Principled Technologies Says it Messed Up Intel 9th Gen Testing

[TCA_ChinChin]

After me being so biased against AMD, I went and bought the Ryzen 7 2700X. And I must admit, as a gamer it's not impressive. When Intel's cheaper i5 outperforms it I see no reason to buy it unless I was a streamer. Except, for "branding" and AMD nostalgia. I like the Ryzen branding and the nostalgia of using an AMD processor.

As a gamer, yeah Intel is pretty much superior in FPS/$ and most other metrics. In other scenarios, AMD has better metrics/$. The same can be said for the R5 series that can do multi-threaded tasks better than the I5 can for 100$ less. Of course in the context of Principled Technologies, there is no arguing the Intel's architectures this generation and going back many generations is superior for gaming. A lot of outrage is because Intel doesn't need to resort to cheating to win, they already have a good product.

 

[TerryLaze]

[
"
Closing Remarks
Having established that the Core i7-8700K is hands down faster than the Ryzen 7 2700X for gaming, it's also not a great deal faster. Realistically at 1080p with a beastly graphics card you’ll stand to gain up to 15% performance at the high-end, but will more often see gains of 10% or less.
"

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html
If you go with the metric you describe then the i3-8350 is as fast as the 2700x it's like a 4% difference,which isn't any faster then the 2600x ,but still 4 intel cores are equal to 6c/12t ryzen, the 4/8 2400g for example is left in the dust
So the 9900k at least will have ginormous potentials for future proof,while the 2700x not so much

Where do you see 50% faster?

In the benchmark this thread is all about...
CSGO runs 48.4% faster.

 

[mitch074]

After me being so biased against AMD, I went and bought the Ryzen 7 2700X. And I must admit, as a gamer it's not impressive. When Intel's cheaper i5 outperforms it I see no reason to buy it unless I was a streamer. Except, for "branding" and AMD nostalgia. I like the Ryzen branding and the nostalgia of using an AMD processor.

I think it's been said several times already, if you want pure gaming performance an Intel CPU (with its higher clock speeds and years of game editors optimizing for Intel chips only) is the way to go. As soon as you're doing something other than / on top of gaming, such as multitasking (any), rendering, streaming, development, the Intel chips used to get completely overwhelmed.

In short, the Ryzen 2700X is a wonderful value if you use your PC as a PC. If you're using it as a game console on steroids, an Intel chip is usually better.

However, and that's the thing in the Principled Technologies reports, if you compare the 2700X with Intel's upcoming top of the line gaming chip, it reaches 75-85% of the performance everywhere for half the price (and not, as first announced, half the performance for half the price) at 1080p and was out 6 months before Intel's.

If the extra 20% top frame rate is worth $400 to you (you'll also need a $70 CPU cooler), then yes, get the 9900K. When Intel's next chip generation comes out you'll have to replace your motherboard (and likely pay for Windows 10 again), while with AMD you'll only need to flash your BIOS and plug the new CPU in your current system.

 

[saturnus]

[
"
Closing Remarks
Having established that the Core i7-8700K is hands down faster than the Ryzen 7 2700X for gaming, it's also not a great deal faster. Realistically at 1080p with a beastly graphics card you’ll stand to gain up to 15% performance at the high-end, but will more often see gains of 10% or less.
"

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html
If you go with the metric you describe then the i3-8350 is as fast as the 2700x it's like a 4% difference,which isn't any faster then the 2600x ,but still 4 intel cores are equal to 6c/12t ryzen, the 4/8 2400g for example is left in the dust
So the 9900k at least will have ginormous potentials for future proof,while the 2700x not so much

Where do you see 50% faster?

In the benchmark this thread is all about...
CSGO runs 48.4% faster.

CSGO runs on one core. Whichever CPU can boost the highest on one core wins, except CSGO is specifically optimised for Intel binaries only.

 

[volkgren]

After me being so biased against AMD, I went and bought the Ryzen 7 2700X. And I must admit, as a gamer it's not impressive. When Intel's cheaper i5 outperforms it I see no reason to buy it unless I was a streamer. Except, for "branding" and AMD nostalgia. I like the Ryzen branding and the nostalgia of using an AMD processor.

If the extra 20% top frame rate is worth $400 to you (you'll also need a $70 CPU cooler), then yes, get the 9900K. When Intel's next chip generation comes out you'll have to replace your motherboard (and likely pay for Windows 10 again), while with AMD you'll only need to flash your BIOS and plug the new CPU in your current system.

That's an extra 20% bottom frame rate. And it's not extra, it's what the GPU can do. GPU utilization drops to around 80% with the 2700X. And my i7-7700K is on par with an i5-8600K and can run on a $30 cooler. It's not an i9.

 

[TerryLaze]

CSGO runs on one core. Whichever CPU can boost the highest on one core wins, except CSGO is specifically optimised for Intel binaries only.

Which would make intel's cores 50% faster...

 

[TerryLaze]

As soon as you're doing something other than / on top of gaming, such as multitasking (any), rendering, streaming, development, the Intel chips used to get completely overwhelmed.

How do you figure that?
Looking at Tom's CPU tier bench I posted the 2700 has to run games at least with 6c/12t before dropping a lot of performance,that only leaves 2c/4t for anything else and that's not really much,in stark contrast on the intel side you only need the equivalent of 4 cores at 4Ghz everything beyond that can be used for other stuff,for the 9900k that would be another 4 real cores plus another 8 cores of HTT plus another 1Ghz.

 

[vapour]

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html
If you go with the metric you describe then the i3-8350 is as fast as the 2700x it's like a 4% difference,which isn't any faster then the 2600x ,but still 4 intel cores are equal to 6c/12t ryzen, the 4/8 2400g for example is left in the dust
So the 9900k at least will have ginormous potentials for future proof,while the 2700x not so much
Define your metric? game score means "4 intel cores are equal to 6c/12t ryzen", Ok, I don't need to see the rest of your words. You literally knows nothing, Intel fan boy.
In the benchmark this thread is all about...
CSGO runs 48.4% faster.
Only CSGO is the right benchmark, LMAO. Dude, you just lost all your credibility. In the review article, it clearly says 16%. With your logic, I can find a game Ryzen is better, so that makes Ryzen faster? Cherry-picking much?