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

[BarbaricSoul]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

WOW, I'm done here.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Except if you want to get that 5 Ghz overclock.

You can use software for that =p

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

That's me! :-D

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.

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.

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%.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.