AMD Faked 9900K Benchmark During E3 Conference

My first was 5820K, it was even cheaper then the mainstream quad core i7, i think i7-7700K, not super cheaper but like 5-10%. and it was a good overclocker
But Intel had 6 and 8 cores even earlier they just were more expensive.
People that wanted 6 and 8 cores for cheap were getting second hand Xeons on eBay too

 

https://twitter.com/Disney/status/1138571448010698753


GаmеrsNeхus

 

honestly I wouldn't be surpised if its a windows bug, my friend who has a 1900x had a similar issue when using obs, had something to do with the way windows was scheduling the task as " gaming" related.

 

I bet you have no idea what the demo was about. It was to show what a 12 core CPU can do and what an 8 core cannot. How is that fake ?
Why did they use a 9900k then ? Because it's been touted as the best gaming CPU due to it's single thread performance. But apparently another company managed
to produce a CPU with lower single clock speed but better IPC and similar gaming performance but with more cores and more power.

 

The thing is, it can do it and thats where they faked it.

 

Yes, it can benchmark the Division 2 while streaming using OBS. But it can't do it with the same settings as the 3900X.

So pushing a CPU to the limit using different software programs, with specific settings, and then using the exact same software and settings on another CPU to show the difference, is fake ?

I can understand why you would have preferred AMD to run a demo where only 4 or 6 cores were used, but what would be the point of that when you are demonstrating the difference between an 8 and 12 core CPU.

 

Can we just wait for some legit reviews please? You know, before we start hyping stuff.

 

Yep they made the Intel CPU fall over.

Here's the kicker, under the same scenario the ryzen keeps chugging away happily doing its thing.
These releases and claims are heavily scrutinised by the sec and other agencies. If they are misrepresenting the truth heavy fines will be incoming.

I find it quite amusing people accusing AMD after what Intel did 20 plus years ago. Yeah I had to buy motherboards in white boxes sold under the table by vendors fearing intels threats of sending them broke. I remember the fdiv bug. I remember the ICC shenanigans. I remember the under the table payments.

And you dare start a thread like this? LMAO.

 

yep there was nothing fake about it! They likely intentionally picked a setting/ scenario that would overwhelm the intel chip but that is about it. So what lol

 

In the end lies are always discovered. IF there are any.
So no worries, IF AMD lied, there will be pointed out.
But think for a second, did Intel always told the truth to their consumers, giving them security, enough cores and L3 cache and fair prices?
Ok, sorry for the poor eye for eye comparision, but Intel somehow manages quite wonderful to call the kettle black.

 

It just keeps getting better and better ....


Intel systems were run without updated software and firmware mitigations for the latest security flaws, which gives the Intel system a better performance than with these patches in place.
The OS used wasn't Win 10 build 1903 so no improved scheduler for Ryzen 3xxx.

 

While I can see merit on both sides of this discussion, I think it's flat-out wrong to describe the AMD demonstration as "fake." What was faked? Yes, one can certainly point out it's unrealistic, as I gather Gamers Nexus seems to be saying, but *if* both the AMD and Intel system were tasked equally, the results simply are what they are. I very seriously doubt anyone thinks the 9900k isn't capable of providing a fine streaming experience. I certainly don't. But, perhaps sometime in the not-too-distant future, who is to say that this streaming scenario won't be more relevant?

A poor analogy, but if both Intel and AMD manufactured trucks, this is akin to stating that the eight-cylinder Intel can tow a 60-ton tank up a hill at X kph, while the twelve-cylinder AMD vehicle can tow the identical 60-ton tank up the very same hill at Y kph, where the value Y is multiple times the value X. One can certainly argue that nobody is towing tanks around; that's fair enough. But that doesn't invalidate the comparison or indicate that it is fake.

The two processors are about the same price, so you pay your money and take your chances.

 

Where did all this stupid come from?
So many false comments and downright stupidity in this thread.

 

Stupid, false...neither here nor there. The main issue is and has always been that these dog and pony shows have yet to show what the settings being used are; from the bios settings to the software and windows settings. all one sees is what they want to you see. Even though they presented a more modest show, they still did not reveal what those settings were. There is no cure for stupid. There is a cure for ignorance. The cure is inbound.

 

I have a fever and the on cure is...... more cowbell.

I know the quote isn’t 100% accurate but it made me think of more cowbell.

 

You guys taking what any company says at these conferences as factual is what's ridiculous. Every company does it. It's to promote your product and get as much hype around it as possible. Whether it's hardware, games being downgraded, or products just never being released, it happens every day.

Wait for reviews

 

HEDT is not what he is talking about.

 

wah wah amd beat intel ata attest that both did with the same settings...just cause intel could not hack the over done settings is irrelevant.
inteliots are just jumping on anything to help the multi trillion dollar company come out on top.

as for the 1903 window update it definitely works
http://www.bluetarot.com/hardware/hdwrerev/windows-10-1903-may-update-and-1950x-threadripper/

here are my initial tests on an ol trusty 1950x and vega 64 last century tech can't wait to see what difference it makes for others.
Now with all that said I believe nothing from any CON E3 or otherwise and I will hold judgement till the masses get the numbers up, as long as the testers have half a brain and do it right unlike some.

 

He's talking about begging Intel for more than 4 cores. When we've had more than 4 cores for ages. At reasonable prices. Just look at 5820 for one example. I could list more.

 

Yeah...that is exactly like what the Hardware Unboxed guy said. The update increased synthetic benchmark scores. Real world gaming, saw no difference what so ever. All results were within the margin of error. The only thing I can say is that I perceive that games are running smoother. FPS wise, nothing has changed. Even the guy/guys at Level1techs said that a new chipset driver was needed to unlock the usefulness of the scheduler changes. Everything is still up in the air. So far the only improvements have been seen with synthetic benchmarks.