Saturday, October 13th 2018

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

Oct 13th, 2018 01:47 Discuss (322 Comments)

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:

Source: Principled Technologies (PDF)

Add your own comment

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

#101

cadaveca

My name is Dave

Xx Tek Tip xXI 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.

newtekie1Knowing 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? o_O

#102

Shatun_Bear

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.

#103

Shatun_Bear

dgianstefaniThe 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.

#104

Upgrayedd

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.

#105

M2B

Shatun_BearNonsense.

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.

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.

#106

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder

cadavecaI 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? o_O

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.

#107

Batou1986

Tsukiyomi913.) 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.

#108

Shatun_Bear

M2BIf 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.

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.

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.

#109

Dave65

Skar78Not 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.

#110

RH92

Skar78Am I the only one who expects an 2800X as soon as the real performance is in? :D

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

#111

R-T-B

BarbaricSoulWhen 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...

#112

Basard

BarbaricSoulYeah, 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.

#113

cadaveca

My name is Dave

BasardNo.... 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.

#114

Basard

cadavecaBut 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.

#115

cadaveca

My name is Dave

BasardThe 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.

#116

Unregistered

cadavecaWhat 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.

#117

cadaveca

My name is Dave

Xx Tek Tip xXExcluding 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.

#118

Unregistered

cadavecaWhy 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.

cadavecaWhere 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.

#119

Vya Domus

cadavecaBut 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.

#120

cadaveca

My name is Dave

Xx Tek Tip xXHalf 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 DomusMore 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.

#121

Vya Domus

cadavecaAMD 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$.

#122

cadaveca

My name is Dave

Vya DomusThat'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.

#123

SDR82

ZubasaNo 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

#124

Blueberries

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

#125

Dave65

dgianstefaniThe 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!

Add your own comment

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

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

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts

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

Related News

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

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts