[ad_1]
<div _ngcontent-c15 = "" innerhtml = "
A rich set of competitive benchmarks for Intel's recently announced 9th generation Intel i9-9900K 9th generation, pitting the powerful mainstream gaming processor against AMD's Ryzen 2700X. There is a lot to chew. Nineteen actually, including most of the most popular PC games. Unfortunately, they are all wrong.
Core i9-9900K from IntelIntel
These references were revealed by PCGamesN who published a selection of results provided by Intel. Well, somehow. Intel has commissioned a third party – in this case, Principled Technologies – to perform extensive gaming tests with the Core i9-9900K, Core i7-8700K and a handful of AMD Ryzen processors such as the 2700X and Threadripper 2950X.
The title reads: "The Intel Core i9 9900K is up to 50% faster than the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X in games." The article is presented primarily as a fact.
The AMD Ryzen 2700X is currently selling for around $ 299. The next Intel i9-9900K will be launched later this month at $ 488, 68% more than the Ryzen 2700X – and unlike its rival AMD, the i9-9900K without a cooler.
So, when we see a stock like this and take into account the price difference, it's fair – I would say even mandatory – to expect that kind of performance advantage. Unfortunately, the comparative tests were not conducted fairly. Not at a distance.
What they did well
Principled Studies was very talkative about its testing methodology, leaving virtually no guesswork on how they achieved their benchmarks. System hardware was almost identical except for motherboards and processors. The latest GeForce graphics drivers have been used. Each system has had its BIOS updated. The median score on three separate analyzes was used. They used a Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti card, limited the resolution to 1080p and relied on medium to high settings (instead of ultra) to clear the processor bottlenecks.
Until here everything is fine. Just and through. Admittedly, the only result that confirms this statement of superior performance of 50% is Ashes of singularity, a game that I think people compare more than they actually play.
What they did very badly
The exams of the i9-9900K are still embargoed and we will not see independent tests for a week. This means that the only results we have are those ordered by Intel. There is no reason to think that the FPS numbers observed with the i9-9900K are not honest, but remember that the proofreaders have no way to rebut these claims either because they are bound by a NDA.
But Hardware Unboxed has extensive experience in testing other During these benchmark tests, processors and published results, for both the Ryzen 2700X and the i7-8700K, triggered their, say, B.S. detector.
Steve Walton of Hardware Unboxed is put to work by replicating a few test benches from Principled Technologies and has accurately studied how they conducted their tests. It was at that point that he noticed the fatal flaw.
"They did everything to cripple Ryzen," Walton said. The problem lies in the way the company used the system memory during its tests. And this is a serious problem because a crucial step – the activation and configuration of an XMP profile – has been conveniently omitted on Ryzen systems.
"[they] "Let's keep ridiculously loose default memory timings," writes Walton to TechSpot. "These loose timings guarantee the system's compatibility so that it can boot, but then you have to activate the memory profile.It is misleading to achieve benchmarks without performing this crucial step.However, it would be almost just right. they did the same thing for Intel, but they did not do it.For all Intel platforms, they first set the memory on XMP, then adjusted the frequency manually, offering Intel a considerable advantage in terms of performance, especially for games. "
Using similar test systems and properly configured memory on both platforms, Walton noticed glaring discrepancies.
In Ashes of singularity, his Ryzen 2700X was 18% faster. Even more fascinating is Walton Assassin & # 39; s Creed: Origins result. In the report released by Principled Technologies, the Intel i7-8700K was 36% faster than the AMD Ryzen 2700X. Even when Walton has overclocked the memory, its result shows that the 8700K is only 10% better.
The bottom line is: always wait for independent reviews. This study clearly aimed to present the competitive advantage of Intel and give its new product a beautiful appearance. Of course that was. And I believe that Intel, when he says that the i9-9900K will be the fastest integration game processor of the market. But how much exactly and will it be worth the price?
Through the transparency of the Principled Technologies test methodology, we have the first steps of a very concrete proof that the results that could lead to the lifting of the embargo are, to say it clearly, wrong.
">
A rich set of competitive benchmarks for Intel's recently announced 9th generation Intel i9-9900K 9th generation, pitting the powerful mainstream gaming processor against AMD's Ryzen 2700X. There is a lot to chew. Nineteen actually, including most of the most popular PC games. Unfortunately, they are all wrong.
Core i9-9900K from IntelIntel
These references were revealed by PCGamesN who published a selection of results provided by Intel. Well, somehow. Intel has commissioned a third party – in this case, Principled Technologies – to perform extensive gaming tests with the Core i9-9900K, Core i7-8700K and a handful of AMD Ryzen processors such as the 2700X and Threadripper 2950X.
The title reads: "The Intel Core i9 9900K is up to 50% faster than the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X in games." The article is presented primarily as a fact.
The AMD Ryzen 2700X is currently selling for around $ 299. The next Intel i9-9900K will be launched later this month at $ 488, 68% more than the Ryzen 2700X – and unlike its rival AMD, the i9-9900K without a cooler.
So, when we see a stock like this and take into account the price difference, it's fair – I would say even mandatory – to expect that kind of performance advantage. Unfortunately, the comparative tests were not conducted fairly. Not at a distance.
What they did well
Principled Studies was very talkative about its testing methodology, leaving virtually no guesswork on how they achieved their benchmarks. System hardware was almost identical except for motherboards and processors. The latest GeForce graphics drivers have been used. Each system has had its BIOS updated. The median score on three separate analyzes was used. They used a Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti card, limited the resolution to 1080p and relied on medium to high settings (instead of ultra) to clear the processor bottlenecks.
Until here everything is fine. Just and through. Admittedly, the only result that confirms this statement of superior performance of 50% is Ashes of singularity, a game that I think people compare more than they actually play.
What they did very badly
The exams of the i9-9900K are still embargoed and we will not see independent tests for a week. This means that the only results we have are those ordered by Intel. There is no reason to think that the FPS numbers observed with the i9-9900K are not honest, but remember that the proofreaders have no way to rebut these claims either because they are bound by a NDA.
But Hardware Unboxed has extensive experience in testing other During these benchmark tests, processors and published results, for both the Ryzen 2700X and the i7-8700K, triggered their, say, B.S. detector.
Steve Walton of Hardware Unboxed is put to work by replicating a few test benches from Principled Technologies and has accurately studied how they conducted their tests. It was at that point that he noticed the fatal flaw.
"They did everything to cripple Ryzen," Walton said. The problem lies in the way the company used the system memory during its tests. And this is a serious problem because a crucial step – the activation and configuration of an XMP profile – has been conveniently omitted on Ryzen systems.
"[they] "Let's keep ridiculously loose default memory timings," writes Walton to TechSpot. "These loose timings guarantee the system's compatibility so that it can boot, but then you have to activate the memory profile.It is misleading to achieve benchmarks without performing this crucial step.However, it would be almost just right. they did the same thing for Intel, but they did not do it.For all Intel platforms, they first set the memory on XMP, then adjusted the frequency manually, offering Intel a considerable advantage in terms of performance, especially for games. "
Using similar test systems and properly configured memory on both platforms, Walton noticed glaring discrepancies.
In Ashes of singularity, his Ryzen 2700X was 18% faster. Even more fascinating is Walton Assassin & # 39; s Creed: Origins result. In the report released by Principled Technologies, the Intel i7-8700K was 36% faster than the AMD Ryzen 2700X. Even when Walton has overclocked the memory, its result shows that the 8700K is only 10% better.
The bottom line is: always wait for independent reviews. This study clearly aimed to present the competitive advantage of Intel and give its new product a beautiful appearance. Of course that was. And I believe that Intel, when he says that the i9-9900K will be the fastest integration game processor of the market. But how much exactly and will it be worth the price?
Through the transparency of the Principled Technologies test methodology, we have the first steps of a very concrete proof that the results that could lead to the lifting of the embargo are, to say it clearly, wrong.
