain than a 14nm chip then we can enjoy more 5-10% gains afterwards while AMD pulls ahead getting on 7nm tech.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Oct 14, 2018)

GoldenX said:


> No, that's comparing it to Ryzen 2, if you want to compare a 16 thread 14nm Intel consumer CPU, you have to compare them to the first gen Zen, so, over a year late.


oh then it's literally 1 yrs after ... oh boy that's even more hilarious ...  being 5-10% faster than the antepenultimate gen ... but well you are semi wrong ... the one i quoted mentioned Intel being a year or two in advance ... aherm ... they are actually not that much forward (unless blind) and their CPU was released 7 month after their current concurrent (which will probably get either a new SKU in the line or a refresh or even the next gen pushed forward) sooooo again... rofl ... ? you would compare it to the 1st gen of Ryzen to affirm their CPU are worth it? (well it's not like a R7 1700X/1800X wouldn't be a viable option over a 9XXX ... since they dropped quit a lot ... )

AMD did it nicely this time ... Intel on the other hand is releasing an over expensive CPU with no incentive whatsoever other than "hey look our box is more impressive in the mainstream than their HEDT" (*stomping their feet on the ground* +100$ to the price.) "hey look in our benchmark we are way faster" (*stomping their feet on the ground pointing at the result, and paying some review or asking for some very specific settings* +100$ to the price.) well ... now we know from where come the 200$ too much their top dog cost  



Metroid said:


> Now tell them to make a similar poll 9700k x 2700x, I believe 90% will choose the 9700k over the 2700x.


depend the country pricing tho ... for me a 2600X or 2700X would be an obvious choice over a 9700K doe to pricing being probably above a 2700X (since it's probably the 9600K that will cost like a 2700X ) or even a 1XXX over a i3


----------



## JalleR (Oct 14, 2018)

Just a BAD troll,  it is just fun to hear that you need to fiddle "that much" with a Ryzen setup to get the exspected performance....

I'm looking for a new cpu, mbo and mem for my wife, but with that and the Price only beeing 50$ deferent 2700x+3200mem vs 9700k+2666mem i will go for the less likely to be a fail in my wifes eyes.

Happy wife, happy life  Intel 4 Life


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 14, 2018)

R0H1T said:


> I can see where you're coming from, however if games & other applications, which can utilize more cores, are to be mainstream/better than they currently are ~ users need access to cheap(er) cores. There's also the fact that the 9900k isn't the flagship for desktops, at least I don't consider MSDT as flagship.
> 
> That's what I have serious a problem with, the market leader today can charge whatever they want & basically get away with it. The likes of Apple, Intel, Nvidia et al can charge obscene amounts of money, exploit slave labour, hazardous working conditions, economies of scale & even trade wars to basically suck out a disproportionate amount of money from the normal user that it's insane, thinking about the piles of cash they have. You're saying Intel is undercharging, how do you explain their ever increasing profits then?
> 
> Lastly I see this phrase often times repeated these days, what's "entitled to" supposed to mean in this case? Shouldn't corporations be held accountable to a particular standard, are they entitled to "free money" or no/less scrutiny in perpetuity?



Companies are not 'accountable' for the pricing of their product stack. That's just the choice they make, and the market determines whether they stick or they don't.

There are way too many people on this forum and elsewhere that suffer from this disease called 'entitlement'. What it means? 'I used to buy this sort of CPU for amount X a number of years ago, so I should be able to do the same today' is one example of it. Entitlement means ignoring every circumstance but your own desires to convince yourself of some twisted truth.

That is exactly what happens on GPU since Pascal and the mining craze and it also happens Intel CPUs because there are cheaper alternatives. Ignoring the fact that Intel still has a performance crown and charges premium for it, because 'I used to be able to buy an i7 in the Haswell days and that was the best Intel had, too'. For GPU: entitlement is why people end up ignoring obvious 'too good to be true' situations and buy cheap knock-offs that turn out to be fakes or half broken cards. And get mad at Nvidia for exploiting their current position. Realistically, though, if you want to get what you want at a lower price, you need to simply not buy something. Restraint is fast becoming a rare quality these days. And whenever you say such a thing, a bunch of people will respond with 'but others will buy it anyway so what's the point' - thát is entitlement (or 'fear of missing out'). Others buy it, so why should I miss out? Why can they have what I can't?

Accountability applies to responsibilities. Entitlement applies to *desire*. And none of us 'need' this hardware to live. Intel has no 'responsibility' to provide us with a product that is reasonably priced for anyone's (realistic or not) standards.

Ironically, you don't even 'need' an Intel 9900K to play games, not even remotely close. You can suffice with far cheaper alternatives and still have a rig that lasts 5 years+. Spoiler: its still not going to be a 2700X as the optimal choice - not even when perf/dollar is your concern. This whole topic title is wrong on so many levels.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 14, 2018)

JalleR said:


> Just a BAD troll


Nice troll yourself there, The funny thing with this launch is it displays most people's ignorance, congrats on taking a 8c8t over a 8c16t. It is a fail, The funny thing is all of this nonsense and ignorance is coming from ignorant fanboys, I've bought what's best for my needs for years, I've owned plenty of amd and intel systems from the early 2000s in particular. There's no better time than now to go with amd - You'd be a fool to buy a 9700k over a 2700x at this stage, I guess your wife won't be happy when she sees zen 3 drop and intel throws out another chipset since the 9900k will be the last supported cpu for z370/90 - any new cpus will be on yet another chipset. How about actually wait for benchmarks rather than pre ordering hardware?


----------



## SIGSEGV (Oct 14, 2018)

dj-electric said:


> Who would have guess, a niche and expensive product will get less popularity among people.
> 
> Shocking.



lol, niche? luxury? not really, it's just a piece of silicon and beyond silly to say that because Intel charges a ton of money then you label it with luxury and niche...
I found it very hilarious, so silly and beyond my comprehension...haha



efikkan said:


> Imagine if they would make a poll without false choices?
> i7-9700K, i5-9600K, i7-8700K, i7-8700 and i5-8600K are all better choices for gaming and *overall than *2700/X.



lol, FALSE!
I believe you don't have any single AMD rig setup. lol


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 14, 2018)

JalleR said:


> but with that and the Price only beeing 50$ deferent


"only 50$ different" - Unless you've got the best available graphics card paired with that 9700k then your compromising performance and  you should put the 50$ saved from a ryzen setup into a 1080 ti or above or even a vega 64 and a freesync monitor.



SIGSEGV said:


> lol, niche? luxury? not really, it's just a piece of silicon and beyond silly to say that because Intel charges a ton of money then you label it with luxury and niche...
> I found it very hilarious, so silly and beyond my comprehension...haha


"luxury" yet chances are he's going to pair a 9900k with a 2080 ti nvlink and a 1080p 240hz monitor to play csgo, a real gamer would work out they're having their wallet eaten unnecessarily - it's fair enough if you've got disposable income though, but most people don't making it a complete joke.



SIGSEGV said:


> lol, FALSE!
> I believe you don't have any single AMD rig setup. lol


I'd take this all with a pinch of salt - Chances are people here are being paid to regurgitate trash, the 8700k is a better buy than any 9 series processor if they absolutely must use intel - intel done amd a favor by moving to 8 cores - AMD can laugh now since intel's basically done them a favor with poor pricing since it's showing the value of ryzen to fools - even the title of this thread shows the truth and reality of intel - premium for performance.


----------



## JalleR (Oct 14, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> "only 50$ different" - Unless you've got the best available graphics card paired with that 9700k then your compromising performance and  you should put the 50$ saved from a ryzen setup into a 1080 ti or above or even a vega 64 and a freesync monitor.




I kinda do, she is using my old 1080ti and i also have the 2666 DDR4 all ready, so i will need to use more Money on the ryzen setup, for optimal performance.

BTW the "Happy wife, happy life  Intel 4 Life " was just a for fun play on words, but maybe this thread is to heated for that   my bad.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 14, 2018)

JalleR said:


> I kinda do, she is using my old 1080ti and i also have the 2666 DDR4 all ready, so i will need to use more Money on the ryzen setup, for optimal performance.


Fair enough.


JalleR said:


> BTW the "Happy wife, happy life Intel 4 Life " was just a for fun play on words, but maybe this thread is to heated for that  my bad.


It's definitely heated it's amd vs intel after all, I never take sides myself  since I'd rather not downgrade myself to a fanboy and people are forgetting there's no way AMD is sitting and sleeping through this launch - they've got something under their sleeve, 12 cores for am4 perhaps.


----------



## HTC (Oct 14, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> It's definitely heated it's amd vs intel after all, I never take sides myself  since I'd rather not downgrade myself to a fanboy and people are forgetting there's no way AMD is sitting and sleeping through this launch - they've got something under their sleeve, *12 cores for am4 perhaps.*



Seriously doubt this. Perhaps with Zen 2 on 7nm but not with Zen + on 12 nm.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 14, 2018)

HTC said:


> Seriously doubt this. Perhaps with Zen 2 on 7nm but not with Zen + on 12 nm.


I don't. Let's face it - the 9900k will beat the 2700x in multi thread and single thread - AMD will win in value ultimately but they need to respond with something, a 10c isn't supposed to be possible for zen meaning it will need to be a 12 core cpu and in the process they'd throw a serious punch at intel - the time is most likely planned for the 9th gen launch - they could still price this 12 core at £400-500 and I'd still be excellent value for those who need that many cores.


----------



## dj-electric (Oct 14, 2018)

SIGSEGV said:


> lol, niche? luxury? not really, it's just a piece of silicon and beyond silly to say that because Intel charges a ton of money then you label it with luxury and niche...


That's the definition of every expensive CPU in the past 20 years, including Intel's 18 core and *AMD's 999$ FX 9590*.
"It is just a piece of silicon" That costs a lot of money and is not intended for a large audience.

On a side note - This thread turned into the biggest sewage tsunami since... ever. Can't recall a worse time to "discuss" matters on TPU. Sad. People on both sides completely lost their damn mind.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 14, 2018)

dj-electric said:


> That costs a lot of money and is not intended for a large audience.


Then tell us, Why did they put a £600 cpu on a MAINSTREAM platform? That's like grabbing a 7900x and shoving it into z370 - it's a HEDT cpu not intended for a mainstream platform - the entire point is it being available to a LARGE audience that's what the mainstream is for.


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 14, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Then tell us, Why did they put a £600 cpu on a MAINSTREAM platform? That's like grabbing a 7900x and shoving it into z370 - it's a HEDT cpu not intended for a mainstream platform - the entire point is it being available to a LARGE audience that's what the mainstream is for.



It is available to a large audience, because it has moved to a cheaper class of motherboards/chipsets that are optimized for mainstream users.

FX 9590 launch price - and btw, I've highlighted some fun similarities.

Perspective, ey? I guess Intel could have easily went for 800 bucks.

Small detail, on top of all that: FX 9590 wasn't even the fastest CPU available.


----------



## dj-electric (Oct 14, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Then tell us, Why did they put a £600 cpu on a MAINSTREAM platform? That's like grabbing a 7900x and shoving it into z370 - it's a HEDT cpu not intended for a mainstream platform - the entire point is it being available to a LARGE audience that's what the mainstream is for.



Nobody said that LGA1151 should be limited to XXX$. It is up to Intel\AMD to decide what CPUs they put in their sockets and how much they charge for it. Just like it is our choice to purchase such CPU or not.

People being mad at certain CPUs being expensive is like being mad a designer handbag costs 9999$. Nobody is forcing you to buy it. If 2700X fits your budget and needs - go ahead, that's exactly what it was intended for.


----------



## JalleR (Oct 14, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Fair enough.
> It's definitely heated it's amd vs intel after all, I never take sides myself  since I'd rather not downgrade myself to a fanboy and people are forgetting there's no way AMD is sitting and sleeping through this launch - they've got something under their sleeve, 12 cores for am4 perhaps.



Me2, fan boys is the worst, totally ignoring/hating any kind of success from a Company you don’t like is just stupid, and that is just another way of slowing Down or stopping great technology being developed.

im not totally agreeing with you on the comment "There's no better time than now to go with amd" because when the Athlon 64 came back in the days it was the same scenario ore even better for AMD"  so lets hope that AMD can keep the steam up, but i can't wait for Zen3 because it is now the 4690k in my wife’s PC is starting to get to small even at 4,3Ghz


But even the BIGGEST Intel fan boy needs to be grate full for Zen, if zen wasn’t here the 9 and even the 10 series Intel would only be 6 cores at best, Especially with the 10nm problems Intel have


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 14, 2018)

dj-electric said:


> Nobody said that LGA1151 should be limited to XXX$. It is up to Intel\AMD to decide what CPUs they put in their sockets and how much they charge for it. Just like it is our choice to purchase such CPU or not.


Well the 8c16t HEDT skylake-x refresh processor costs LESS, and it has 44 pci lanes. 
Yes it's not for gamers but it shows how poorly priced this 9900k is.


----------



## HTC (Oct 14, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> I don't. Let's face it - the 9900k will beat the 2700x in multi thread and single thread - AMD will win in value ultimately but they need to respond with something, a 10c isn't supposed to be possible for zen meaning it will need to be a 12 core cpu and in the process they'd throw a serious punch at intel - the time is most likely planned for the 9th gen launch - they could still price this 12 core at £400-500 and I'd still be excellent value for those who need that many cores.



What i'm saying is the current Zen + chip layout doesn't support it on 12nm. Moving to 7nm will change things due to the shrink of the CCX's size and thus it *should* be possible to fit more then 2 CCXs (or have CCXs with more then 4 cores): this would enable over 8 cores for AM4 socket.

Remember: it's supposed to fit the AM4 socket. Unless ofc they changed this plan which means it *could* be possible to achieve, even on 12 nm.

Supposedly, the 7nm shrink will enable the usage of more then 2 CCXs and / or other changes, such as have the CCX be composed of only the cores while having an "extra CCX" with everything else, meaning up to 3 or 5 CCX total. This is just one of many theories floating around, and i'm not saying i agree with it, *just yet*.


----------



## coozie78 (Oct 14, 2018)

JalleR said:


> I kinda do, she is using my old 1080ti and i also have the 2666 DDR4 all ready, so i will need to use more Money on the ryzen setup, for optimal performance.
> 
> BTW the "Happy wife, happy life  Intel 4 Life " was just a for fun play on words, but maybe this thread is to heated for that   my bad.



Not flaming here but your $50 difference in price is a little disingenuous, how can you fairly compare a full AMD build with an Intel one when you already have the RAM for the Intel build? By the time you factor in memory and CPU cooler the Intel build would be far more expensive...Like I said, not flaming, just pointing out your comment was inaccurate/unfair.

And I got the joke BTW.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 14, 2018)

JalleR said:


> im not totally agreeing with you on the comment "There's no better time than now to go with amd" because when the Athlon 64 came back in the days it was the same scenario ore even better for AMD" so lets hope that AMD can keep the steam up, but i can't wait for Zen3 because it is now the 4690k in my wife’s PC is starting to get to small even at 4,3Ghz


I can't agree with you here, People need to support the underdog when possible to help the market even out - with competition we all benefit, whether your a die hard intel fanboy or amd fanboy or neither. AMD will keep the steam up - they've got the ultimate technology on HEDT - Infinity fabric, intel can't compete with it no matter what - the thread ripper yields are too good for what they are and it's cheap whilst intel struggles to produce. 



JalleR said:


> But even the BIGGEST Intel fan boy needs to be grate full for Zen, if zen wasn’t here the 9 and even the 10 series Intel would only be 6 cores at best, Especially with the 10nm problems Intel have


Actually i'd still likely be a 4c8t 9900k 14nm+++++



HTC said:


> Remember: it's supposed to fit the AM4 socket. Unless ofc they changed this plan which means it *could* be possible to achieve, even on 12 nm.


AM4 is here to stay - I guess we will have to see the response.



Vayra86 said:


> It is available to a large audience, because it has moved to a cheaper class of motherboards/chipsets that are optimized for mainstream users.
> 
> FX 9590 launch price - and btw, I've highlighted some fun similarities.
> 
> ...


The fx 9590 was a failure, It's a poor example. We'll see sales figures with this 9900k - I still think it's a joke to sell a mainstream processor at this price though, But we'll see.



dj-electric said:


> People being mad at certain CPUs being expensive is like being mad a designer handbag costs 9999$. Nobody is forcing you to buy it. If 2700X fits your budget and needs - go ahead, that's exactly what it was intended for.


Comparing a handbag to technology? Get outta here, Well of course nobodys forcing me to buy it - My point is this is basically a HEDT chip being shoved onto the mainstream along with it's pricing - I guess it'll continue to rise since people do vote with their wallets but time will tell.


----------



## dj-electric (Oct 14, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Well the 8c16t HEDT skylake-x refresh processor costs LESS, and it has 44 pci lanes.


I read 589$ there, not 489$. It does not cost less by any means.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 14, 2018)

dj-electric said:


> On a side note - This thread turned into the biggest sewage tsunami since... ever. Can't recall a worse time to "discuss" matters on TPU. Sad. People on both sides completely lost their damn mind.


Don't worry - it's bound to happen - if it get's out of hand, please @ a moderator who is online who can make amendments to this thread, the moderators on TPU are amazing though : )



dj-electric said:


> I read 589$ there, not 489$.


Well - I am putting it in terms of UK pricing - the UK got screwed over since the 9900k is £600 here - the 9800x is unlikely to have messed up pricing.


----------



## HTC (Oct 14, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> AM4 is here to stay - I guess we will have to see the response.



IMO, the response will come with Zen 2 chips and whatever the flagship will be called, meaning it will come a while later, whenever Zen 2 chips are launched.

What i wish for is for AMD to somehow manage to have the infinity fabric not directly tied to the RAM speed but be in a divider instead: this could bring extra speed to the IF, even with slower RAM. I'm thinking along the lines of an extra 1 / 8th or 1 / 6th speed VS RAM speed, via a divider of some sort. This would make IF run with 2400 MHz ram @ 2700-2800 MHz and with 3200 MHz RAM @ 3600-3733 MHz which, due to how RyZen currently works, would be quite a nice boost to performance, even if not changing anything else, VS current Zen +.

As for the topic @ hand, i don't think anyone has mentioned it yet but the I9-9900K has one particular advantage over the 2700X: it has IGP.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 14, 2018)

HTC said:


> As for the topic @ hand, i don't think anyone has mentioned it yet but the I9-9900K has one particular advantage over the 2700X: it has IGP.


I should hope people don't use an IGPU with a £600 processor, this excludes 4k blu ray since you need an IGPU to use blu ray still.


----------



## dj-electric (Oct 14, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> I should hope people don't use an IGPU with a £600 processor, this excludes 4k blu ray since you need an IGPU to use blu ray still.



The IGP is a processing unit capable of giving very serious boost to encoding and decoding features, just like it does in programs like Handbrake

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Quick_Sync_Video


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 14, 2018)

dj-electric said:


> I read 589$ there, not 489$. It does not cost less by any means.


I have the feeling you pre ordered, I hope you enjoy that purchase and it benefits you more than a 8700k will.


----------



## dj-electric (Oct 14, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> I have the feeling you pre ordered, I hope you enjoy that purchase and it benefits you more than a 8700k will.



I work for media, and do not have to purchase hardware, Thankfully. Otherwise would probably use something like a 2600 CPU.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 14, 2018)

dj-electric said:


> The IGP is a processing unit capable of giving very serious boost to encoding and decoding features, just like it does in programs like Handbrake


True Ryzen lacks this, But we'll have to see what AMD do in response - they may sit back or hold it all till zen 3 to dethrone intel - since they're already surviving with ryzen.



dj-electric said:


> I work for media, and do not have to purchase hardware, Thankfully.


Well awesome! - That's an awesome job right there.


----------



## HTC (Oct 14, 2018)

dj-electric said:


> The IGP is a processing unit capable of giving very serious boost to encoding and decoding features, just like it does in programs like Handbrake
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Quick_Sync_Video



That's a very valid reason for the IGP and, other than a "fall back" for main GPU failure, it's pretty much the only one, unless there are other reasons that aren't occurring to me right now.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 14, 2018)

HTC said:


> That's a very valid reason for the IGP and, other than a "fall back" for main GPU failure, it's pretty much the only one, unless there are other reasons that aren't occurring to me right now.


I'm just curious about AMD's response - can't wait to see the market balance occur and that's when the consumers get the best time - I'll need to save for hardware shopping, after I've saved for a 9980xe and a custom loop that is.


----------



## XXL_AI (Oct 14, 2018)

intel still trying to f** their customers with same 14nm cr*p. since microsoft open sourced all their patents, I hope there will be arm powered stable computer that doesn't rely on any x86 instructions, soon, and kill intel, for good.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 14, 2018)

XXL_AI said:


> I hope there will be arm powered stable computer that doesn't rely on any x86 instructions, soon, and kill intel, for good.


We'll see - arm isn't anywhere near as capable as intel and amd.


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 14, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> The fx 9590 was a failure, It's a poor example. We'll see sales figures with this 9900k - I still think it's a joke to sell a mainstream processor at this price though, But we'll see.
> 
> 
> Comparing a handbag to technology? Get outta here, Well of course nobodys forcing me to buy it - My point is this is basically a HEDT chip .



- Failure or not, it had an MSRP that was far higher than this 9900K and it had it for, mostly, the exact same reasons: high clocks, 8 cores, the top end of the product lineup for AMD. Intel 9900K is 100% the same. Whether its a failure or not remains to be seen - that will decide whether the MSRP will be maintained or, in the case of the FX9590, slashed in half (and then some).

- Both Intel 9900K and a handbag are luxuries. You can do the same work with any other CPU, albeit slower. You can carry your wallet in any other handbag, at lower cost, and looking less good.

You may consider things a joke, and that's fine, but that doesn't change reality. You value a CPU over a handbag, not everyone does. You don't value the top-end performance of a 9900K at the price point it is at, but others do. The similarities are all over the place, you need to start seeing them.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 14, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> - Failure or not, it had an MSRP that was far higher than this 9900K and it had it for, mostly, the exact same reasons: high clocks, 8 cores, the top end of the product lineup for AMD. Intel 9900K is 100% the same. Whether its a failure or not remains to be seen - that will decide whether the MSRP will be maintained or, in the case of the FX9590, slashed in half (and then some).
> 
> - Both Intel 9900K and a handbag are luxuries. You can do the same work with any other CPU, albeit slower. You can carry your wallet in any other handbag, at lower cost, and looking less good.
> 
> You may consider things a joke, and that's fine, but that doesn't change reality. You value a CPU over a handbag, not everyone does. You don't value the top-end performance of a 9900K at the price point it is at, but others do. The similarities are all over the place, you need to start seeing them.


The price is the price - buy it if you need it - my main point is the fact that they're ramping up the cost high for a mainstream processor which isn't good for the consumer.


----------



## notb (Oct 14, 2018)

btarunr said:


> They're all 1080p. Their justification is they're simulating a CPU-limited scenario.


False.
They precisely said the choice is because 1080p is the most popular resolution on Steam and it lowers the probability of GPU bottleneck. The Steam part is quite important.


Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Fair enough, for me paying that money out for a quad core in current days would be pathetic however you used it for bench marking which will justify the cost if you've got the cash - in this current era consumers have actually found out they buy what meets their needs, both companies are here to make money and the only way amd can compete is by giving us products at the lowest cost possible against the intel counterpart along with still making money.


The argument here is about how much margin is there for the CPU maker. High margins made Intel a stable, huge, multi-sector giant that it is today.
Low margins made AMD a relatively small, highly specialized company that makes 2 kinds of products, but only one good at a time.
At this point AMD's CPU lineup doesn't even cover the whole Intel offer, i.e. they don't have competing products for a big chunk of what Intel has.

And it's x86 processors were talking about. They run our civilization. And we only have 2 large makers.
This means that if this price war results in financial troubles, Intel will be bailed out just like big banks were during the last crisis. And do you really want a state-owned CPU manufacturer? 


> And zen 3 would be the 3rd ryzen processor series to be on am4 unlike intel doing 2 series a board


Zen 3 is far away. We got Zen and Zen+ for now. Zen 2 is expected to come in 2019 and year after that we should get a new socket or a Zen 2+ at best.


Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Then tell us, Why did they put a £600 cpu on a MAINSTREAM platform? That's like grabbing a 7900x and shoving it into z370 - it's a HEDT cpu not intended for a mainstream platform - the entire point is it being available to a LARGE audience that's what the mainstream is for.


Why not? Why do we even need 2 sockets for consumers? 
HEDT is just a showcase product. It has no meaningful position in Intel's lineup. It's not made for professional use, it's not the best choice for gaming and it's way overpowered for any other consumer use case.
We should be happy that Intel is moving high-core CPUs to the mainstream offer.


----------



## londiste (Oct 14, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> my main point is the fact that they're ramping up the cost high for a mainstream processor which isn't good for the consumer.


Didn't AMD start with that last year, even at the exact same price point?

I have to be curious though, what's with Intel yelling about gaming performance, especially around 9900K. Shouldn't that be objectively faster than 2700x in everything?


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 14, 2018)

londiste said:


> Didn't AMD start with that last year, even at the exact same price point?


Wrong. Ryzen is priced well - so is the 8700k - however the 9900k is too poor value for gamers, it makes more sense to put the difference into a better monitor or graphics card. 



notb said:


> Why not? Why do we even need 2 sockets for consumers?
> HEDT is just a showcase product. It has no meaningful position in Intel's lineup. It's not made for professional use, it's not the best choice for gaming and it's way overpowered for any other consumer use case.
> We should be happy that Intel is moving high-core CPUs to the mainstream offer.



Why do we need 2? Well show me a z390 board with the support for devices my x299 gaming carbon has, 8 sata ports, 4 pci x16's, 8 ram slots, this list could go on - this is all high end stuff - not mainstream. If I didn't need all this I would still be using my z270x gaming 7 rig with a 6600k but I don't, It gathers dust now. Yeah and let's bring HCC cpus to the mainstream and ramp up the price in the process - 8700k goes for around £300 new and yet 2c4t adds on £300 - what happened there? And FYI most people still run 1060 6gb's and 1080p monitors - that's where the main market is.


----------



## Vya Domus (Oct 14, 2018)

londiste said:


> Didn't AMD start with that last year, even at the exact same price point?



How so ? You mean first gen Ryzen ?



londiste said:


> what's with Intel yelling about gaming performance



They are simply trying to appeal to the only kinds of people that would be interested in this sort of product. And those are 8700K and 7700K users. Everyone else would either go for X299 or TR at that price point if they seek workstation type use cases or go to the much cheaper Ryzen CPUs or 8th gen Intel.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 14, 2018)

notb said:


> And it's x86 processors were talking about. They run our civilization. And we only have 2 large makers.
> This means that if this price war results in financial troubles, Intel will be bailed out just like big banks were during the last crisis. And do you really want a state-owned CPU manufacturer?


Of course, Please state where I said not to buy intel - that's not my decision, I'm just stating an opinion.



Vya Domus said:


> How so ? You mean first gen Ryzen ?


Exactly - How is ryzen poorly priced? An 8c16t intel processor cpu costs a hell of a lot more than a 8c16t ryzen.


----------



## londiste (Oct 14, 2018)

Vya Domus said:


> How so ? You mean first gen Ryzen ?


Yes. 1800X debuted with $499 MSRP.
From Intel's ARK 9900K Recommended Customer Price is $488 - $499.


----------



## Vya Domus (Oct 14, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> How is ryzen poorly priced?



It's not even about the price, there were no competing products from Intel in that segment. And I would say AMD had a fairly wide price range for those first gen Ryzen CPUs, from 300$ to 500$, and that upper bound is similar to Intel's pricing.



londiste said:


> Yes. 1800X debuted with $499 MSRP.
> From Intel's ARK 9900K Recommended Customer Price is $488 - $499.



And ? What are you trying to say ?


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 14, 2018)

Vya Domus said:


> there were no competing products from Intel in that segment.


Exactly - the 1800x could sell like mad at the price they wanted, because intel had nothing to offer but HEDT cpus at a higher cost, that justified the pricing - at this stage however the 9900ks price isn't justified, the 8700k offers superior value in every way if you want to use intel. The difference is minimal yet the cost is massively different.


----------



## londiste (Oct 14, 2018)

It wasn't what I was trying to say but what @Xx Tek Tip xX said.


Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> my main point is the fact that they're ramping up the cost high for a mainstream processor which isn't good for the consumer.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 14, 2018)

londiste said:


> It wasn't what I was trying to say but what @Xx Tek Tip xX said.


Your clearly not thinking correctly here, Show me a intel 6c12t that came out before the 1800x did.

The point is intel was milking people from 4c8t's - the 1800x's price is only justified then - it's twice the cores and threads than the 6700k/7700k - by putting this price they would rip through intels marketshare - that's also why they cut the MSRP for when zen+ dropped, they needed the cash to compete - there is already a 8c16t amd processor and yet intel shoves up the msrp pretending ryzen doesn't exist.


----------



## notb (Oct 14, 2018)

HTC said:


> That's a very valid reason for the IGP and, other than a "fall back" for main GPU failure, it's pretty much the only one, unless there are other reasons that aren't occurring to me right now.


How about simply not having to use a dGPU? 
The CPUs we're discussing now are all unlocked variants for custom build systems. But non-K variants will follow soon.
AMD is locked at 4 cores with their Ryzen APUs. Intel offers 6 and will move to 8 soon enough.
Funny how a company that can make both high-end CPUs and GPUs, is voluntarily marginalized in the IGP market...


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 14, 2018)

People fail to understand - FX was a FAILURE - We can't hide the fact that intel crushed it with skylake, I owned a am3+ system myself and felt ripped off and moved to intel, You can't ignore the fact that AMD is the underdog - if their product is rubbish the company is at threat - they are not intel, they are basically broke in comparison. Ryzen HAD to be priced high, it was an opportunity you can't miss and the ONLY way back into the game - if they priced it cheap they won't make enough profit - their staff has to get paid and that is nowhere near cheap. By selling it at this price it brought them back to compete - if you worked for their marketing team and priced the 1800x at much less than that - You would've made AMD fail and you would've been sued for sabotage. The 1800x also helped AMD gain R&D - If you haven't realized intel invests BILLIONS - AMD have nowhere near that even raja from radeon said it HIMSELF. And your forgetting that AMD is not just a processor manufacturer they are dual yielding the graphics AND processor market - intel had tried to get into the graphics market but have failed to multiple times - they're even trying to by 2020 now.
R&D was also the reason vega was considered a failure: 







They only had 10% of the resources nvidia has and AMD is competing in 2 markets not one.


----------



## R0H1T (Oct 14, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> Companies are not 'accountable' for the pricing of their product stack. That's just the choice they make, and the market determines whether they stick or they don't.
> 
> There are way too many people on this forum and elsewhere that suffer from this disease called *'entitlement'*. What it means? 'I used to buy this sort of CPU for amount X a number of years ago, so I should be able to do the same today' is one example of it. Entitlement means ignoring every circumstance but your own desires to convince yourself of some twisted truth.
> 
> ...


Except I don't, I said the same thing in the Pascal thread as well. If something is not in my budget, & I may or may not "want" it, I won't buy it.

Conveniently, of course, you side stepped the issues I listed in the 2nd para. Why are corporations able to make so much money, pay so few taxes & continue to exert an ever increasing influence over our lives & in politics too?

I'm sure you won't address it, since that's off topic but there seems to be a trend here & one which I don't agree with.

Entitlement is a funny word, because I find it slightly amusing that corporations can *show misleading results & yet are entitled to all the profits* based on those results? Do you remember 3.5GB from you know who?


----------



## JalleR (Oct 14, 2018)

coozie78 said:


> Not flaming here but your $50 difference in price is a little disingenuous, how can you fairly compare a full AMD build with an Intel one when you already have the RAM for the Intel build? By the time you factor in memory and CPU cooler the Intel build would be far more expensive...Like I said, not flaming, just pointing out your comment was inaccurate/unfair.
> 
> And I got the joke BTW.



I don’t, the prices is today’s prices for cpu and MEM for both setups, Motherboard excluded


----------



## Metroid (Oct 14, 2018)

Intel will only use solder on 9600k, 9700k and 9900k, so your only choice is one of them, price per core = 9600k $262 % 6 = 43.6 usd, 9700k $374 % 8 = 46.75 usd, 9900k $488 % 10 cores cause 8 threads = 25% more performance overall so, 48.8 usd per core, for games the best choice is clear the 9600k, almost 5.0ghz.


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 14, 2018)

R0H1T said:


> Except I don't, I said the same thing in the Pascal thread as well. If something is not in my budget, & I may or may not "want" it, I won't buy it.
> 
> Conveniently, of course, you side stepped the issues I listed in the 2nd para. Why are corporations able to make so much money, pay so few taxes & continue to exert an ever increasing influence over our lives & in politics too?
> 
> ...



I will address it. First off however, I never said that YOU were 'an entitled person'. Just a general remark on 'people' or 'your average consumer'. And then only the vocal ones, really.

Why are corporations able to make so much money > because different (tax) rules apply to them > and that happens because governments and countries want to attract those big corporations and companies because it also helps their economy. Its a catch 22. The same with the race to the top for CEO salary: its a hot topic in Netherlands, and one that will never really cease, but this is the sheer force of capitalism and always needing/wanting more at work right here. It has nothing to do with the price companies may or may not charge for a product and it has nothing to do with the margin on that price point. The real reason companies get rich, and more importantly, why the fat toads get even fatter, is because that is how money, power and influence simply works. It needs correcting, I agree, but that won't ever - EVER - happen through the price of a product for consumers.

As for punishing misleading results: yes, there should be more severe punishment of it, but the 3.5GB example was one of the few that wás actually punished and led to a sentence.

You seem to be mixing up several things here. Because even with misleading results, the reality is no different and even with the corrected results, there is a performance gap that Intel will, can and should be cashing in on. Its not like the Intel CPU is in fact slower than the cheaper alternative. The gap is just a bit less pronounced as it was made out to be.

As for 'entitled' to all the profits - that's a wrong use of the definition. They are not entitled to anything. They have created a (misleading) reality that some people will fall for, and many in fact do not. This goes back to the eternal argument that AMD can do whatever they won't be successful because Intel and Nvidia are evil and control the market. Its simply not true. The AMD offerings are often really, truly not that much of an advantage, OR they fail to sell them in the right way. History is filled to the brim with AMD PR and marketing fails. When something is going wrong, and you start pointing fingers at others to blame, you had best make sure you've got everything perfectly in order in your own house first... otherwise you're easy prey. Look at Intel, recently with their multitude of PR fails and security issues. Those have made AMD all the more interesting as an alternative.

Its that simple back and forth of mindshare that is of great influence to price. And in that tiny space, us, consumers, still have some real weight. Yes, it matters what an internet community says about a new release. Yes, it matters that we identify the 9900K as essentially overpriced. But its wrong to think that Intel 'should' price it lower. We do not know their strategy for the mid- or long term at all.


----------



## Upgrayedd (Oct 14, 2018)

cadaveca said:


> A top-level CPU of any generation should be considered a luxury, and priced accordingly. They should be rare, and not mass-produced. They should NOT be in everyone's computer. Nobody REALLY needs that in their personal PC, anyway.


The way you were talking and comparimg old CPUs and prices to current ones just sounded silly. Yeah the best is expensive but it doesn't get exponentially expensive every generation. Just cause they squeezed over $1k out of you for a non HEDT doesn't mean they should be squeezing $5k now cause the new ones are soooo much faster than the past ones and faster than anyone truly needs them to be. Cmon m8 with that logic the corvette should be a million dollars by now. People improve upon designs to sell an improved product at a similar price not to make an entirely new price segment year after year, cause you know they found a way to improve it. I'm like you, all for getting what you pay, I usually feel like you get what you pay for and the more expensive the item USUALLY reflects quality though not always.


----------



## arterius2 (Oct 14, 2018)

StrayKAT said:


> I imagine most things were more expensive back then because we didn't rely on near-slave labor. I don't think that's progress.


Are you an idiot? Do you have any idea of how the world works and basic economics?
Things are cheaper now because of supply and demand, streamlined supply and production lines and most importantly, automation.
Read a book.


----------



## R-T-B (Oct 14, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Chances are people here are being paid to regurgitate trash



I find that more improbable than people just acting like fanboys...


----------



## notb (Oct 14, 2018)

Metroid said:


> Intel will only use solder on 9600k, 9700k and 9900k, so your only choice is one of them, price per core = 9600k $262 % 6 = 43.6 usd, 9700k $374 % 8 = 46.75 usd, 9900k $488 % 10 cores cause 8 threads = 25% more performance overall so, 48.8 usd per core, for games the best choice is clear the 9600k, almost 5.0ghz.


Please don't use "%" as a division operator. It's a modulo operator. :-D
I know they teach that in elementary schools in many countries, but this notation is awful and it just makes an unnecessary confusion as people expand their math knowledge.

As for the CPUs: you're obviously right. The {gen}600 model has been the gaming "value" choice for a while. That's the way Intel positions the CPUs.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 14, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> I find that more improbable than people just acting like fanboys...


Most likely - either way though it's funny how far people go to defend a company - I mean none of them actually care about us, they just want the money and that's how it works.


----------



## R0H1T (Oct 14, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> I will address it. First off however, I never said that YOU were 'an entitled person'. Just a general remark on 'people' or 'your average consumer'. And then only the vocal ones, really.
> 
> Why are corporations able to make so much money > because different (tax) rules apply to them > and that happens because governments and countries want to attract those big corporations and companies because it also helps their economy. Its a catch 22. The same with the race to the top for CEO salary: its a hot topic in Netherlands, and one that will never really cease, but this is the sheer force of capitalism and always needing/wanting more at work right here. It has nothing to do with the price companies may or may not charge for a product and it has nothing to do with the margin on that price point. The real reason companies get rich, and more importantly, why the fat toads get even fatter, is because that is how money, power and influence simply works. It needs correcting, I agree, but that won't ever - EVER - happen through the price of a product for consumers.
> 
> ...


I am but it leads to the same conclusion for me i.e. corporations should be held to a higher standard than they are atm. We can't do much about say coltan, since that's an international issue, but when companies lie/mislead/cheat to the end user we absolutely have the power to punish them & IMO companies shouldn't be rewarded for dishonesty. Take the case of this NUC for instance ~ https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/boards-kits/nuc/kits/nuc7pjyh.html

Supposed to be dual channel, except it isn't "enabled" btw I don't know if it's a problem with all Gemini Lake parts or just that NUC, since I've seen more than half a dozen N5000 laptops & none of them have DC.

No, in the context of this thread I'll say Intel have a history of being more anti consumer, than AMD, especially in the last 10~15 years, that's how I remember it anyway. As a general comment, we can't rely on any of these companies, including AMD & I remember that 560/x GPU thing.

That's not my point really, it's just that Intel can't or shouldn't sell chips based on questionable benchmarks & that practice should never be defended, be it* Apple*/Intel/Nvidia or AMD.


----------



## StrayKAT (Oct 14, 2018)

arterius2 said:


> Are you an idiot? Do you have any idea of how the world works and basic economics?
> Things are cheaper now because of supply and demand, streamlined supply and production lines and most importantly, automation.
> Read a book.



Looks like I touched a nerve.

Yes, I read. This doesn't change that a huge part of the supply line are getting paid very little. Or did I wake up in a magical world where labor costs suddenly don't matter? Sounds cool. I come from a world where wars are fought over this.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 14, 2018)

StrayKAT said:


> Looks like I touched a nerve.
> 
> Yes, I read. This doesn't change the fact that a huge part of the supply line are getting paid very little. Or did I wake up in a magical world where labor costs suddenly don't matter? Sounds cool. I come from a world where wars are fought over this.


I think he forgets that the bulk of silicone is produced in China where other countries rely on cheap labor for.


----------



## Paganstomp (Oct 14, 2018)

12% isn't a hole hella lot.


----------



## trog100 (Oct 14, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Wrong. Ryzen is priced well - so is the 8700k - however the 9900k is too poor value for gamers, it makes more sense to put the difference into a better monitor or graphics card.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we need 2? Well show me a z390 board with the support for devices my x299 gaming carbon has, 8 sata ports, 4 pci x16's, 8 ram slots, this list could go on - this is all high end stuff - not mainstream. If I didn't need all this I would still be using my z270x gaming 7 rig with a 6600k but I don't, It gathers dust now. Yeah and let's bring HCC cpus to the mainstream and ramp up the price in the process - 8700k goes for around £300 new and yet 2c4t adds on £300 - what happened there? And FYI most people still run 1060 6gb's and 1080p monitors - that's where the main market is.



an 8700K is currently £460 from Scan UK.. lets be a at least a little bit accurate..

trog


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Oct 14, 2018)

Those defending Intel's terrible pricing here make me laugh. Tell you what, you guys get together and organise a fundraiser for your favourite multi-billion dollar company Intel. They could do with a few more bob.


----------



## NeuralNexus (Oct 14, 2018)

*I find the 9000 series to be pricey and pointless with AMD preparing Ryzen 3000 series just months away. CES 2019 should give consumers an idea of what Ryzen will be like given that Epyc is what Ryzen is based on. 7nm with 15-20% IPC gains, higher clock speeds, and refinements should be beastly. The wait and see approach should want many INTEL fanboys should be doing at this moment.*



Shatun_Bear said:


> Those defending Intel's terrible pricing here make me laugh. Tell you what, you guys get together and organise a fundraiser for your favourite multi-billion dollar company Intel. They could do with a few more bob.



They are straight morons for justifying INTEL milking their bank accounts for minimum performance improvements.


----------



## notb (Oct 15, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Most likely - either way though it's funny how far people go to defend a company - I mean none of them actually care about us, they just want the money and that's how it works.


How could we not defend a company that is one of the pillars of IT in our civilization?

You don't have to admire Intel and you might not even respect their contribution to computing (which would be weird for a wannabe enthusiast), but you should understand their importance for stability of this business and the general reality around us.
Do you like pizza? Imagine there was a single company selling 90% of pizzas globally. I'm sure you wouldn't want that company to have any problems. 

I work in insurance - and industry that's constantly plagued by price wars. People don't like paying for insurance, but they have to. And the business is very scale-dependent, i.e. a large market share greatly improves your margins. Hence, smaller companies are selling policies at dumping prices just to get a large client base. It's easier to renew a client than convince a new to join. So it makes sense to sell them a product at a loss. If they stay for another 1-2 years, we'll make a profit in the end.

I look at CPU business and I see some analogies. For example: you have a huge technological cost for R&D and product release. Clients are rather loyal to brands. And most importantly: people have to buy CPUs - it's just a matter of whom to buy from.
I'm not saying AMD margins are too low for making their business stable. But business-wise it wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea for them to sell even at a loss now, but get up to 20-30% market share and gain some momentum.
On the other hand, it would be totally sensible for Intel to realize that there's a particular group of people that's naturally pulled towards AMD's characteristics and fighting for them is very expensive, so sustaining 90% market share simply costs way too much. Maybe someone had the balls to stand up during a meeting and say: _let's give up - it's better to sell 7 CPUS for $500 than 9 for $300._


----------



## vMax65 (Oct 15, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> There is no need to think. In single threaded scenario's you can see in the provided tests both Game and Creator Mode FPS remains the same on Ryzen. That is where you see the real absolute performance gap if you would all core OC the Intel 9900K. It _starts at 20%_ and goes up to ~ 40% in a pure single threaded scenario such as CS:GO.
> 
> That is, of course, if you are not GPU limited in any way.
> 
> ...



You absolutely hit the nail on the head on generating more clicks and the real differential in performance game to game and GPU limits.. As importantly to those that seem to place Intel as the bad player in this marketing FUD world we live in, AMD also have a terrific track record in FUD, with the Vega debacle and some of the marketing FUD they released prior to release... And lets not forget the slew of promised great CPU's that failed to materialise prior to Ryzen...Most if not all company's will do whatever they can to get there products the maximum exposure including skewing results to suit there needs...both AMD and Intel have played this game...Intel with vastly greater resources obviously has done this to the max...

I take my hat of to AMD for coming back into the CPU and GPU business with a bang and finally bringing real competition to the table that has so sorely been missing and importantly, this was not Intel's fault that AMD could not compete for quiet some time. What I do find wrong is that Intel are not learning fast enough that they have real competition in AMD, especially in the Pricing area. Intel could and should have released the new 9th Gen CPU's at a lower price, still above AMD but not at the level we are currently seeing...$400 for the 9900K would have been acceptable and would have given AMD a real headache...But margins are what Intel are after, not market share like AMD.

Bottom line, I hate the fanboyism that permeates this enthusiast PC hardware sector, both AMD and Intel are making great products and personally we have such a great choice across all price points and seriously powerful CPU's to suit all...boy have things changed from my teens in the 80's. Buy AMD...great, your getting real value for your money, buy Intel great, your getting top end performance or your money.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 15, 2018)

NeuralNexus said:


> They are straight morons for justifying INTEL milking their bank accounts for minimum performance improvements.



More like milking the bank accounts of those foolish enough to buy one. There's a distinct difference.



Shatun_Bear said:


> Those defending Intel's terrible pricing here make me laugh. Tell you what, you guys get together and organise a fundraiser for your favourite multi-billion dollar company Intel. They could do with a few more bob.



You've got it wrong... again, Intel is doing AMD a favor here, making AMD look that much better.




Upgrayedd said:


> The way you were talking and comparimg old CPUs and prices to current ones just sounded silly. Yeah the best is expensive but it doesn't get exponentially expensive every generation. Just cause they squeezed over $1k out of you for a non HEDT doesn't mean they should be squeezing $5k now cause the new ones are soooo much faster than the past ones and faster than anyone truly needs them to be. Cmon m8 with that logic the corvette should be a million dollars by now. People improve upon designs to sell an improved product at a similar price not to make an entirely new price segment year after year, cause you know they found a way to improve it. I'm like you, all for getting what you pay, I usually feel like you get what you pay for and the more expensive the item USUALLY reflects quality though not always.


I am not suggesting they charge 5x what they did a decade ago; I'm suggesting they should have bene charging the same thing all along, but they haven't been. The launch of the 2600K so long ago, at such a reasonable price, drastically changed things. They could afford to do so, because AMD's competition really did not compete. So now that there is real competition, they HAVE to increase the price back to the levels they were so long ago, when AMD was competing. Intel needs to sell more innovations like 16 threads along with an IGP, and do things like bring back soldered IHS...

That's why I look to times long past... the time when AMD was selling the Athlon X2 and Phenom CPUs, and Intel was struggling with heat issues (prescott, or pressHOT, as it was commonly referred to). The parallels between these two times are too many to count.


----------



## mcraygsx (Oct 15, 2018)

NeuralNexus said:


> *I find the 9000 series to be pricey and pointless with AMD preparing Ryzen 3000 series just months away. CES 2019 should give consumers an idea of what Ryzen will be like given that Epyc is what Ryzen is based on. 7nm with 15-20% IPC gains, higher clock speeds, and refinements should be beastly. The wait and see approach should want many INTEL fanboys should be doing at this moment.*
> 
> 
> 
> They are straight morons for justifying INTEL milking their bank accounts for minimum performance improvements.




Where is the public apology we were all expecting from INTEL and their Pickle technologies buddy?


----------



## TheGuruStud (Oct 15, 2018)

vMax65 said:


> You absolutely hit the nail on the head on generating more clicks and the real differential in performance game to game and GPU limits.. As importantly to those that seem to place Intel as the bad player in this marketing FUD world we live in, AMD also have a terrific track record in FUD, with the Vega debacle and some of the marketing FUD they released prior to release... And lets not forget the slew of promised great CPU's that failed to materialise prior to Ryzen...Most if not all company's will do whatever they can to get there products the maximum exposure including skewing results to suit there needs...both AMD and Intel have played this game...Intel with vastly greater resources obviously has done this to the max...
> 
> I take my hat of to AMD for coming back into the CPU and GPU business with a bang and finally bringing real competition to the table that has so sorely been missing and importantly, this was not Intel's fault that AMD could not compete for quiet some time. What I do find wrong is that Intel are not learning fast enough that they have real competition in AMD, especially in the Pricing area. Intel could and should have released the new 9th Gen CPU's at a lower price, still above AMD but not at the level we are currently seeing...$400 for the 9900K would have been acceptable and would have given AMD a real headache...But margins are what Intel are after, not market share like AMD.
> 
> Bottom line, I hate the fanboyism that permeates this enthusiast PC hardware sector, both AMD and Intel are making great products and personally we have such a great choice across all price points and seriously powerful CPU's to suit all...boy have things changed from my teens in the 80's. Buy AMD...great, your getting real value for your money, buy Intel great, your getting top end performance or your money.



Using performance metrics from a 14 yr old game engine isn't proving anything. More baloney results. It doesn't even have anything to do with single/multithreading. Source straight up runs like doo doo on ryzen.

Don't agree with the dumb dumb. He's saying that intel leads by 40% in ST, but is knocked down to 12% in MT with 15% ish higher clocks. Tell me, where is all that intel IPC at? It doesn't exist. You can conclude that intel currently has a few percent IPC lead lol. And that doesn't include optimized memory for ryzen.

Dummy is flat out wrong or AMD makes the most superior CPU to ever exist for the next 20 yrs b/c of its SMT. Intel's only tangible lead is in freq and/or applications optimized only for intel (which is most everything).

Ever see game benchmarks with all CPUs locked to 4ghz? It's not rosy for intel's ipc "superiority".


----------



## Rahmat Sofyan (Oct 15, 2018)

AMD . . .
Smarter . . .
Choice . . .


----------



## Prima.Vera (Oct 15, 2018)

A different question:

How are the motherboards for AMD 2xxx vs Intel's 9xxx processors??

I'm talking about hardware and software features wise, nr of PCI-E lines, etc

Thank you.


----------



## Metroid (Oct 15, 2018)

NeuralNexus said:


> *I find the 9000 series to be pricey and pointless with AMD preparing Ryzen 3000 series just months away. CES 2019 should give consumers an idea of what Ryzen will be like given that Epyc is what Ryzen is based on. 7nm with 15-20% IPC gains, higher clock speeds, and refinements should be beastly. The wait and see approach should want many INTEL fanboys should be doing at this moment.*
> 
> 
> 
> They are straight morons for justifying INTEL milking their bank accounts for minimum performance improvements.



The question is, when will they be released? If is August next year then i say is pointless to wait, now if is February / march then is worth the wait.

Showcase on "The AMD CES keynote will take place on January 9 at 9 AM PT. " and release on March seems an ideal thing to do.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Oct 15, 2018)

Metroid said:


> The question is, when will they be released? If is August next year then i say is pointless to wait, now if is February / march then is worth the wait.
> 
> Showcase on "The AMD CES keynote will take place on January 9 at 9 AM PT. " and release on March seems an ideal thing to do.



Unfortunately (for us), Epyc has first dibs. Strong Epyc sales will screw us regardless of planned release date.


----------



## StrayKAT (Oct 15, 2018)

Prima.Vera said:


> A different question:
> 
> How are the motherboards for AMD 2xxx vs Intel's 9xxx processors??
> 
> ...



They're practically all the same at this point, with the same Taiwan companies building hardware, following the same design trends, and implementing the same UEFI implementation. Give or take a few different app features.

The only thing that's different is Supermicro makes only Intel stuff.. and they have better hardware (sans the Chinese infiltration heh).. but their software is woefully behind the other companies. I'm jealous of all of the bells/whistles..


----------



## GoldenX (Oct 15, 2018)

I can say that the Ryzen UEFI implementations are better on MSI compared to Gigabyte.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 15, 2018)

GoldenX said:


> I can say that the Ryzen UEFI implementations are better on MSI compared to Gigabyte.


Generally speaking, it seems that anything is better on most brands compared to Gigabyte these days.

But what Gigabyte does do really well is make boards that work fantastically in Hackintoshes.


----------



## StrayKAT (Oct 15, 2018)

One thing I haven't checked out are NUCs. I'm curious since Intel makes the UEFI.. but maybe it's all a lot more simplified than usual?


----------



## GoldenX (Oct 15, 2018)

cadaveca said:


> Generally speaking, it seems that anything is better on most brands compared to Gigabyte these days.
> 
> But what Gigabyte does do really well is make boards that work fantastically in Hackintoshes.


Good to know, I had no idea of that. Good luck getting a Ryzen to work well on Darwin thou.


----------



## StrayKAT (Oct 15, 2018)

Just to add to what I said earlier.. I dug up a video. It's looks like Intel's UEFI is no more stripped down than others. I like the clean look too. Intel needs to make motherboards again, imo.










Ugh, my SM bios is far behind this, in interface design. I mean, seriously.. it's horrible.


----------



## GoldenX (Oct 15, 2018)

StrayKAT said:


> Just to add to what I said earlier.. I dug up a video. It's looks like Intel's UEFI is no more stripped down than others. I like the clean look too. Intel needs to make motherboards again, imo.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No thanks, the cheap ones were horrible, even PC-Chips and Biostar were better.


----------



## StrayKAT (Oct 15, 2018)

GoldenX said:


> No thanks, the cheap ones were horrible, even PC-Chips and Biostar were better.



I think they've come a long way, software wise at least. I don't know anything about the quality of NUC boards, but a lot of people seem to like them. It couldn't be too hard to expand the quality to ATX. I just wouldn't pay a premium for it.


----------



## Smartcom5 (Oct 15, 2018)

_Flare said:


> and please do a verification @baseclock if intel holds its 95W TDP


Highly questionable if you ask me.
Though, even if it _won't_ exceed those 95W for base clocks, it will pull pretty exactly *+230–250W* at the wall, excluding the rest of the system – _at stock clocks_ under full load. Mind _any_ overclocking!

Anyway, the overall power-consumption will bump quite a bit! It's still physics, isn't it?
The power-draw can be extrapolated quite easily, ordinary rule of three …

*Gaming Load*​
If a 8700K needs about 66.8 Watts with its 6 cores on a average gaming-load, then a 9900K will be drawing about 89.07 Watts. Still, it won't run on its stock-clocks of 5 Ghz but 'only' on a 8700K's 4.7 GHz – so you have to add the additional consumption which even comes on top of that.

*Calculation:*

Averaged power-draw at stock-clocks (@4.7 GHz)





Average gaming-load OC'd (@4,9 GHz)




… which makes it ~90W on average gaming-load @4.7 GHz on 8 cores, just by the numbers alone. 
So a 9900K will be consume _at least_ *90W* (in the best theoretical case) – though, this _will not_ be the actual case since it has a 33% increased Cache compared to the 8700K (12 vs 16 MByte). So due to that fact (of the increased Cache) alone it will be drawing significant more power than those 90W and probably will exceed the TDP of 95W.

Or in other words, it will be very likely that the 9900K will already exceed its TDP of 95W already at stock clocks (as you can see by the already overstepping 95.74 Watts at 4.9 Ghz), especially if it runs _any_ warmer.





*Full load*​
If we then have another look on the 8700K while being under heavy torture load like Prime, we see it doesn't get any better anyway. At Prime a 8700K pulls already 159.5 Watts@stock – and as such, a 9900K will be pulling also at least 212.67 Watts. Having said this, it's still ain't running at its stock-clocks at 5 Ghz but again still 'only' at stock-clocks of a 8700K at 4.7 Ghz. … of course without the additional power-draw of the remaining +300 Mhz, sans the increased power-consumption of its larger cache.

*Calculation:*

Full-load power-consumption at stock-clocks (@4.7 GHz)




Full-load power-consumption OC'd (@4,9 GHz)




As a result, a 9900K will be in that (still best theoretical) case consume _at least_ circa *212.67 W* under full load – admittedly, even that won't be the actual case as it still has a 33% increased Cache compared to the 8700K (12 vs 16 MByte). Hence, due to that fact of its increased Cache it will be consume significantly more. On average the 9900K might be easily draw *+230–250 Watts*. In any case, the official fantasy-TDP of just 95W is here pure maculation and by all means just printer's waste. So, as usual on Intel's official extremely misleading TDP-specifications.





*Final conclusion*​*Note!*
All numbers here are always representing the _best case_ (sic!) and are in fact _the best possible and assumable Numbers_, since we're still at 4.9 Ghz in this scenario. Any greater attention should also be paid to the evident fact that _in every single case and all numbers do reflecting the actual _*Package Power Consumption* and as such those are solely reflecting only the processor's consumption _in and of itself_. *Those numbers ain't the power consumptions of the whole system!* Those are the _CPU's values alone_.

☞ Please also note, that the Cache which now has a Size increased by 33% will be making _significant_ contributions to actual Wattage-numbers. Furthermore, all numbers arose with the assistance of a Chiller which cooling loop was cooled down and held permanently at 20°C (which, as a side-note, didn't even could hinder the 8700K from running into its thermal limit).

*Résumé or bottom line*​
All of those are _Best case_-values.
All Wattages and (possible) clock frequencies _under_ utilisation and made possible _through_ the use of a Chiller (Compressor-cooling).
All calculations lacking the remaining clock speed of +100 MHz towards the nominal-clock of the 9900K (naturally including the respective overconsumption)
The actual Wattage might be very likely levelling off at +230–250 Watt _nominal-consumption_, at stock-clocks under full load.

Smartcom

*PS:* One forgive the potentially significant simplification of given circumstances for the purpose of exemplification. Errors excepted.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 15, 2018)

Smartcom5 said:


> As a result, a 9900K will be in that (still best theoretical) case consume _at least_ circa *212.67 W* under full load – admittedly, even that won't be the actual case as it still has a 33% increased Cache compared to the 8700K (12 vs 16 MByte). Hence, due to that fact of its increased Cache it will be consume significantly more. On average the 9900K might be easily draw *+230–250 Watts*. In any case, the official fantasy-TDP of just 95W is here pure maculation and by all means just printer's waste. So, as usual on Intel's official extremely misleading TDP-specifications.



Nope, sorry. Grab a clamp-on current meter, put it over the 8-pin power connector of your board, and you'll see that Intel's TDP numbers are actually quite accurate, and that's including with Turbo clocks.

Problem is, nobody except for me does this in reviews. Go look at any of the board reviews here and you'll see it. I provided the new board reviewer with the hardware to test this as well, so you'll continue to see actual CPU power draw in motherboard reviews here @ TPU.

I'm also happy to report that AMD's current platform TDP numbers are pretty accurate as to actual power draw as well.

You'll also have to note that Turbo clocks on both platforms, and CPU throttle are controlled by this number. You can even find it in board BIOSes, where you can manipulate the maximum power drawn (and some board makers have previously used this to cheat on review benchmark numbers). By default on all current platforms, this number matches a CPU's advertised TDP.


So rather than blame AMD or Intel on this one, you gotta blame the reviewers who are reporting inaccurate information to you. Its especially revolting to me that nobody tests this way, especially considering that Zalman made meters for this you could buy, that cost just $40, so you don't even need to spend a lot to measure this accurately. A decent and reliable clamp-on meter these days can be had for around $100.

Power numbers derived from meters connected to the PSU's power cord measure the entire system, as well as PSU inefficiency. Of course those numbers seem inflated.. they include board, memory, drives, mouse and keyboard, as well as the CPU, if not also idle power draw of a videocard.


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 15, 2018)

R0H1T said:


> That's not my point really, it's just that Intel can't or shouldn't sell chips based on questionable benchmarks & that practice should never be defended, be it* Apple*/Intel/Nvidia or AMD.



Agreed, but is anyone in disagreement on that? I haven't seen anyone here 'defending Intel' for these misleading results.

The defense gets erected whenever AMD fans tell Intel users that the difference is negligible when there are countless benches (even a _dozen_ of the corrected ones in this article underline it!) that show Intel CPUs still excel at higher framerates and in single thread limited scenarios. And its not just benches either, but practice - experience - from using the hardware. We're on an enthusiast forum, so there is going to be a larger than normal group interested in top end performance. And when it comes to price: the performance gap in some scenario's is easily 30% - let's look at GPU and the additional cost of a 30% faster 2080ti over its little brother below it. Remarkably similar. In both cases, you could say 'must be cheaper', and in both cases we as consumers have influence on that, by simply not buying it.



TheGuruStud said:


> Using performance metrics from a 14 yr old game engine isn't proving anything. More baloney results. It doesn't even have anything to do with single/multithreading. Source straight up runs like doo doo on ryzen.
> 
> Don't agree with the dumb dumb. He's saying that intel leads by 40% in ST, but is knocked down to 12% in MT with 15% ish higher clocks. Tell me, where is all that intel IPC at? It doesn't exist. You can conclude that intel currently has a few percent IPC lead lol. And that doesn't include optimized memory for ryzen.
> 
> ...



- Don't forget your (expensive) B-die sticks
- Don't forget to clock your Intel CPU at 4 Ghz
- Don't use Source as an example game engine
- Don't use a ST limited scenario

And all of a sudden, Ryzen looks almost (still missing some % though) as good as an Intel CPU! You should go work for PT! I heard they're doing a Ryzen piece next month.

Surely you can see the irony. You have just literally summed up everything that is wrong about AMD-fan perspective on performance, and you cannot even see it, apparently. You should take this perfect example to reflect upon. Dummy...


----------



## Smartcom5 (Oct 15, 2018)

cadaveca said:


> Nope, sorry. Grab a clamp-on current meter, put it over the 8-pin power connector of your board, and you'll see that Intel's TDP numbers are actually quite accurate, and that's including with Turbo clocks.
> 
> Problem is, *nobody except for me* does this in reviews.


You actually _are_ aware that such measurements were made by Igor from *Tom*'*sHardware* – and always have in such ways, or are you?
He's one of the few who does that and always have, as he's famous for doing exactly that.

In addition, you seem to have overlooked my note down there were I trying to _state expressively_, _what_ such numbers are representing and _where_ do those were coming from, no?


Smartcom5 said:


> …
> *Note!*
> All numbers here are always representing the _best case_ (sic!) and are in fact _the best possible and assumable Numbers_, since we're still at 4.9 Ghz in this scenario. Any greater attention should also be paid to the evident fact that _in every single case and all numbers do reflecting the actual _*Package Power Consumption* and as such those are solely reflecting only the processor's consumption _in and of itself_. *Those numbers ain't the power consumptions of the whole system!* Those are the _CPU's values alone_.





cadaveca said:


> I provided the new board reviewer with the hardware to test this as well, so you'll continue to see actual CPU power draw in motherboard reviews here @ TPU.


Reading that makes me actually genuinely happy …


Now shut up and take my money! Oh, and if you don't mind, let me **** **** ****! 





cadaveca said:


> You'll also have to note that Turbo clocks on both platforms, and CPU throttle are controlled by this number. You can even find it in board BIOSes, where you can manipulate the maximum power drawn (and some board makers have previously used this to cheat on review benchmark numbers). By default on all current platforms, this number matches a CPU's advertised TDP.


I'm actually _pret·ty_ aware of the ongoing over-extensively and widely used abusive methods of such ways to hide_ way higher actual numbers_ under the rug, the all too common practice to benchmark with open roofs and completely unbridled for higher numbers (cough MCE! Unlimited Powertargets!) while 'determine' the »actual power-consumption« afterwards whilst having the product muzzled by given BIOS-/UEFI-options and/or lowered PTs, pre-cooled cards, etcetera – thank you. 





cadaveca said:


> So rather than blame AMD or Intel on this one, you gotta blame the reviewers who are reporting inaccurate information to you.


I always criticise such wrongdoings as extremely and excessively misleading and deceiving. _Always have, always will._
Especially since such devices and/or apparatuses shall be not only pretty affordable for a today's technical editorial department but since every damn reviewer who considers themselves as any reputable or at least may have the personal aspiration to be taken _any_ serious and trustworthy is _nothing less than ob·li·ga·ted_ in taking such measurements and determine such numbers of _actual and nominal_ power-consumptions.

Using the overall system's wattage I straight-out consider such attempts or habits as direct intent to mislead or deceive. All the more if the product is a) known to be taxing higher numbers in reality and especially b) if such reviewers were already made aware and pointed towards such facts (that using the overall system's wattage is representing the product in a way to massively flattering light). 




Smartcom


----------



## Durvelle27 (Oct 15, 2018)

Where are the reviews by now


----------



## londiste (Oct 15, 2018)

Durvelle27 said:


> Where are the reviews by now


NDA ends on October 19th.


----------



## Keicho2 (Oct 15, 2018)

All I see is that the old 4 kerner i7 6700k fps is technically the same on the 2700x. In games. Why should an 8 core with 5ghz from intel have only 12%?: D


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 15, 2018)

Smartcom5 said:


> In addition, you seem to have overlooked my note down there were I trying to _state expressively_, _what_ such numbers are representing and _where_ do those were coming from, no?



No, I've not overlooked anything. You see, if a motherboard is working properly, and it's BIOS is configured properly, such *IS NOT POSSIBLE*. Anyone telling you that a CPU exceeds it's TDP doesn't fully understand how these things work, and how power draw is controlled via the motherboard for a CPU, and as such, *if the BIOS is programmed right, and the board works right, there is ZERO CHANCE for a CPU to exceed the listed TDP.*

Now, many things can go wrong that can cause TDP to be exceeded, but it is NEVER supposed to happen, no matter the type of CPU loading. So anyone telling you that this happens, at stock, is misinforming you, and isn't smart enough (IMHO) to investigate why such is taking place. Please also note that the fallacy I see right away is that they are using software to measure this, rather than physical hardware, as we here @ TPU do.



> _in every single case and all numbers do reflecting the actual _*Package Power Consumption* and as such those are solely reflecting only the processor's consumption _in and of itself_.



Package Power Consumption is a SOFTWARE reading. So, no this guy is NOT doing as we do. He's reading software, and is assuming that things are reported accurately, when clearly they aren't. He's clearly identified a problem in his configuration for sure, but what and where that problem is, is NOT being reported properly.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 15, 2018)

trog100 said:


> an 8700K is currently £460 from Scan UK.. lets be a at least a little bit accurate..


Yeah thanks to "shortages" how convenient?



notb said:


> How could we not defend a company that is one of the pillars of IT in our civilization?
> 
> You don't have to admire Intel and you might not even respect their contribution to computing (which would be weird for a wannabe enthusiast), but you should understand their importance for stability of this business and the general reality around us.
> Do you like pizza? Imagine there was a single company selling 90% of pizzas globally. I'm sure you wouldn't want that company to have any problems.
> ...


"defend a company" is going too far here - this is just a discussion thread - we're not taking our toilet onto intel and pouring it over them, If you haven't realized already AMD has been on the "edge" for years now and they've made a comeback - Intel RELYS on AMD existing since they both licence technologies to each other that are essential to the production of processors, Also that comment in regards to maintaining the market - Intel will *Never* hand over the market to amd, they are fighting for that market share, they need it as high as possible, if they decided to sell 7 for 500$ than 9 for 300$ it would also affect investors and stock - I'm not going into it that far however. Intel own the bulk of the server market where the real money is to be made, they've already lost in the war for the fastest supercomputers to IBM which crushed them - If AMD take over the server market intel would probably call out for help from other companies and be in big financial trouble - the mainstream is the way AMD could start this - they only lack R&D funding and that's the only thing stopping them and it can be made in the mainstream - you seriously think intel would threaten their entire companies existence? They will continue to try and push for that market share.


----------



## londiste (Oct 16, 2018)

cadaveca said:


> Now, many things can go wrong that can cause TDP to be exceeded, but it is NEVER supposed to happen, no matter the type of CPU loading. So anyone telling you that this happens, at stock, is misinforming you, and isn't smart enough (IMHO) to investigate why such is taking place. Please also note that the fallacy I see right away is that they are using software to measure this, rather than physical hardware, as we here @ TPU do.


That actually is not completely true, at least for current generation (as well as generation or two back) Intel processors. You can definitely see CPU temporarily exceeding TDP even without MCE or some other manufacturer's stupid option enabled. From examples I have personally seen with all BIOS/UEFi settings set to as stock as possible, i7 8700K will run at 120-130W  for a little while before settling down at 95W. Similarly, i5 8400 runs at 95W for a little while before settling down at 65W. The "little while" in there seems to depend on the motherboard.

Whether this is the default configuration or not is up for debate. From what I can see from whitepaper, technically it should not be (PL2 is 1.25 TDP and up to 10ms with PL1 Tau at 1 second). Are motherboard manufacturers playing around with settings more than they should (in addition to MCE)?

https://www.intel.com/content/dam/w...heets/8th-gen-core-family-datasheet-vol-1.pdf
Chapter 5: Thermal Management (Page 88)

The other thing with Intel's power management is that AVX throws most of it straight out the window. If overclockers decide to disable the default AVX Offset (-2/-3) along with disabling the power limits, that will increase power consumption and heat by *a lot*. Back to talking about stock - in general Intel has set the limits pretty well, Turbo frequencies will work reasonably fine for anything not AVX. Heavy AVX load, however, will drop the frequencies down to base quickly.



cadaveca said:


> Please also note that the fallacy I see right away is that they are using software to measure this, rather than physical hardware, as we here @ TPU do.
> Package Power Consumption is a SOFTWARE reading. So, no this guy is NOT doing as we do. He's reading software, and is assuming that things are reported accurately, when clearly they aren't. He's clearly identified a problem in his configuration for sure, but what and where that problem is, is NOT being reported properly.


You are measuring power with clamp, right? Have you tested from at least a couple different motherboards whether software readings lie and by how much (both motherboad and CPU)?
I have been looking for a cheap clamp to test the power myself but a $40 meter or reasonably cheap clamps do not have a very good accuracy and so far I have not been interested enough to go for something costing couple hundred moneys. Software might not be in a different ballpark from a cheap meter, given that software readings are somewhat verified in hardware.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 16, 2018)

londiste said:


> You are measuring power with clamp, right?



Correct, with a FLUKE clamp meter.



londiste said:


> Have you tested from at least a couple different motherboards whether software readings lie and by how much (both motherboad and CPU)?



Yeah, I have. Over time I have found that AIDA64 can be fairly reliable once it's been updated properly (and if you have a yearly-renewed licence, they'll gladly update it for you if it doesn't work right), but for some boards it is way off, and when you begin overclocking on a lot of boards, it reads less than 1W of power consumed (when clearly it is a whole lot more). It really varies from board to board and version to version of the software in use, whereas the clamp meter just simply works, every time.



londiste said:


> I have been looking for a cheap clamp to test the power myself but a $40 meter or reasonably cheap clamps do not have a very good accuracy and so far I have not been interested enough to go for something costing couple hundred moneys. Software might not be in a different ballpark from a cheap meter, given that software readings are somewhat verified in hardware.


You can get the FLUKE meter I have for what I'd call a relatively minor cost, especially for me, since I use it so damn often. As someone that liked to overclock under LN2 and such, it is a tool that you cannot be without, as so much information can be had by watching power increases as you push up the clocks, especially with different CPUs. Now, for the average user, it might not be that worthy of an investment I suppose; it just depends how into overclocking you really are.



londiste said:


> Are motherboard manufacturers playing around with settings more than they should (in addition to MCE)?



Yeah, they are. Sad but true, and yeah, you can see some spikes from time to time, especially when AVX loading for sure. But as you've surmised, there is a time limit to this, and yeah, that time limit is also in BIOS and can be adjusted.


----------



## ToxicTaZ (Oct 16, 2018)

Intel 9 years old architecture provides the best performance still! Even brand new AMD Ryzen architecture can't out perform 9 years old Intel architecture.

When you have the best and no competition then you can name your prices.... Both Intel 9900K and Nvidia 2080Ti are 2018 best CPU & GPU with no competition from AMD.

I you want a cheaper 3rd place 2700X its the time to do that. Secondly 9700K out performs 2700X in most games and OC up to 5.5GHz with EK.

If you're a PC Gamer the 9700K is your best choice. If you're just want bragging rights with benchmarking get the top dog 9900K.

2700X Max's out 4.4GHz

9900K/9700K both max out 5.5GHz

8700K/8086K both max out 5.3GHz

That's your head room.


----------



## GoldenX (Oct 17, 2018)

Nice troll.
Enjoy your blue tax for extra 5FPS.


----------



## Melvis (Oct 17, 2018)

How the heck did this thread get to 11 pages long? PT retested, not perfect retest but retested with an actual 8 core CPU this time and we got results closer to all what we was expecting and at the same time proved intel wrong! Now its intels turn to redo there in house testing since they said they got the same results as PT with the first run of benchmarks   Anyone defending intel in this thread are ether getting paid/work for intel or are just plain dumb!

So a 9900k is basically double the price of a 2700x for less then 12% gaming performance increase, we know who the true winner is here.


----------



## GoldenX (Oct 17, 2018)

/g/ sums it up quite well:

CPU
>Athlon 200GE - Minimal desktop
>R3 2200G - Bare minimum gaming (dGPU optional)
>R5 2400G/i5-8400 - Consider IF on sale
>R5 2600/X - Good gaming & multithreaded work use CPUs
>i7-9700k - If pairing w/ a 2080Ti and the extra $200+ is worth ~135 FPS instead of ~120 FPS to you, despite better CPUs coming next year and requiring new boards
>R7 2700/X - Best value high-end CPU on a non-HEDT platform
>Wait for R7 3700X - Surely the best overall and not a massive disappointment like the 9900k
>Threadripper/Used Xeon - HEDT


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 17, 2018)

Honestly I think the i5-9600k is the best value of the series, https://www.tweaktown.com/news/63512/intel-core-i5-9600k-6c-6t-overclocks-up-5-2ghz-air/index.html this thing will cost around 262$ or £200 ~ and at the 5ghz+ range it's not too far behind the 8700k at all and massively ahead in single thread, It's not going to be easy for amd at this price point that's most likely why the dropped the 2700x down in price a bit. the 9900k is just a pure bragging rights processor or for the rich.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Oct 18, 2018)

ToxicTaZ said:


> Intel 9 years old architecture provides the best performance still! Even brand new AMD Ryzen architecture can't out perform 9 years old Intel architecture.
> 
> When you have the best and no competition then you can name your prices.... Both Intel 9900K and Nvidia 2080Ti are 2018 best CPU & GPU with no competition from AMD.
> 
> ...


You're gonna have to put /s in your posts. Someone is going to think you're not trolling.


----------



## XXL_AI (Oct 22, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> We'll see - arm isn't anywhere near as capable as intel and amd.



Nvidia Jetson systems and other ARM powered embedded computers are pretty capable


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 22, 2018)

XXL_AI said:


> Nvidia Jetson systems and other ARM powered embedded computers are pretty capable


Not capable, they will not deliver similar performance or anywhere near the performance of AMD and Intel processors, they can stick to the phone market.


----------



## XXL_AI (Oct 26, 2018)

oh really? where is your proof? we're using our router with 10gbe switch powered with Nvidia Jetson, it is fast and it is extremely secure. just because you can't game (yet) on those platforms doesn't give you rights to blame their speed. the video transcoding capabilities of those tiny jetson modules are at the level of Quadro's, and you know any Quadro can beat the electrons out of intel or amd processor when it comes to parallel encoding or decoding of multiple streams simultaneously


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 26, 2018)

XXL_AI said:


> oh really? where is your proof? we're using our router with 10gbe switch powered with Nvidia Jetson, it is fast and it is extremely secure. just because you can't game (yet) on those platforms doesn't give you rights to blame their speed. the video transcoding capabilities of those tiny jetson modules are at the level of Quadro's, and you know any Quadro can beat the electrons out of intel or amd processor when it comes to parallel encoding or decoding of multiple streams simultaneously


Congratulations, what your doing is basically using using an embedded system - designed for one task, and your comparing them with processors used for a hell of a lot more tasks then just that.


----------



## XXL_AI (Oct 27, 2018)

Try to use any intel or amd processor at the level of embedded systems, you'll cry in the end.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 27, 2018)

XXL_AI said:


> Try to use any intel or amd processor at the level of embedded systems, you'll cry in the end.


This is a discussion about DESKTOP processors, not embedded crap, it's like saying my android tablet beats a windows desktop - they're aimed at different users.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Oct 27, 2018)

Robcostyle said:


> I like how this greedy bluegreen couple tries to rip you for extra cash, just preteding to be “exclusive”, higher quality or better perfomance-
> Hell, even that, they are so unconfident in doing all that advertising, torning between all  they’re flushing, resulting in a complete mess about “what their product really is”
> -and you know whats the most pretty in all this? THEY ARE NOT PREMIUM. They are not made from better materials than other stuff in semicond. market, they wont last longer, they dont have premium options. Hell, do Intel and ngreedia know what does PREMIUM means??? If they’ll sell their CPU’s in some Ferrari kind of shop, with cup of coffee and a manager kissing ur arse just to buy their stuff - that I will call premium over AMD. Nit just silly ~10% perfomance gain.
> 
> ...


Lmao!  Nice rant.  

Now, stop acting shocked, like this is new.  Intel has priced their premium processor at premium prices for nearly two decades.  Factored for inflation, those $1,000 chips cost a lot more than this one does.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Oct 27, 2018)

pls... Intel has been putting premium price tags on their higher end SKUs, being "surprised" is nothing out of the ordinary.


----------



## GoldenX (Oct 27, 2018)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> pls... Intel has been putting premium price tags on their higher end SKUs, being "surprised" is nothing out of the ordinary.


They weren't being forced to compete by AMD. Core 2 Dous and Pentium Ds were cheap when going against the Athlon 64 X2.


----------



## XXL_AI (Oct 28, 2018)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> This is a discussion about DESKTOP processors, not embedded crap, it's like saying my android tablet beats a windows desktop - they're aimed at different users.


your ignorance about Nvidia Jetson series are just crazy. Those systems are running full OS of Ubuntu, and it is most commonly a desktop OS worldwide. We do not need intel or amd cpus anymore because ARM can do thing better and way more efficient.


----------



## GoldenX (Oct 28, 2018)

XXL_AI said:


> your ignorance about Nvidia Jetson series are just crazy. Those systems are running full OS of Ubuntu, and it is most commonly a desktop OS worldwide. We do not need intel or amd cpus anymore because ARM can do thing better and way more efficient.


As long as you run a Linux distro, or you can tolerate an emulator in Windows for the x86 exclusives.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 28, 2018)

GoldenX said:


> As long as you run a Linux distro, or you can tolerate an emulator in Windows for the x86 exclusives.


I guess he's missing the point, I'd like to see him run some synthetics like cinebench and common windows applications to see how it really performs.


----------



## Gasaraki (Oct 31, 2018)

Intel should really clamp down on vendors charging way above MSRP. NEWEGG i'm looking at you!!!


----------



## kapone32 (Nov 2, 2018)

Gasaraki said:


> Intel should really clamp down on vendors charging way above MSRP. NEWEGG i'm looking at you!!!



It is not actually the retailers but distributors that have a tenable pricing model and then uptick to the retailer who then upticks to the consumer. Just look at Vega 64.


----------



## gamerman (Dec 9, 2018)

well its huge different.. and i mean game speed different, 12% is big different,bcoz both are 8-core cpus.

its telling all and everything.. close anyway why 9900,9700 and 9600 and 8700 intes cpus are better. and must remembe 8700 is 6-core.

66% pricier is not teh point. ,except if you CANT buy once of 3-5 year best cpus....if you cant stay budget PC.

we still took about little more 100 dolalrs and it not ruin r€al gaµ€ play€rs budg€t,but that 12% speed can make gaming lower level.


sure amd2700x is lower rpice,ITS ONLY WAY TO TRY SELL IT......slower productalways trying sell lowers price...bcoz its loosers choice.
and suddenly,amd use that politics everywhere and always.... like 'its not bestmfastest and best tech..but its cheaper... like BMW vs skoda


- end -


----------



## TheGuruStud (Dec 9, 2018)

gamerman said:


> well its huge different.. and i mean game speed different, 12% is big different,bcoz both are 8-core cpus.
> 
> its telling all and everything.. close anyway why 9900,9700 and 9600 and 8700 intes cpus are better. and must remembe 8700 is 6-core.
> 
> ...



So many bad analogies on the internet. BMW = garbage for 20 yrs lol


----------



## R0H1T (Dec 9, 2018)

Losers' choice ~ is that why Intel needed to pay billions of dollars to make sure major OEMs skip AMD a decade back, or why two major HPC/super computers have announced EPYC based systems? Intel is the fastest gaming CPU no doubt, everything else you said is horse sh!t


----------



## RealNeil (Dec 9, 2018)

Gamerman, please go to your forum control panel and fill out your system specs so we can all see what the non-loser's choices are in a PC build.
66% higher price IS the point. Why it's even in the title of this thread!

Maybe it's all about the fact that someone can spend less on a CPU to have more money left to spend on a GPU.
Better GPUs make a huge difference in gameplay, don't they?


----------



## lexluthermiester (Dec 9, 2018)

RealNeil said:


> Gamerman, please go to your forum control panel and fill out your system specs so we can all see what the non-loser's choices are in a PC build.


This is the choice of each individual forum user. Stating system specs are *NOT* obligatory.


RealNeil said:


> Maybe it's all about the fact that someone can spend less on a CPU to have more money left to spend on a GPU.


Excellent point.


----------



## RealNeil (Dec 9, 2018)

lexluthermiester said:


> Stating system specs are *NOT* obligatory.



Yes, I know this, but I felt deprived of information and as they say, 'Enquiring Minds Want To Know' (and I did say please)



lexluthermiester said:


> Excellent point.



My own opinion is that much more gaming magic occurs with better GPUs once your CPU/Motherboard/Memory reach a certain point.
My Ryzen 7 1700X system more than ticked all of the boxes.
Gaming was fluid with the pair of 1070Ti cards running SLI.
It was also fluid with a pair of GIGABYTE Radeon RX 580 8GB cards in Crossfire.

Benches were higher with the GTX cards, but Gaming was the same.


----------



## ratirt (Dec 10, 2018)

gamerman said:


> well its huge different.. and i mean game speed different, 12% is big different,bcoz both are 8-core cpus.
> 
> its telling all and everything.. close anyway why 9900,9700 and 9600 and 8700 intes cpus are better. and must remembe 8700 is 6-core.
> 
> ...


I've got 2700X and I think it is a win for me. Not considering myself a loser.


----------



## RealNeil (Dec 10, 2018)

AMD is announcing brand new 7nm process CPUs and GPUs at CES in January.  

I'm waiting for those.

I believe that they will be a lot better, at good prices. They'll probably hit the market fairly soon after CES happens.
Also, the current batch of Ryzen CPUs will go down in price afterward.



*Look Here for the scoop.*


----------



## RichF (Dec 11, 2018)

StrayKAT said:


> In my eyes, all computers are fairly cheap. They used to be $5000+. And they weren't even workstation class.


Other things are more expensive these days, however. So, the money you save by getting good bang out of the buck can help with that.

Beyond that, there is always something else out there that's worth buying.


----------



## StrayKAT (Dec 11, 2018)

RichF said:


> Other things are more expensive these days, however. So, the money you save by getting good bang out of the buck can help with that.
> 
> Beyond that, there is always something else out there that's worth buying.



True enough.. I'm blessed with a paid off house and don't need a car much though.


----------



## ratirt (Dec 11, 2018)

RealNeil said:


> AMD is announcing brand new 7nm process CPUs and GPUs at CES in January.
> 
> I'm waiting for those.
> 
> ...


True that. I got 2700X and Vega 64 Red Devil (Vega bought just today). I could've waited for January. Then waited a bit longer for reviews. Then just waited cause there will be new stuff coming out. I decided it's time for me to buy things now cause I might have waited another year or more.


----------



## RealNeil (Dec 11, 2018)

I see your point. there is always new gear on the horizon,......

Ryzen-7 2700X is probably a fine CPU. Reviews are very good. 
I had a 1700X and it was good to go for gaming. (with decent GPUs)

I have one of those Red Devil Vega-64 cards here. I've been waiting to get a second one for crossfire to use it. Today I had a box come in from Newegg.
I bought a second Vega-64 card (Gigabyte for $400.00 ) last week and plan to set them up together later on tonight.


----------



## ratirt (Dec 12, 2018)

RealNeil said:


> I see your point. there is always new gear on the horizon,......
> 
> Ryzen-7 2700X is probably a fine CPU. Reviews are very good.
> I had a 1700X and it was good to go for gaming. (with decent GPUs)
> ...


How is that Vega Red devil treating you? Do you like it? I know there is a downside to the card due to the fact it's not the best ever but I got FreeSync and I just need to use it. From what I've read on the internet about Navi. The top AMD card will be up to 15% faster than Vega 64. Due to that I don't think waiting longer is any good for me. 
I suppose the 3000 series Ryzen will be great. I must say I'm impressed with my 2700X. For now, I don't need to change it but if I will get a good deal on the new Ryzen I will get it.


----------



## Metroid (Dec 12, 2018)

Everything boils down to price for me and that is the reason I never bought an extreme cpu version aka $999 tag, this cpu is way less than that but still shows an illusionary stamp of being premium. $600 is not that bad but for what it offers at moment x 2700x or even 8700 is not worth the extra plus the heat it generates makes it a bad investment any way you look at, yes you could disable hyper threading but if you do that so why not just purchase a 9700k then. Hyper threading, 50% more heat for 20% more performance, not worth it.


----------



## ratirt (Dec 12, 2018)

Metroid said:


> Everything boils down to price for me and that is the reason I never bought an extreme cpu version aka $999 tag, this cpu is way less than that but still shows an illusionary stamp of being premium. $600 is not that bad but for what it offers at moment x 2700x or even 8700 is not worth the extra plus the heat it generates makes it a bad investment any way you look at, yes you could disable hyper threading but if you do that so why not just purchase a 9700k then. Hyper threading, 50% more heat for 20% more performance, not worth it.



I disagree with your premise. 2700X is really great and it is not an illusion but a fact. Too bad you can't see it but I do understand that. You don't posses one so how can you know. 8700K maybe overheats but 2700X doesn't. Actually the temps never go over 70deg C and when I crunch some stuff it's basically always 4.2 Ghz. Well that's because Intel's HT sucks and for me 2700X is premium but the price you need to pay for it isn't. Not like with the 8700K or 9700K. give nothing pay as much as possible. 
No thanks.


----------



## Metroid (Dec 12, 2018)

ratirt said:


> I disagree with your premise. 2700X is really great and it is not an illusion but a fact. Too bad you can't see it but I do understand that. You don't posses one so how can you know. 8700K maybe overheats but 2700X doesn't. Actually the temps never go over 70deg C and when I crunch some stuff it's basically always 4.2 Ghz. Well that's because Intel's HT sucks and for me 2700X is premium but the price you need to pay for it isn't. Not like with the 8700K or 9700K. give nothing pay as much as possible.
> No thanks.



I dont think you understood what I wrote. As per the thread name, I used the 9900k, not 2700x in the argument.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 12, 2018)

Metroid said:


> Hyper threading, 50% more heat for 20% more performance, not worth it.


You dont get 50% more heat.

HT yields more than 20% performance increase. 
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=HT-Core-Scaling-Xeon-SKL


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 12, 2018)

gamerman said:


> well its huge different.. and i mean game speed different, 12% is big different,bcoz both are 8-core cpus.
> 
> its telling all and everything.. close anyway why 9900,9700 and 9600 and 8700 intes cpus are better. and must remembe 8700 is 6-core.
> 
> ...



By the way BMW= broke man walking, because when they break you are walking.
Take your garbage elsewhere.

12% gain doesnt justify 66% price hike.



TheGuruStud said:


> So many bad analogies on the internet. BMW = garbage for 20 yrs lol



Longer than that


----------



## RealNeil (Dec 12, 2018)

ratirt said:


> How is that Vega Red devil treating you? Do you like it? I know there is a downside to the card due to the fact it's not the best ever but I got FreeSync and I just need to use it. From what I've read on the internet about Navi. The top AMD card will be up to 15% faster than Vega 64. Due to that I don't think waiting longer is any good for me.
> I suppose the 3000 series Ryzen will be great. I must say I'm impressed with my 2700X. For now, I don't need to change it but if I will get a good deal on the new Ryzen I will get it.



I haven't plugged the Red Devil into any system yet. probably later on today if I get the time. My Gigabyte Vega-64 isn't clocked as high as the Devil is, so I'm not sure how Crossfire will be with them. 
I bought the Gigabyte card because it was dirt-cheap compared to buying another Red Devil card.
Maybe later I'll find a deal on another Devil

I'm going to be using the pair of them in an i9-7900X box because it already has a large (1300W) PSU in it. There is a pair of GTX-1080 FE cards running SLI inside of it now and I want to run a few benches before and after the swap. I imagine the 1080s are quicker.

I have my eye on a 34" Freesync screen that a friend is going to sell after Christmas, so these two Vega cards will get to stretch a little.


----------



## ratirt (Dec 12, 2018)

Metroid said:


> I dont think you understood what I wrote. As per the thread name, I used the 9900k, not 2700x in the argument.


I'm not accustomed to your way of writing or maybe it's your figure of speach, but I don't recall and see in your post anything about the 9900K. What I see is that you refer to the 8700K and 9700k stating these, including with 2700X are not worth buying. Well my friend. I don't know about the Intel's CPU's since I don't posses them but 2700X is damn worth buying, especially for the current sell price. So anything you previously said is bull crap on the barn floor, sir.



RealNeil said:


> I haven't plugged the Red Devil into any system yet. probably later on today if I get the time. My Gigabyte Vega-64 isn't clocked as high as the Devil is, so I'm not sure how Crossfire will be with them.
> I bought the Gigabyte card because it was dirt-cheap compared to buying another Red Devil card.
> Maybe later I'll find a deal on another Devil
> 
> ...


How much did you pay for them? For the Devil and the Gigabyte?
I'm getting my Devil delivered this week. when I get it I will definitely play with it. I wonder how will it go with  my screen 
I got my 4k screen and it's so amazing  It was worth it and hopefully my Vega Red Devil will make it shine even more


----------



## lexluthermiester (Dec 12, 2018)

Metroid said:


> Hyper threading, 50% more heat for 20% more performance, not worth it.


Have to agree with EarthDog on this one. The extra heat generated is about 25% to 35% for an extra 20% to 25% performance. While it's not an exactly even trade off, it's not to the extreme you suggested.


----------



## Metroid (Dec 12, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> You dont get 50% more heat.
> 
> HT yields more than 20% performance increase.
> https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=HT-Core-Scaling-Xeon-SKL




Really? Benchmarks since the beginning always showed that a real 4 core = 100% + 4 threads aka hyper-threading gives from 0 to 25%., which means from 100 to 125%. Also in the heat department, if a cpu stands 60c 4 cores and you enable hyper-threading, the same 60c becomes 90c. That is 50% in my book. That was my i7 920 as a fact back in 2008.



ratirt said:


> I'm not accustomed to your way of writing or maybe it's your figure of speach, but I don't recall and see in your post anything about the 9900K. What I see is that you refer to the 8700K and 9700k stating these, including with 2700X are not worth buying. Well my friend. I don't know about the Intel's CPU's since I don't posses them but 2700X is damn worth buying, especially for the current sell price. So anything you previously said is bull crap on the barn floor, sir.




I'm sorry for that, I implied is better to have a 2700x or a 9700 even a 8700 than a 9900k. The premium price is not enough to justify.


----------



## ratirt (Dec 12, 2018)

Metroid said:


> I'm sorry for that, I implied is better to have a 2700x or a 9700 even a 8700 than a 9900k. The premium price is not enough to justify.


It's fine. Just wanted to clear that out.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 12, 2018)

Metroid said:


> Really? Benchmarks since the beginning always showed that a real 4 core = 100% + 4 threads aka hyper-threading gives from 0 to 25%., which means from 100 to 125%. Also in the heat department, if a cpu stands 60c 4 cores and you enable hyper-threading, the same 60c becomes 90c. That is 50% in my book.


I posted a benchmark that shows differently... HT/SMT efficiency varies with many factors... 20% _average_ seems low is all I was getting at. It was in my head around 25-35% depending on the benchmark.

25% does not mean 100-125%. Do the math... If I got 25 more FPS and I was at 100 FPS, that would be 25% more. 100% more of 100 FPS is 200 FPS.

Your heat example is a 50% increase, but... those values are made up. I haven't seen a 50% increase on temperatures from HT in any HT CPU I owned or benchmarked. I have seen 10-20C much more commonly (and the latter is on my current CPU adding 16 threads...... not 4), but if I am already sitting at 70C................ that isn't a 50% increase (and those are real numbers with my current CPU).


----------



## Metroid (Dec 12, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> I posted a benchmark that shows differently... HT/SMT efficiency varies with many factors... 20% _average_ seems low is all I was getting at. It was in my head around 25-35% depending on the benchmark.
> 
> 25% does not mean 100-125%. Do the math... If I got 25 more FPS and I was at 100 FPS, that would be 25% more. 100% more of 100 FPS is 200 FPS.
> 
> Your heat example is a 50% increase, but... those values are made up. I haven't seen a 50% increase on temperatures from HT in any HT CPU I owned or benchmarked. I have seen 10-20C much more commonly (and the latter is on my current CPU adding 16 threads...... not 4), but if I am already sitting at 70C................ that isn't a 50% increase (and those are real numbers with my current CPU).



A good example is a 9900k x 9700k, I treat a 9900k as a real 10 cores performance, the 8 threads plus from it is 2 cores for me 25% each which multiplied gives 200% which in the end means more 2 cores, Now we all know 9900k are binned which means heat is not as bad as it is on 9700k because it might even use less voltage than 9700k, a 9700k is just a broken 9900k, more heat per performance and so on, now remove all these from the 9900k and add 2 more cores to the 9700k there we have it. 2 more cores bring voltage to enormous numbers like if it was more threads, for example my i7 920 4 cores used to use 1.1v voltage, with hyper threading on used to use 1.4v, there you have it, just calculate it now.

It's sad the reviews dont do that, only a user can do things like that and show its findings, I wish somebody would do that to a 9900k, how much it can be underclocked as 8 threads only and then as 16 threads, the usefulness of have a 16 threads to a 8 threads and the tradeoffs of it cause for me is very important. 9900k is just not worth for me, too much heat and performance to justify the price even thought its binned.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 12, 2018)

Wow... not sure what that even means my man, yikes. Sorry.


----------



## DysphoricSmile (Apr 17, 2019)

ShurikN said:


> But you do need to spend a LOT of money on proper cooling if you are going for that 5GHz all core. And that will be much more expensive than memory for Ryzen.
> At which point you are no longer looking at a $530 CPU but a $650-700 one.



WRONG ON BOTH COUNTS! I HAVE an i7-8700k - NOT delidded it easily hits 5 GHZ all core and 4.7 GHZ Ringbus (higher than MOST!) - and for cooling I use a Noctua NH-D15 that I paid $70 for off of Amazon! So NO! The 8700k is not THAT HARD TO COOL! And it is NOT that expensive - especially when an ASRock Z370/390 Extreme4 has MORE than enough Juice to get even the 9900k to 5 GHZ (with SOME amount of airflow in the case of course) and costs just $160



Tsukiyomi91 said:


> I think for folks who would go balls to the walls spec for their beastly gaming PC, I don't think they even care about price at this point. So far as I know the i9-9900K is capable of clocking 5GHz on all 8 cores thanks to the soldered IHS, unlike the i7-8700K where you need to delid it in order to reach the same level of performance. Same core & thread count as the R7 2700X but has way higher turbo boost frequencies & sustains it better. Also, you don't need to spend more money on Ryzen-optimized RAM kits... even a typical 2666MHz DDR4 RAM kit does the job.




YOU DO NOT NEED TO DELID 8700k!! I HAVE ONE - 5 GHZ all core, Noctua NH-D15 and it NEVER gets hotter than 87 C in Prime95 FFS!!


----------



## lexluthermiester (Apr 17, 2019)

DysphoricSmile said:


> WRONG ON BOTH COUNTS! I HAVE an i7-8700k - NOT delidded it easily hits 5 GHZ all core and 4.7 GHZ Ringbus (higher than MOST!) - and for cooling I use a Noctua NH-D15 that I paid $70 for off of Amazon! So NO! The 8700k is not THAT HARD TO COOL! And it is NOT that expensive - especially when an ASRock Z370/390 Extreme4 has MORE than enough Juice to get even the 9900k to 5 GHZ (with SOME amount of airflow in the case of course) and costs just $160





DysphoricSmile said:


> YOU DO NOT NEED TO DELID 8700k!! I HAVE ONE - 5 GHZ all core, Noctua NH-D15 and it NEVER gets hotter than 87 C in Prime95 FFS!!


Ok, forum etiquette advice, whenever you do all caps for more than one word it's considered screaming/yelling. Please tone it down.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 17, 2019)

DysphoricSmile said:


> WRONG ON BOTH COUNTS! I HAVE an i7-8700k - NOT delidded it easily hits 5 GHZ all core and 4.7 GHZ Ringbus (higher than MOST!) - and for cooling I use a Noctua NH-D15 that I paid $70 for off of Amazon! So NO! The 8700k is not THAT HARD TO COOL! And it is NOT that expensive - especially when an ASRock Z370/390 Extreme4 has MORE than enough Juice to get even the 9900k to 5 GHZ (with SOME amount of airflow in the case of course) and costs just $160
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Most are not going to delid a cpu.


----------



## king of swag187 (Apr 17, 2019)

No need to delid a 8700K unless you're seeking maximum thermals. My 8700K @ 4.8ghz 1.33V never hits above 70C in stress tests with a Thermalrite Macho Rev B


----------



## notb (Apr 17, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Ok, forum etiquette advice, whenever you do all caps for more than one word it's considered screaming/yelling. Please tone it down.


And what about @eidairaman1 's signature? What do you think about it?


----------



## DysphoricSmile (Apr 17, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Ok, forum etiquette advice, whenever you do all caps for more than one word it's considered screaming/yelling. Please tone it down.




Right right. Sorry. Just trying to emphasize this misinformation that the 8700k is hard to cool and hard to hit ~5 GHZ with unless delidded. I have not delidded, my exact specs are ASRock Fatal1ty Z370 Gaming K6, DDR4-3200, and my CPU is 5 GHZ all core, 4.7 GHZ Ringbus speed, 1.34 Vcore with Flat Load Line (level 1 in ASRock Case) - and even Prime95 AVX - the most unrealistic of unrealistic workloads, does not manage either Thermal or VRM throttling after even ~3 hours. Of course I DO have quite a good deal of airflow.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Apr 17, 2019)

notb said:


> And what about @eidairaman1 's signature? What do you think about it?


I don't see sig's(turned them off in the site settings) so I can't comment. However, I think the rule is whatever is in someones sig is fair game as long is it doesn't break the site rules because a sig isn't direct communication to any one person. That's only my guess, but we're off topic and I digress...


DysphoricSmile said:


> Right right. Sorry.


No worries, it was just a friendly heads up.


DysphoricSmile said:


> Just trying to emphasize this misinformation that the 8700k is hard to cool and hard to hit ~5 GHZ with unless delidded.


Actually I disagree. The 8700k is not difficult to cool even when OC'd and cooled on air. I've built more than a few systems with that chip and OC'd nearly every one of them, most with a voltage bump. 5Ghz is not difficult to reach on air(presuming a quality cooler) and temp never reach or even get close to an unacceptable level.


----------



## TheMadDutchDude (Apr 17, 2019)

The fact remains that it will be cooler with a delid, though...


----------



## GoldenX (Apr 17, 2019)

I remember people complaining that the 980X, a 6 core at 45nm was overheating, we are now with a 6 core at 14nm, and they still overheat...


----------



## TheMadDutchDude (Apr 17, 2019)

Yep, that’s because there is a much higher frequency coupled with a much more dense focus of heat. It can only escape through silicon so fast, and I think we are reaching that point.


----------



## GoldenX (Apr 17, 2019)

TheMadDutchDude said:


> Yep, that’s because there is a much higher frequency coupled with a much more dense focus of heat. It can only escape through silicon so fast, and I think we are reaching that point.


That sounds too Pentium 4 to my taste.
I hope Intel is working on a successor to Core.


----------



## TheMadDutchDude (Apr 17, 2019)

It’s just facts, dude...


----------



## hat (Apr 17, 2019)

That's true. The higher the density, the more heat is concentrated into a small area. I'm guessing this is the reason early processors ran upwards of 3v, yet didn't even require a cooler (or, if they did, they were very basic, small passive coolers). With such a large process size and not many transistors compared to today, it simply wasn't necessary.


----------



## GoldenX (Apr 17, 2019)

hat said:


> That's true. The higher the density, the more heat is concentrated into a small area. I'm guessing this is the reason early processors ran upwards of 3v, yet didn't even require a cooler (or, if they did, they were very basic, small passive coolers). With such a large process size and not many transistors compared to today, it simply wasn't necessary.


My Pentium MMX can confirm that. Little 200MHz old champ.
Is the problem just the density/complexity of the design, or is it just the high frequency?


----------



## notb (Apr 17, 2019)

hat said:


> That's true. The higher the density, the more heat is concentrated into a small area. I'm guessing this is the reason early processors ran upwards of 3v, yet didn't even require a cooler (or, if they did, they were very basic, small passive coolers). With such a large process size and not many transistors compared to today, it simply wasn't necessary.


Voltage is like momentum in mechanics. You have to apply enough voltage to get past the potential barrier. We're improving the technology and learning to control it better. And we can utilize transistors with lower potential barrier.
Power consumption grows because there are more transistors in the CPU (more circuitry).


----------

