[ad_1]
The i9-9900K arrives, along with the rest of the Intel 9th generation processors. The company unveiled its Coffee Lake-R processors at an event that went very well yesterday. Intel unveiled its upcoming Core and Xeon chipset. He also spent a lot of time saying that the i9-9900K was the "best gaming processor to date". A day later, you would expect people to want to ask themselves whether or not they should upgrade and if the price is reasonable, but that is not the case. Instead, computer enthusiasts are furious with Intel for two unimaginable moves he could have avoided.
The two major problems of the event concern the i9-9900K. This is Intel's new high-end gaming chip that rivals AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X. Like this Ryzen chip, the 9900K has eight cores and 16 wires. It operates at 3.6 GHz, but it runs up to 5.0 GHz on one or two cores. On all hearts, it has a 4.7 GHz turbo. For me, this looks a lot like Intel's 8th generation i7-8086K with two extra cores. It's not confusing, but I think the 8086K is a great piece of equipment.
I particularly like the idea of the 9900K because it is proof that Intel listens to its noisiest customers. Most of the 9th generation Core Series uses soldering between CPU arrays and their heat sinks. This should make chips much less hot than recent generations, which used a paste-type thermo-interactive material.
So, if the product is good and even exciting in some ways, what's the problem? Well, Intel is doing it in its own way.
Confusion of prices
In its presentation, Intel said the Core i9-9900K would sell for $ 488 each. But what many people, including GamesBeat, have not noticed is that the price is accompanied by an asterisk. The amount of 488 USD corresponds to the amount charged by Intel by i9-9900K if you buy a thousand. I do not know about you, but I would never need it. Even if we had to talk about testing them for work, I would not need more than two in a reasonable scenario.
So what's the price if you want to buy one? $ 580.
You can generate about $ 90 difference between these two price levels. And I just do not understand why Intel would do that. Yesterday we wrote that the chip costs $ 488. Amazon was selling them 499 dollars. You can get them for $ 530 from BHPhoto and Best Buy. And although it is a lot of money, people were shocked by their situation. I almost even wrote that the i9-9900K gave the impression that the 8086K looked like an average popcorn in the cinema. Why should I use the media, when I can only spend $ 50 more to get the big one with two extra cores and solder?
But it's only a day later, and anyone considering an i9-9900K should start all over again. And it's worse because it now gives the impression of an immediate increase in prices. It's a weird message, and it's an ugly selling point.
Principles-based testing of technologies
And then we come to the tests that Intel sent yesterday. The company commissioned a technology company called Principled Technologies to perform third-party benchmarking of the i9-9900K against other chips, including the 8700K and Ryzen 7 2700X. According to these data, the 9900K is 50% faster than the 2700X. And while this seems unlikely for real-world use, that's not what ignited the PC hardware community. Instead, enthusiasts dismantle Principled Technologies and Intel for presenting obviously poor-quality test methods as a legitimate point of comparison.
The tests have a lot of problems. For me, the most shocking thing is that the results use a mixture of framés as reported by the FRAPS analysis program and reported by reference tools in the game. You can not mix and match your devices from measured. It is a bad science that invalidates everything that is reported.
But Principled Technologies has also limited the AMD hardware in a serious way. The worst example is that he used the "Game Mode" for the 2700X, which essentially turns off half of the chip. This means that the 2700X was working as a 4-core / 8-thread processor instead of 8 16-threaded cores.
So yes, you can run all these tests. It does not make sense.
But here is the thing. All comparative analyzes ordered at a company do not make sense. It's just marketing. And while marketing works, most people will ignore it. The only reason anyone would end up talking about your marketing a day later is if you did something malicious, silly or both.
Why would Intel do that?
Intel should know at this point that the computer hardware community is looking for these flubs. The company is at the top. It charges a high price compared to the competition. Customers want a reason to hate Intel and commit to AMD. Intel should not tell these people that he is the big bad guy.
What is even less logical is that Intel does not need to fudge the numbers to make itself understood. He wants to position the i9-9900X as the best gaming processor? Especially compared to the 2700X? No one, even a little familiar with this space, doubts that Intel's high-end chip will eventually outperform AMD's in games. Even when we start getting real benchmarks, it is unlikely that the 2700X compares favorably to gaming tests.
But Intel's third-party client falsified the numbers, and anyone can talk about it, at least if they do not talk about the price.
I do not particularly like these stories. People want the story "Intel will go", easy to follow, to be able to send the company and feel good not to update their old hardware or their new AMD purchase. But Intel makes sure that these people have a legitimate beef. We end up talking about all this garbage on the periphery, and we forget the products themselves.
Source link
