i9 outperforms a cheaper Ryzen CPU and an i7 8th gen... Surprise

[azblurbit]

You heard it hear first. The i9 9900k outperforms a chip that is significantly cheaper and the chip that it's replacing. I'm not sure why this is news. This is how generational upgrades should work. 

 

TechSpot: Intel Core i9-9900K benchmarks show it easily outperforming Ryzen 7 2700X and i7-8700K.

[Crunchy Dragon]

You need quotes from the source.

 

https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/11724-posting-guidelines-read-before-posting/

 

[PlayStation 2]

Well, I would really hope a pricier chip was faster than a cheaper one.

[Speed Weed]

Not a fair comparison. New technology will outperform old technology no matter what. 

 

^^^^ Didn't read the whole article. 

[Princess Luna]

Finally get to get rid of the 1800X

[Speed Weed]

4 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Not true.

Intel taking their upcoming chip vs AMD already released chip. 

 

 

edit: nvm, didn't read the whole article. 

[sazrocks]

3 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

Finally get to get rid of the 1800X

Why not wait and get a 3700x (or 3800x) so that you dont have to get a new motherboard?

[PlayStation 2]

1 minute ago, DaPhuc said:

Intel taking their upcoming chip vs AMD already released chip. 

That's... usually... how... CPUs... are... compared...

[Speed Weed]

3 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Your claim was that new tech will always outperform older tech no matter what.  

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-3770K-vs-Intel-Core-i3-4360/1317vs2819

http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-R9-Fury-X-vs-Nvidia-GTX-1050-Ti/3498vs3649

 

 

i7 vs i3........... a nice comparison, not even apple to apple. Of course, i7 3770k will beat i3 4360 all day long. 

 

 

 

 

[PlayStation 2]

Just now, DaPhuc said:

i7 vs i3........... a nice comparison, not even apple to apple. of course, i7 3770k will beat i3 4360 all day long. 

 

 

Are you really trying to flip your dumb argument against him?

[S w a t s o n]

This article/headline is written to bait the people that don't realize how cpu architectures work and assume that the 2700x should match the i9 because they have the same core/thread count

[Princess Luna]

Just now, sazrocks said:

Why not wait and get a 3700x (or 3800x) so that you dpnt have to get a new motherboard?

AMD sucks to everything my brother and I do ya know Adobe and what not, the 1800X despite being a decent 8c/16t cpu that makes up for a lot, we need an Intel CPU back for optimal performance and stability.

 

Our 1800X was just a placeholder we had as secondary machine... originally my brother had an i9 7900X he just sold it a couple months back when had the chance because we didn't have need for the pci-e lanes just it's horsepower so this new mainstream i9 was much better suited... we've been waiting couple of months already for it.

 

A shame that it's just dual channel but 64GB of RAM suffices.

 

Also we really don't care about re-using or not the motherboard, this computer serves for professional paid work.

[Speed Weed]

7 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Are you really trying to flip your dumb argument against him?

He is comparing an i7 vs i3. Big boy from the previous generation vs the small boy in the new generation. 

 

5 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Your argument was old tech vs new tech.  I was comparing that since it was your literal argument.

 

 

 

Yes, I said new tech vs old tech, and the new tech will beat old tech. but that doesn't mean you will take the big boy from the previous generation go up against the small boy in the new generation. Not even apple to apple comparison. The fact is new tech will outperform old tech. 

 

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-4770K-vs-Intel-Core-i7-3770K/1537vs1317 

 

 

 

 

[S w a t s o n]

Let me tell you guys a secret...

I have to whisper it though so get close

Spoiler

closer

Spoiler

closer

Spoiler

closer

Spoiler

IPC and clock speed advantages wont matter when AMD will be able to sell people economical 16 core Ryzen 7's in late 2019

 

 

 

 

 

[Speed Weed]

10 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

So, I can't argue against your literal argument?  You didn't say it had to be an i7 vs an i7 you said old tech vs new tech and only said not a fair comparison to something else.  I was going off the provided context that you, yourself, provided.

When do I say you cannot argue against my literal argument? I am referring to the article when I say " not a fair comparison " just by skimming the whole article ( lol ). But when I read it over, well rip Ryzen 7 2700x even at the 5GHz clock. 

[Guest]

 

28 minutes ago, DaPhuc said:

Not a fair comparison. New technology will outperform old technology no matter what. 

They overclocked the 2700X in the benchmarks to the same frequency. They can't really compare to an unreleased chip from AMD, this is probably the best comparison to make and gives a great idea of the performance. 

[mr moose]

28 minutes ago, DaPhuc said:

Not a fair comparison. New technology will outperform old technology no matter what. 

unless it was made by apple....         

16 minutes ago, Swatson said:

This article/headline is written to bait the people that don't realize how cpu architectures work and assume that the 2700x should match the i9 because they have the same core/thread count

This is how I like my news, bare and to the point, OP's opinions are not presented as facts (or horribly wrong) and we can see understanding and intention buy the comments people make.

[S w a t s o n]

1 minute ago, RorzNZ said:

 

They overclocked the 2700X in the benchmarks to the same frequency.

I dont think "they" overclocked it. 2700x physically cannot hit 5ghz without sub-ambient cooling. Probably just took a 3dmark score they found from a real overclocker

[Speed Weed]

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Why even compare it to the 2700x and not the base Threadripper 1900x is the real question.  It should be i7 vs Ryzen 7 and i9 vs TR which is what I think the article is doing.

Intel is going to pull the last laugh unless AMD can turn the table around. 

[S w a t s o n]

2 minutes ago, DaPhuc said:

Intel is going to pull the last laugh unless AMD can turn the table around. 

 

13 minutes ago, Swatson said:

Let me tell you guys a secret...

I have to whisper it though so get close

  Reveal hidden contents

closer

  Reveal hidden contents

closer

  Reveal hidden contents

closer

  Reveal hidden contents

IPC and clock speed advantages wont matter when AMD will be able to sell people economical 16 core Ryzen 7's in late 2019

 

 

 

 

 

This is assuming the latest rumors surrounding zen2 being true, these rumors taken from relatively legit sites, not wccftech

[Speed Weed]

7 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

That depends on the actual pricing.  Intel's logic with pricing is far beyond my comprehension.  Hopefully, they don't pull a previous i9 pricing logic.  1100 bucks for an 11 percent performance gain compared to the 1950x.  To be fair, it was smaller at launch.

Intel: - hold my beer - 

 

Intel:  - slap on $1200 USD sticker price value - 

 

 

 

 

[Ryujin2003]

And how many first born children, left legs, right testicles, and kidneys must be given up to afford this?

[MMKing]

39 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-2700X-vs-AMD-Ryzen-TR-1900X/3958vsm340638

 

Rest in peace the 1900x.

I think the logic over at AMD when they decided to release an 8 core Threadripper CPU was to allow the usage of the TR4 motherboards and all of it's benefits compared to the AM4 motherboards at a lower price point. Such as quad channel memory, 8 dimm slots, 64 PCIe lanes etc. After all, it was only a 50USD premium on top of the 1800x msrp launch price. I'm not really sure that really worked out, but i believe that was the justification over at AMD. If you had a workload that required the usage of multiple graphics cards, quad channel and/or 8 dimm slots, but you did not need CPU horsepower. The 1900x was not a bad buy... but once you're at 550 USD (MSRP at launch), it's only 150USD up to the 1920x.

[TetraSky]

They say it is "way ahead of the AMD chip", but is a 475 difference really that big of a deal for a processor in this test?

And what is the performance per dollar for this CPU compared to the AMD Ryzen one?

[MMKing]

@TetraSky

 

The article is a bit confusing indeed. They explicitly state the overall score of the i9-9900k to be 9862 total with the 1080Ti, and the CPU score to be 10 719 as is shown in the picture. Then skims over the 2700x score of 9387 and the 8700k score of 8935, without clarifying if this is CPU score or total score. Reading up on Techspots 2700x review sheds no light on the issue, as they never tested this particular benchmark when testing their 2700x.

 

If hes comparing overall score, it's only a 5% difference. If hes comparing CPU score, it's a bit more respectable 14% difference. However, with the 400-450USD prices that has been thrown around. Newegg ships the 2700x for free at 329USD. At 400USD you're looking at a 22% premium for 14% performance, which would be a fair price point for the performance gain. At 450USD however, it's a 37% price increase, at which point the 9900k doesn't look so tempting anymore.