If they think they are better because of a few percent in some single thread tests then maybe they should demo 8 single thread applications running at the same time
I mean Real-World Usage.
I mean Real-World Usage.
Intel's recent demonstration of a 28-core processor running at 5GHz has certainly stirred the pot here at Computex, particularly because the presentation appeared to imply this would be a shipping chip with a 5.0GHz stock speed. Unfortunately, it turns out that Intel overclocked the 28-core processor to such an extreme that it required a one-horsepower industrial water chiller. That means it took an incredibly expensive (not to mention extreme) setup to pull off the demo. You definitely won't find this type of setup on a normal desktop PC.
We met with the company last night, and while Intel didn't provide many details, a company representative explained to us that "in the excitement of the moment," the company merely "forgot" to tell the crowd that it had overclocked the system. Intel also said it isn’t targeting the gaming crowd with the new chip.
In the real world, granny opens up a separate Internet browser for each and every page.I'm honestly disappointed in Intel. They made a big deal about needing "real world benches" that better reflect actual usage, a lofty goal I thought. This is really all that "effort" amounted to?
That is true, most of the time most people don't know they have so many apps running at once, so that type of "Real World" usage will benefit Amd CPUs.In the real world, granny opens up a separate Internet browser for each and every page.
She also 3 instances of solitaire running.
This just shows, Intel knows Ryzen 3xxx are quite good. Nice seeing some competition again.
Granny also doesn't own a 9900K.
Edit: the main takeaway is that benchmarks etc should be fit for the desired purpose.
He finds farm animals attractive.What does this means?
I'm not sure whether to applaud them or laugh at them.
This is also incredibly smart by Intel because apparently most people don't have half a brain and are apparently targeting 9700K and 9900K and 3900X for web browsing and Office and casual gaming where a 3600 or a 9400F/9600K are more than sufficient.
1) The 9900K is the best CPU available at this time.
Test Item,Value
Test,WebXPRT_v 2.93
Test ID,240753
Date,2019-08-26 15:08:25
Browser,Firefox 56
Test Item,Value,Variance
Overall Score,305,6
Photo Enhancement,233,1.2%
Organize Album using AI,1240,1.34%
Stock Option Pricing,165,1.93%
Encrypt Notes and OCR Scan,994,0.26%
Sales Graphs,343,1.82%
Online Homework,980,1.17%
Capability,Present
Canvas,yes
CanvasText,yes
Canvas2DContext,yes
WebGL,yes
Audio,yes
Video,yes
Ogg,yes
H264,yes
WebM,yes
GeolocationAPI,yes
LocalStorage,yes
SVG,yes
WebWorkers,yes
Uint32ArraySupport,yes
I know you're poking fun. But...Seems like you've fallen victim to Intel's own benchmarks. Best for what exactly? I looked for numbers for WebXPRT in Intel's press mess and didn't actually find any. Maybe I wasn't looking hard enough? Techreport says a 9900k scores 272:
https://techreport.com/review/34192/intels-core-i9-9900k-cpu-reviewed/
My 3900x scores 305:
Should I re-run that with Edge? Maybe that'll lower my score a bit.
I fixed the bolded portion of your quote above.Anyway... my point should have been that for the vast majority of people, the absolute best consumer CPU, price-no-object, would be either the 9900K or 3900X.
In gaming, you are 100% correct. While there is not much of gap any more above 1080P, there still is a small deficit. However, since you referenced TechPowerUp being very AMD friendly with their Zen+ reviews, they stated this concerning Zen2:It trades blows with the 3900X for most mainline consumer tests (as run by TechPowerUp, who unabashedly recommend basically all the Zen 2 CPUs), and is faster in gaming.
Looking at our performance testing, we see the Ryzen 9 3900X beat Intel's Core i9-9900K in applications with a 13% lead. Our mix of applications includes tests that are highly threaded, somewhat threaded, and single threaded. If you focus only on higher-threaded applications, that lead would be even bigger. Still, the Ryzen 9 3900X does fall behind a bit in single-threaded application, like Microsoft Office and Adobe Photoshop, because Intel still has the higher single-threaded performance, mostly thanks to their much higher boost clock speeds on premium parts.
Such as? Surfing he Web? Open up Task Manager and looking at the 16 "Cores"? What Consumer apps beside Games is the 9900K trading blows with 3900X?my point should have been that for the vast majority of people, the absolute best consumer CPU, price-no-object, would be the 9900K. It trades blows with the 3900X for most mainline consumer tests .
"Real world usage" benchmarks obviously!What Consumer apps beside Games is the 9900K trading blows with 3900X?
All I can do is pity them at this point, no sense in even trying to defend them.
Anyway... my point should have been that for the vast majority of people, the absolute best consumer CPU, price-no-object, would be the 9900K.
Anyway... my point should have been that for the vast majority of people, the absolute best consumer CPU, price-no-object, would be the 9900K. It trades blows with the 3900X for most mainline consumer tests (as run by TechPowerUp, who unabashedly recommend basically all the Zen 2 CPUs), and is faster in gaming.