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

[Vayra86]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

I have no idea what you mean.

 

[Deleted member 178884]

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

 

[lexluthermiester]

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]

Much better performance/price ratio.

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

 

[lexluthermiester]

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]

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]

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]

How many ugly figures and controversy for my next CPU

 

[Deleted member 178884]

Trusted site reviews are what I prefer reading.

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

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]

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]

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]

Many will spend over 2K just in GPUs lol

You've misspelled "very few"

 

[Prima.Vera]

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

 

[jmcosta]

You've misspelled "very few"

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

 

[Deleted member 178884]

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]

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]

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]

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]

this intel is made for fans only....

 

[Deleted member 178884]

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.