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

[Nelly]

Principled Technologies (PT), which Intel paid to obtain some very outrageous test results for its Core i9-9900K eight-core processor launch event test-results, revised its benchmark data by improving its testing methodology partially. Initial tests by the outfit comparing Core i9-9900K to the Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and 2990WX, sprung up false and misleading results because PT tested the AMD chip with half its cores effectively disabled, and crippled its memory controller with an extremely sub-optimal memory configuration (4-module + dual-rank clocked high, leaving the motherboard to significantly loosen up timings).

The original testing provided us with such gems as the i9-9900K "being up to 50 percent faster than 2700X at gaming." As part of its revised testing, while Principled Technologies corrected half its rookie-mistakes, by running the 2700X in the default "Creator Mode" that enables all 8 cores; it didn't correct the sub-optimal memory. Despite this, the data shows gaming performance percentage-differences between the i9-9900K and the 2700X narrow down to single-digit or around 12.39 percent on average, seldom crossing 20 percent. This is a significant departure from the earlier testing, which skewed the average on the basis of >40% differences in some games, due to half the cores being effectively disabled on the 2700X. The bottom-line of PT's new data is this: the Core i9-9900K is roughly 12 percent faster than the Ryzen 7 2700X at gaming, while being a whopping 66% pricier ($319 vs. $530 average online prices).

This whopping 12.3% gap between the i9-9900K and 2700X could narrow further to single-digit percentages if the 2700X is tested with an optimal memory configuration, such as single-rank 2-module dual-channel, with memory timings of around 14-14-14-34, even if the memory clock remains at DDR4-2933 MHz.

Intel responded to these "triumphant" new numbers with the following statement:

Given the feedback from the tech community, we are pleased that Principled Technologies ran additional tests. They've now published these results along with even more detail on the configurations used and the rationale. The results continue to show that the 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900K is the world's best gaming processor. We are thankful to Principled Technologies' time and transparency throughout the process. We always appreciate feedback from the tech community and are looking forward to comprehensive third party reviews coming out on October 19.

The media never disputed the possibility of i9-9900K being faster than the 2700X. It did, however, call out the bovine defecation peddled as "performance advantage data."

The entire testing data follows: https://www.principledtechnologies.com/Intel/PC_gaming_processor_study_101218.pdf

Source: TechPowerup / Principled Technologies (PDF)

 

[Rroff]

I think people are being a bit harsh on PT - I've been following GN's coverage. At the end of the day PT are a generic testing house - they cover a large range of tech and marketting and mostly operate to the client brief specification. They don't have the specialisation for testing games, etc. that the likes of TPU and GN, etc. do the culprit here is Intel especially not bringing reviewers like TPU onboard earlier on.

The followup statement from Intel says it all - they are so far up their own backside it is unreal.

 

[Panos]

I think people are being a bit harsh on PT - I've been following GN's coverage. At the end of the day PT are a generic testing house - they cover a large range of tech and marketting and mostly operate to the client brief specification. They don't have the specialisation for testing games, etc. that the likes of TPU and GN, etc. do the culprit here is Intel especially not bringing reviewers like TPU onboard earlier on.

The followup statement from Intel says it all - they are so far up their own backside it is unreal.

Actually it is not generic. The company is owned by Intel, literally.

 

[Rroff]

Actually it is not generic. The company is owned by Intel, literally.

Based on what? other than a throw away remark by one tech reviewer that wasn't intended literally.

 

[Journey]

Based on what? other than a throw away remark by one tech reviewer that wasn't intended literally.

PT have a range of benchmarks that they developed called XPRT, which was basically paid for by Intel, as Intel invested heavily in PT in the mid 2k's to shift from the Sysmark shenanigans that they caused.

http://vrworld.com/2014/11/03/shades-sysmark-2001-intel-may-webxprt-problem/

 

[Perfect_Chaos]

How much faster is Zen+ over Zen? Because if you look at DF benchmarks, the 7700k for example does show more than what I'd call a 12% lead over the 1800x at least in minimum fps. Most charts aren't showing that, only averages.

 

[Rroff]

PT have a range of benchmarks that they developed called XPRT, which was basically paid for by Intel, as Intel invested heavily in PT in the mid 2k's to shift from the Sysmark shenanigans that they caused.

http://vrworld.com/2014/11/03/shades-sysmark-2001-intel-may-webxprt-problem/

Intel is/was heavily involved in the development of those benchmarks yes (although that in itself isn't really unusual - many of the major tech companies are contributors on industry benchmark suites) and also a major customer of PT - there are 3 or more published results for Intel for every 1 of any other company (so obviously they will want to keep them happy) - but that is a far cry from being owned by Intel or a spin-off of Intel.

 

[hyperseven]

why is 'Game' mode not disabled if not using a supported processor?

 

[Rroff]

why is 'Game' mode not disabled if not using a supported processor?

I was wondering about that - or atleast have some kind of CPU specific programming in how it functions (there might be valid reasons why people want to force it). Seems like another instance of AMD tripping themselves up unnecessarily.

 

[hyperseven]

Actually it is not generic. The company is owned by Intel, literally.

You really do like making things up, nothing on their acquisitions list about them owning PT You do know they have worked with AMD too, they own them as well? and Nvidia....the conspiracy goes on and on...

 

[Hotwired]

why is 'Game' mode not disabled if not using a supported processor?

What makes you think Ryzen is not a supported processor.

Two switches are activated and yes they are disabled for certain CPUs.

From the Ryzen Master manual:

Several features may or may not be applicable to a given processor family, or model, or
generation.
Ryzen Master 1.2 changes the visibility of two features depending on applicability:
1.
The Legacy Compatibility Mode (LCM) control is relevant to processors with greater than
four cores
a.
Ryzen Master 1.2 deactivates and hides this control for any processors o
f four cores
or less
2.
The Memory Access Mode (MAM) control is relevant only to Ryzen Threadripper
processors
a.
Ryzen Master 1.2 deactivates and hides this control for Ryzen processors

So you cannot change memory mode if you don't have a Threadripper and you cannot cut the core count in half if the cpu has 4 cores or less.

As we know PT was busy pressing the button to cut the 2700X core count in half for testing and either they're lying about why or they were ignorant about what it does.

Here's someone testing Legacy Compatibility Mode on Ryzens quite some time ago and generally concluding it reduces performance.

The tooltip you are given tells you it may improve performance in older games and programs. Hence the compatibility name.

Doesn't sound relevant to a suite of modern games and yet PT stuck that on.

 

[hyperseven]

What makes you think Ryzen is not a supported processor.

Two switches are activated and yes they are disabled for certain CPUs.

From the Ryzen Master manual:



So you cannot change memory mode if you don't have a Threadripper and you cannot cut the core count in half if the cpu has 4 cores or less.

As we know PT was busy pressing the button to cut the 2700X core count in half for testing and either they're lying about why or they were ignorant about what it does.

Here's someone testing Legacy Compatibility Mode on Ryzens quite some time ago and generally concluding it reduces performance.

The tooltip you are given tells you it may improve performance in older games and programs. Hence the compatibility name.

Doesn't sound relevant to a suite of modern games and yet PT stuck that on.

why do you need these profiles? Can it not detect and apply knowing what program is currently running and what hardware is installed. If not a known application then asks for user input.

I never said Ryzen is not a supported processor.

 

[Rroff]

Regardless though I think the AMD implementation leaves a lot to be desired - you'd think a company like PT "would" have tested with both modes to see which performed best for a given scenario (or maybe they did... hence the quotes around would).

 

[Hotwired]

I never said Ryzen is not a supported processor.

????

Then you were saying something truly bizarre in a thread involving only Ryzen and TR AMD CPUs since as the above information said, all options are disabled if the CPU cannot use them.

why do you need these profiles? Can it not detect and apply knowing what program is currently running and what hardware is installed. If not a known application then asks for user input.

It is a compatibility mode. It cripples the CPU into a more generic and lower threaded form in case of older programs not playing well with AMDs modular CPU design and/or the high thread count.

Unless you are quite sure a program has a problem you should not use those switches since you are crippling the cpu.

 

[hyperseven]

????

Then you were saying something truly bizarre in a thread involving only Ryzen and TR AMD CPUs since as the above information said, all options are disabled if the CPU cannot use them.



It is a compatibility mode. It cripples the CPU into a more generic and lower threaded form in case of older programs not playing well with AMDs modular CPU design and/or the high thread count.

Unless you are quite sure a program has a problem you should not use those switches since you are crippling the cpu.

So you shouldn't use a mode clearly labelled 'Game mode' in games unless you have tried both on and off previously and figured out which is best

What about 'Creators mode' is that as daft?

 

[Troezar]

Some very disingenuous arguments being made in this thread. Any competent tester would ensure they understood what settings they were using. It's very odd how all the "accidental" mistakes in testing only hampered the products of the test's sponsor's competition.

Either PT were following Intel's instructions to the letter, in which case Intel most definitely know what they're doing or PT are not very good at their job. If you can't rely on their testing results what's the point of them other than someone to take the flak if your "accidents" are unearthed.

Everyone in the industry will know that RAM, temperature and disabling half the cores will make Ryzen perform worse. Except Intel and a professional testing house? Lol do me a favour

 

[Rroff]

Some very disingenuous arguments being made in this thread. Any competent tester would ensure they understood what settings they were using. It's very odd how all the "accidental" mistakes in testing only hampered the products of the test's sponsor's competition.

Either PT were following Intel's instructions to the letter, in which case Intel most definitely know what they're doing or PT are not very good at their job. If you can't rely on their testing results what's the point of them other than someone to take the flak if your "accidents" are unearthed.

Everyone in the industry will know that RAM, temperature and disabling half the cores will make Ryzen perform worse. Except Intel and a professional testing house? Lol do me a favour

These companies pretty much purely exist to make money, they aren't tech enthusiasts, etc. despite being professional testers they are kind of useless outside of marketing i.e. QA Consultants driver stability audit which was riddled with the same kind of methodology flaws as this stuff from PT - that and very few clients would want to pay what it cost to do exhaustive testing as to the why behind every aspect of testing which unfortunately ends up looking badly on the tester if their client only paid for a simplistic service.

 

[Stanners]

Actually it is not generic. The company is owned by Intel, literally.

Do you have any proof of this?

 

[Panos]

Do you have any proof of this?

AdoredTV said so few days back on his last video....

 

[NinjaCool]

I don't believe for a second this is just a case of incompetence because Intel knew exactly what TP were doing since they validated their results before release.
This is likely Intel trying to pump their 9900K scores up as much as possible to justify the high price tag, and to get as many onto their platform before AMD's 7nm CPU hits the streets.

What's truly amazing is that Intel thought the tech press would not react to flawed benchmarks but when they actually did, Intel basically just said, well the 9900K still wins!... nobody was even talking about the 2700x being faster

I guess Christmas came early for AMD, thanks to Intel and their 9900K because this mess just makes it easier to wait for AMD's 7nm CPU generation