TBH too much of a fuss is being made about these Intel commissioned benchmarks. We'll get to see the true picture in 10 days time.
The effect of the Z390 chipset as well...It's more lucrative to the cater to the frenzy of the crowd.
Or you could point out the more sensible option of using the 8700k as the baseline comparison as possible meaningful data.
The 9900k is basically more cores and higher stock clocks. What the end performance is shouldn't be all that surprising and pretty easily estimable to a reasonable degree. Everyone by now has their impression of how Skylake/Kabylake/Coffeelake actually stack up versus Zen/Zen+. CFL-R is unlikley to change that from a performance stand point.
Main things out of interest in reviews are -
- power/efficiency scaling
- overclocking
- hardware mitigation impacts
Not a surprise really, as to me it seems HWUB has become pretty openly a pro AMD site, more or less recently.
Basically they complained that Ryzen's memory was not overclocked nor the timings weren't optimized manually, and stock speeds and timings were used instead.
All of the systems were running at the maximum officially supported memory speeds and according to HWUB that equals to gimping AMD and favoring Intel.
Despite the fact that Intels were running at lower memory speeds (2666MHz vs 2933MHz).
Lol I know right? He even ran the 1500X in game mode with half the cores and much slower ramAssassin's Creed Origins Benchmark youtube link
It's funny how the same guy already showed a ~40% difference(SMT/HTT is broadly supposed to add ~30% ) even in very heavily multithreaded games but somehow the additional 10% to reach 50% in very single threaded games broke the camels back...
Lol.
No it wasn't. The 1800x was competing with the 6800k on HEDT and matching/beating its performance for half the price. Never mind that an OCed 1700 could do the same . . .
Regardless, within the context of March 2017, it was a resounding success at $499. Now it looks silly, and AMD has lowered prices accordingly.
Thats the problem, a mainstream CPU wasnt suppose to compete against a HEDT cpu. AM4 platform Ryzens (mainstream) are suppose to compete against mainstream Intel CPUs in the socket 1150 platform. The only reason nobody complained about the 1800X $499 price tag was because everyone were glad we had competition again in the CPU landscape. But that doesnt mean we need another $499 mainstream CPU, Im betting AMD will release a Ryzen 3 next year at the same or close the same price as 9900K just because there is already another SKU up there.
They don't have to. Remember, AMD is looking out for the value-conscious segment of enthusiasts, and price their products accordingly.Thats the problem, a mainstream CPU wasnt suppose to compete against a HEDT cpu. AM4 platform Ryzens (mainstream) are suppose to compete against mainstream Intel CPUs in the socket 1150 platform. The only reason nobody complained about the 1800X $499 price tag was because everyone were glad we had competition again in the CPU landscape. But that doesnt mean we need another $499 mainstream CPU, Im betting AMD will release a Ryzen 3 next year at the same or close the same price as 9900K just because there is already another SKU up there.
Thats the problem, a mainstream CPU wasnt suppose to compete against a HEDT cpu. AM4 platform Ryzens (mainstream) are suppose to compete against mainstream Intel CPUs in the socket 1150 platform.
The only reason nobody complained about the 1800X $499 price tag was because everyone were glad we had competition again in the CPU landscape.
But that doesnt mean we need another $499 mainstream CPU, Im betting AMD will release a Ryzen 3 next year at the same or close the same price as 9900K just because there is already another SKU up there.
Jeez, they could probably save $25 on the packaging...
Looks like what seems to be a i9 9900K review kit.
Turns out the paid review enabled Threadripper's "Game Mode" on the 2700x... disabling one CCX and effectively turning it into a 4C8T CPU.
Yeah.
https://www.patreon.com/posts/21950120
The benchmarks carried out by Principled Technologies are even more bogus than we first thought. A few viewers pointed out that the Ryzen 7 2700X was listed as tested in the “Game Mode” within the Ryzen Master software and I foolishly thought they might have just made a simple copy and paste error in their document as they would have used this mode for the 2950X. This does explain why the Threadripper CPUs were faster than the 2700X in every test.
What this means is a CCX module in the 2700X was completely disabled, essentially turning it into a quad-core. I’ve gone ahead and re-run the XMP 2933 test with Game Mode enabled and now I’m getting results that are within the margin of error to those published by Principled Technologies.
This is unbelievable, I don’t know if they are being extremely malicious or it’s just incompetence of the highest order. How do you take note of every last setting to be documented but not realize just 4-core/8-threads are active on an 8-core/16-thread processor?
Reading the published PDF, it seems that every other CPU was cooled with a beefy Noctua heatsink, while the 2700x used the comparably inferior (while excellent) stock Wraith Prism.
I guess 10 days of fake, malicious data while everyone is under NDA will be great for sales, right?
Of course this will be faster than the 2700x on everything, but not 30-50% faster on average. The value proposition of the 9900k falls off a cliff when that gets reduced to what it actually is.
Still... AMD should disable the game mode slider on AM4 Ryzen... that's one bad oversight.
If intel's pulling desperate stunts like this despite the obvious advantage, the 9900K might not be much of an improvement over the 8700K, this is a pathetic attempt to negate the price delta against the 2700X
Is there anyone knowledgeable about computers who thinks published TDP numbers are the power draw numbers that you will see in the real world? Is there anyone who does not know that AVX loads are hard on CPUs?
The "65W" 8700 consume as much as a 8700K, the allegedly 35W 8700T is measured at roughly 65W at stock and in Cinebench, at some point you have to realise that Intel s definition of TDP is extremely elastic..
When is Cascade Lake supposed to hit the Xeon market?
No, you don't.Damn it I just got my board earlier this year when I upgraded to the i7 8700k. I'm guessing I'll need a new board if I want to go to the 9900k?
I'm guessing Asus will release bios updates for support improvement. I was just curious if the VRM's on this board will be enough. I didn't overclock my 8700k much but it easily does 5.0ghz and I ran it like that for a couple weeks before I put it back to stock.No, you don't.
Cascade Lake-SP(server) should be hitting very soon, like within 2 months.
Cascade Lake-X is a different story. Last I heard its sometime Q3 of next year. I assume the client parts are more demanding as they want higher frequency so they need extra time to get faster parts and bin them.
Depends on your boards particular VRM strengths. My guess is you'll be fine. Most existing Z370 boards should fair well.I'm guessing Asus will release bios updates for support improvement. I was just curious if the VRM's on this board will be enough. I didn't overclock my 8700k much but it easily does 5.0ghz and I ran it like that for a couple weeks before I put it back to stock.