Those Intel i9-9900K vs Ryzen 2700X Benchmarks Look Much Worse Now

All things AMD. The best motherboards, COOLING setup, overclocking, how to, etc..
Post Reply
User avatar
FlyingPenguin
Flightless Bird
Posts: 32773
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2000 11:13 am
Location: Central Florida
Contact:

Those Intel i9-9900K vs Ryzen 2700X Benchmarks Look Much Worse Now

Post by FlyingPenguin »

Nice try Intel... you have to wonder, though, how they thought no one would notice.
Following outstanding investigative journalism by the likes of Gamers Nexus and Hardware Unboxed, the saga of Principled Technologies' flawed -- and now mostly corrected -- competitive testing of the Intel Core i9-9900K CPU has ended with a whimper. Why? I'll cut right to the chase. When the benchmarking house agreed to test the AMD Ryzen 2700X with all of its 8 cores and 16 threads actually enabled, Intel no longer holds a claim of being "up to 50% faster" than AMD's gaming flagship. That lead has been slashed to about 15% when averaged out across all games tested.

And the 9900K will still cost consumers 66% more than its Ryzen competitor. That's before you buy an adequate cooler for the processor, as the 9900K ships without one in the box.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevang ... worse-now/
"Turns out I’m 'woke.' All along, I thought I was just compassionate, kind, and good at history. "

Image
User avatar
Err
Life Member
Posts: 5842
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 11:54 am

Re: Those Intel i9-9900K vs Ryzen 2700X Benchmarks Look Much Worse Now

Post by Err »

I don't understand why Intel thought this was okay or that nobody would check. 15% is still good. Having soldered heat-spreaders is also good. Is it worth a 66% premium? Not really. I still like the prospect of the new I5 6 core but the 2700K is also tempting.

I don't know if you can pre-order these processors or not but I'd expect a lot of cancellations.
Post Reply