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

JIDF shill

12% faster for double the price

>You literally cannot find the i9 9900k for less than €650
stop kvetching

why are people comparing the 9900k to the 2700x? may as well use the 9700k

>threadlet

benchmarks matter, not threads or cores or whatever other unimportant metric

Unironically this, might as well compare 2950X to 9900k then

because it's the competition and the competition offers 12% less for $210 (average) less. We all know you won't find it for the actual price tho because intel can't shit out these cpu's at a reasonable rate so enjoy paying $250-300 more than their competition.

pointless comparing top of the line to top of the line when one company's second best still offers better performance
the 9900k is just an overpriced piece of shit but that doesn't mean the 9700k is too

"95w" TDP

Threads matter to me. I compile a lot of crap frequently.

Cores don't matter, really? Is that why Intel scrambled to create 8-core housefires after Ryzen was released in 2017?

oy vey

Attached: 1411839177412.jpg (719x720, 98K)

user that image is really old

Attached: 1492139297054.jpg (752x548, 282K)

>when AMD was gimped by PT AMD shills claim the benchmark was fake
>now that PT "updated" their results their benchmarks are now valid

>AMD shills claim the benchmark was fake
so 99% of tech reviewers are amd shills now?

>why are people comparing the 9900k to the 2700x
That is a really good question because it really is utterly pointless. I'm looking for the best value at a given price-point. If I'm looking for a $100 phone for my nephew (who will likely break it within half a year) then it's irrelevant if I could by a slightly better iPhone by paying $900 more.

The i9-9900K is a 6249 SEK CPU. The closest AMD competition would be the 1920X at 4690 SEK. The other AMD close to that price would be the 2950X at 9999 SEK which is much higher. So the i9-9900K vs the 1920X would be the obvious comparison - even though the i9-9900K is much more expensive it's the closest priced AMD CPU.

The only Intel CPU actually competing with the R7-2700X right now would be the i5-9600K - that one's similarly priced. And it's a six-core. Similarly, the i3-8100 is competing with the R7-1700 right now.

Now here's the really bad news: Intel is NOT expected to get their production problems shorted out until, at best, early 2019 so Intel CPU prices aren't going to normalize any time soon.

Attached: currentstateofamdvsintel-fs8.png (1160x1496, 200K)

sweden yes.

The 9900k is the real i7 since they've downgraded their entire stack. It is totally separate from the real refreshed i9s.

The new i7 is basically an i5 now.

Just because their current prices are astronomical doesn't mean that they should be compared to similarly expensive parts. This is the same shit as last year when Coffee Lake launched.

Maybe Intel doesn't want to mass produce desktop CPUs anymore or they have decided that churning out more Xeons are important.

>churning out more Xeons are important
And yet they still get pulverized by Epyc.

Attached: AMD-EPYC-7000-Series-Server-Processors_Performance.png (1393x954, 159K)

>doesn't mean that they should be compared to similarly expensive parts
why, I always do. I budget what I want to spend on motherboard, RAM, CPU and GPU and if I'm looking at say 5k for motherboard/CPU then I'll compare parts at that price and buy whatever has the best price/performance.

I do get what you're saying with the Intel downgrade, the i7's used to have hyperthreading and now they don't. And so on. But as I said, only care what's better at the price I feel like paying.

>Maybe Intel doesn't want to mass produce desktop CPUs anymore or they have decided that churning out more Xeons are important.
Someone has to be buying a metric to of those for sure. I have no idea who. I know Intel expected to have 10nm ready by now and failed miserably but that still doesn't exactly explain how they managed to screw up this badly. Making modems for Apple's iPhones sure as hell isn't using all that 14nm capacity.

14nm is what, 5 years old now? It's really strange that Intel would have these capacity problems there.

Xeons are sold out, Epycs aren't.

Enterprise solutions aren't always about cores and performance.

Oh shi...

Attached: d9a28cb230751afa3287ab0bc77ea9e29f3bda8e8d065612fae3b000a8928d69.png (925x711, 16K)

*NEW* Cores and performance don't matter to enterprise solutions.

the cuckshed of swedistan

I still have 6600. It just werks.

youtube.com/watch?v=CL-JFh9BzH8

PT is literally Intels daughter company you mong.

Xeon units are only being sold out because Intel is only able to field a couple thousand units at a time (Shitty yields). Unlike AMD which can easily churn out tens to hundred of thousands of units.

Epycs are going to be picking-up considerable marketshare once the validation/proving period (Yes, F1000 are already doing this with test systems) is over.

Meltdown and Spectre issues have cause far more damage to Intel's prestige and reputation then their silly marketing shenanigans.

"You don't get fire for getting Intel" meme has been completely BTFO in the SMB/Enterprise world.

I think Intel dropped the ball on cpus to content nvidia on gpus

Contest*

Please Intel bro, is there hope for us?

Attached: 0000000002.jpg (638x599, 123K)

Xeons are sold out because Intel's fabs struggle to produce ANY chips, dumbass
they even had to dial back to 28nm on some chips because they couldn't produce them on 14nm in quantities they wanted

lel top of the line is Threadripper 2950x or 2990wx dip shit, 9900 is amateur level in comparison

Attached: 00000000000000003.jpg (450x450, 38K)

>dropped the ball on cpus
There is nothing wrong with Intel CPUs other than their pricing.

They don't want to be a budget brand like AMD and would rather price themselves higher than slug it out with price cuts with AMD.

>clickbait article written by a literal pajeet
>ctrl+f "bovine defecation" yields 1 result
HAHAHAHAHA
you cant make this shit up!

Attached: pajeetpowerup.png (1871x718, 1.14M)

Their yields are so shit that they cannot create enough and they are increasing price to compensate.

>nothing wrong
what about thermals?
what about the outdated design from C2D era that although well refined reached its' limits?
what about the removal of HT on 9700k?
what about cheating in paid benchmarks?
what about being one of most anti-consumer brands on the market?

The removal of hyperthreading I suspect is because it makes the chips go nuclear when stressed - particularly avx - so they need to aggressively bin the higher quality silicon to make it so you can actually fucking cool them. Remember Intel's actual dies are fucking tiny.

And no cooler

They removed hyperthreading on the 9700k because of segmentation.

More SKUs means more shekels.

Stop kvetching and buy it. Quality costs, no matter what the product.

>AMD shills are literally pajeets
Kek

not because of the security hole?

For desktop plebs Intel doesn't care.

That too. The xeon lineup is an unholy mess of segregation basically because Intel can get away with it (or at least try).

>Just 12% Faster

If even AMDniggers admit that it's 12% faster, it must be at least twice as fast.

Benchmarks requested by intel themselves shows something like 15% advantage overall and mostly in some pc gaming of course after benchmarks being redone but even in games some modern titles score higher with AMD, in the end is very hard for intel to justify their price tags, intel also lacks any effective response against Threadripper and EPIC both in performance or price, its very bad picture for intel right now after massive failure with 10nm and security flaws that until now aren't fully fixed, if AMD 7nm processors don't fail like bulldozer Intel may actually be finished as market leader.

not so fast shlomo

Attached: intel 5ghz btfo.png (712x455, 197K)

>only 12% faster
>Zen2 will have higher IPC and faster clocks

AMD is going to win gaymen benches with their 7nm parts.

>Hardware Unboxed getting destroyed by Linus
>can't shittalk him because he has 7 million drones ready to die for him
>clearly overreacted despite claiming he has 20 years of "experience"
>if he did have 20 years of "experience" he'd know that Intel did far worse than concoct fake benchmarks
>the AMD fanboy in him believes Intel commissioned the benchmarks out of plain malice, which Linus effectively destroyed in a lengthy post where he just thinks PT and Intel are just plain incompetent and is quick to point out that Intel always had stock shortages every release for the past two years so if they wanted to boost sales it wouldn't work because they have no stock anyway
>since he's so afraid to shittalk him he just claims that Linus just "doesn't get it" and fucks off
(lol

If I were Intel I'd never send samples to this kangaroo fucktard again, he can buy so if he wants to. GN is much more fair and objective unlike this guy who claims to be neutral but spouts the same talking points as your average AMD fanboy.

Pt is literally just an Intel shell company lmao

In the OP, you said 12% faster, now you admit that it's more like 15%.

I wonder how much you will admit if we keep going. In reality, Intel probably has a 30% advantage in video games and everyone knows it.

Because the results are even more embarassing for Intel and the 9700K.

That's why the embargo is gagging tech reviewers and only showing one, paid-for benchmarketing publication.

I'm guessing the 9700K will be 5-8% faster than a 2700K

Attached: humiliated.jpg (1438x960, 166K)

>tfw amazing productivity and 1440p gaming
Intel corelets will never know this feel unless they spend 2x as much on a CPU

Attached: speccy_ryzen.jpg (1493x1153, 420K)

Kind of right tho since the first tests where clearly a shitty job.

Everyone called them out on it. Not just the amd shills

Wtf is this the dumbest reply since the invention of the internet?

So amd are half the cost, have more cores, perform better and are more secure.

And somehow this doesn't matter?

That isn't true.
Imtel fabs for top xeons is actually money print, they bin every scrap till 4 cores Xeon.
In a lot of markets performance isn't the top requirement on several markets Intel is the main requirement. There is enterprise shenningans, and there is requirements for Intel CPUs as compiled code works best, the thing is all about market share and how slowly the enterprise market runs. Usually companies keep servers for at least 3 years, so when Intel comes with 10nm they will not had lost much marketshare.

*NEW* Cores and performance don't matter to enterprise solutions.

>I'm guessing the 9700K will be 5-8% faster than a 2700K
NOOOOOOOO

Attached: 1520972069662.png (2518x1024, 345K)

Attached: 1515175316605.jpg (691x771, 64K)

All core has already been confirmed by Intel themselves at their recent event to be 3.7Ghz nigga. Only gets to 5Ghz on 1-2 cores and then goes down from there.

Sorry that was 3.8Ghz all core on the 18 core processor. Fat chance of all core @ 5Ghz on the 28x part.

youtu.be/DRwJqzo6HsA?t=377

how about listing things that do matter for intel

>High refresh rate on 1080p matters!
that's way shorter than copypasting the entire thing and the only gimmick intel has left

Intel trying to dodge the oven again.

GOY! I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU 3 HOURS TO DELID DIS POST BEFORE THE GESTA-I MEAN POLICE ARREST YOU FOR ANTISEMITISM.

>57% more expensive for 17% better gaming average.
Only whales will buy it.

AMD Epyc chips only work on 1 version of vCenter right now. Meaning Cisco and co. can't ship this shit out to a majority of enterprise customers who are still on 6.0 or 5.5. Even if you have the budget to upgrade your shit VAR's aren't going to recommend you completely different architect if you're 100% Intel already and am only replacing one. AMD Chips sucked fucking ass on VMWare products which are used for on-prem internal cloud products.

>when AMD was gimped by PT AMD shills claim the benchmark was fake
admits it was gimped
>now that PT "updated" their results their benchmarks are now valid
The mind boggles at how much mental gymnastics must have gone into typing these two lines.

Fanboys are all about winning benchmarks not value for money.

Logic is for Anti-Semites

But AMD are losing the benchmarks that they pull out Threadripper solely for that purpose.

AMD shills keep parroting price/performance.

I don't know OP but the i9-9900K is going to be fuckballs amazing and I want it. You can stick with your ghetto AMD setup though.

It's actually 17% faster on average but 57%+ more for the CPU and then you have to add on a decent cooler (Something like the Noctua at $70 if you want to get the best performance out of it).

Ryzens CPU cooler may not be the greatest but at least you get one. Only needing better if you plan to push overclocking to the max.

Attached: 9900K v 2700X.jpg (2560x1440, 347K)

>28 cores at 5Ghz on a 2 killowatt chiller
>Still can't beat Threadripper on air

>Linus needed something to post that wasn't about Intel cheating.
>Decides to pretend to be a tech tuber referee.
Linus will say anything for money.

When there is a large disparity between performance vs value then you have to start asking valid questions about why people want to buy something like that. The only two answers are ignorance and fanboyism.
You fall into the latter.

>PT STILL didn't fix the memory timings
It's gonna be even closer when the real reviews are out.

i wouldnt go that far
sometimes the performance matters more than the value

LN2 is liquid nitrogen.

Of course in time critical applications that may be your only option. But for your average Joe playing cow-a-doody. No.

>threadripper on LN2 can't even beat xeon on air

Attached: Untitled.png (916x573, 99K)

>4x Xeons vs 1x Threadripper
>4x

>4 dies glued together

if you go to the extreme somebody making 6 figures is likely more interested in the best experience rather than the extra $300 spent

>4 large monolithic dies not glued together vs 4 small glued together dies.

Is it worth upgrading from a 3770K to the 2700x and saving some shekels vs 9700k?

I already stated only whales will be buying Intels crap. They are aiming it at gamers. But most gamers are poorfags as witnessed by the Steam survey.