Intel Announces Core i9 9900K Processors

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Oct 8, 2018.

  1. metagamer

    metagamer Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,596
    Likes Received:
    1,165
    GPU:
    Asus Dual 4070 OC
    And this is exactly what I mean. You got the same performance on your 4770k as what they got on the 2700x. I'm pretty sure the 9900k will be plenty faster at 1080p. But whatever, let's wait for some proper reviews rather than jump to conclusions based on zero legitimate evidence.
     
  2. Amaze

    Amaze Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,338
    Likes Received:
    1,376
    GPU:
    Asus 4070 ti TUF
    First one had audio issue. Will be interesting to hear if they were allowed to talk to Principled.
     
  3. Paulo Narciso

    Paulo Narciso Guest

    Messages:
    1,226
    Likes Received:
    36
    GPU:
    ASUS Strix GTX 1080 Ti
    Thing is, these guy:

    got 104 fps in AC:Origins with 2700x which is not possible. So telling that Intel benchs are wrong and posting these ridiculous bench numbers is misleading and dumb.
     
  4. Amaze

    Amaze Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,338
    Likes Received:
    1,376
    GPU:
    Asus 4070 ti TUF
    You can find numbers like that elsewhere, it's not outrageous.
     

  5. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Guest

    Messages:
    11,808
    Likes Received:
    3,371
    GPU:
    6900XT+AW@240Hz
    If 104fps in not possible for 2700X in AC:O, how did those 2 TR chips got 104 and 106fps in those "principled" benchmarks? Mind that 104 is 24% higher fps than they shown for 2700X.
    I do not think that TR has 24% clock advantage. And I am quite sure AC:O performance does not scale with multiple available CPU cores by 24% above 8C/16T.
     
  6. Paulo Narciso

    Paulo Narciso Guest

    Messages:
    1,226
    Likes Received:
    36
    GPU:
    ASUS Strix GTX 1080 Ti
    In that particular game a 2700x can't reach those numbers.
     
  7. Paulo Narciso

    Paulo Narciso Guest

    Messages:
    1,226
    Likes Received:
    36
    GPU:
    ASUS Strix GTX 1080 Ti
    I'm only talking about 2700x. Also there's benchmark videos on youtube to prove that.
    And by the way, I don't want to defend Intel or AMD, I just don't like fake news and clickbaits.
     
  8. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Guest

    Messages:
    11,808
    Likes Received:
    3,371
    GPU:
    6900XT+AW@240Hz
    So, are you saying that "Principled" had good results for 2700X, but had some bad scores for both TR chips they tested? (Kind of weird narrative.)

    And apparently, yours "only talking about 2700x" means that you intentionally take those results out of context. As all those numbers are from same site.
     
  9. Paulo Narciso

    Paulo Narciso Guest

    Messages:
    1,226
    Likes Received:
    36
    GPU:
    ASUS Strix GTX 1080 Ti
    I benchmarked the game myself and compared to their result. Just that.
     
  10. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Guest

    Messages:
    11,808
    Likes Received:
    3,371
    GPU:
    6900XT+AW@240Hz
    Your CPU is not comparable to 2700X. All you have there is your belief that your chip is superior to 2700X. Which is especially wrong in case of AC:O which uses quite a few threads.
     

  11. Paulo Narciso

    Paulo Narciso Guest

    Messages:
    1,226
    Likes Received:
    36
    GPU:
    ASUS Strix GTX 1080 Ti
    Man, It's not my belief, there's not a single game that 2700x beat my overclocked 4770k.
     
  12. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Guest

    Messages:
    11,808
    Likes Received:
    3,371
    GPU:
    6900XT+AW@240Hz
    Your overclocked:
    Seems like average OC for 2nd generation. Known to whom?
     
  13. Paulo Narciso

    Paulo Narciso Guest

    Messages:
    1,226
    Likes Received:
    36
    GPU:
    ASUS Strix GTX 1080 Ti
  14. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Guest

    Messages:
    11,808
    Likes Received:
    3,371
    GPU:
    6900XT+AW@240Hz
  15. Paulo Narciso

    Paulo Narciso Guest

    Messages:
    1,226
    Likes Received:
    36
    GPU:
    ASUS Strix GTX 1080 Ti

  16. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Guest

    Messages:
    11,808
    Likes Received:
    3,371
    GPU:
    6900XT+AW@240Hz
    I actually know quite a few things about AC:O and people with 4C/8T CPUs realizing that their CPU utilization is 100% and they bottleneck their 1080Ti cards.
    4C/4T CPUs are severely bottlenecking even 1080.
     
  17. metagamer

    metagamer Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,596
    Likes Received:
    1,165
    GPU:
    Asus Dual 4070 OC
    Doesn't the game mode only half the cores on Threadrippers? Meaning it should not affect the 2700x?
     
  18. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Guest

    Messages:
    11,808
    Likes Received:
    3,371
    GPU:
    6900XT+AW@240Hz
    Skip to 50s:
     
  19. Noisiv

    Noisiv Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,230
    Likes Received:
    1,494
    GPU:
    2070 Super
    I would like to propose a Purchase Satisfaction Rule which states:

    One's satisfaction with his purchase is inversely proportional with the amount of time he spends arguing, whether defending his purchase or trashing others.

    Please ignore, if such rule already exist.The reason why I'm calling it a rule, is because I'm too modest to call it a law [​IMG]
     
  20. D3M1G0D

    D3M1G0D Guest

    Messages:
    2,068
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    GPU:
    2 x GeForce 1080 Ti
    Even redditors on the Intel subreddit aren't pulling any punches on this. And indeed they shouldn't - this completely overshadows yesterday's product release and makes it seem like Intel has something to hide. The enthusiasm and momentum that Intel gained yesterday is completely reversed - and it's entirely their own fault! Does anyone at Intel's PR department have any common sense at all?

    How, in this day and age, with information readily available at your fingertips, did Intel think they could get away with posting and endorsing such flawed data? Either they thought people wouldn't check (which would make them extremely ignorant) or they thought people would go along with it anyways (which would make them extremely foolish). Did they think negative coverage is better than no coverage? What's the angle here, because I really don't see it.

    We all knew what the 9900K would be. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how this CPU would perform - it will certainly be the new gaming king and there was really no need to try to ham it up with "the 9900K performs up to 50% faster than the 2700X!" This is reflected in the stock price as well - AMD gained 3% today while Intel declined 1% (yesterday, it was the opposite).

    What a way to ruin a release. With all the bad news that they had received in the past few months - the 10nm delay, the 14nm shortages and the resultant price hikes - they had a chance to turn all that around with a successful fall refresh... and then this happens. I'm finding it increasingly difficult to believe that Intel is a fortune 500 company at all.
     

Share This Page