Commissioning Misleading Core i9-9900K Benchmarks

[Julio Franco]

When a PC gaming site published early Core i9-9900K results today we were a little surprised. The title read "Intel's Core i9 9900K is up to 50% faster than AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X in games," right away many of the results looked very suspect to me, having spent countless hours benchmarking both the 2700X and 8700K, so we looked into it some more.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/article/1722-misleading-core-i9-9900k-benchmarks/

 

[Sausagemeat]

9900K pricing was announced today and boy it’s expensive. My prediction is that it reviewers will slam it for its price but despite this it will sell like no tomorrow. Because reviewers don’t understand that not everyone out there are value buyers. A Renault is better value for money than a BMW but driving enthusiasts would pay more for the BMW because it’s a better vehicle. Same thing goes on in the CPU world. Why have AMD when you can have Intel?

Of course regarding this, Intel will exaggerate the results, they have a poor marketing department clearly. It may not be 50% faster but it’s still faster as they have better engineers and that’s what’s important. Far more important than price when it comes to flagship products anyway. Value buyers will go further down the product stack on either manufacturer. Although I’m sure the 2700X will now be considered a budget part in the face of these new prices.

 

[Pap1er]

Well done Steven
It's quite sad that practices like these "fake" comparisons even get chance to be published.
As I see it, it's a two-sided weapon...

 

[Jyrkz]

In todays world 1 out of 4 will belive in those fake benchmarks and will buy intel for that crazy price.
companys dont care what they do, they just need to make profit.
sad times.

 

[Reehahs]

Time to blacklist "Principled Technologies" for biased reviewing.

 

[Dosahka]

Time to blacklist "Principled Technologies" for biased reviewing.

there is a difference between paid and biased ( it can happen without paying them (Green, Blue or Red team fan...)

 

[Bzawk]

One more thing you've missed, used coolers:
Noctua NH-U14S
(Exception: The AMD Ryzen 7 2700X used the included AMD Wraith Prism Cooler.
The other CPU units did not come with CPU coolers.)
That may be the reason AMD went so bad vs Intel

 

[alabama man]

Shame they spend all their time scamming instead of making better products.

 

[thews86]

Anybody that is knowledgeable when it comes to Intel's history will not be surprised to read this. Truly pathetic.

 

[psycros]

SOP for every sector of the economy: the profits will far outweigh the legal fees you'll incur later when you get busted.

 

[Steve]

One more thing you've missed, used coolers:
Noctua NH-U14S
(Exception: The AMD Ryzen 7 2700X used the included AMD Wraith Prism Cooler.
The other CPU units did not come with CPU coolers.)
That may be the reason AMD went so bad vs Intel

This has a very minimal impact on gaming performance, talking 1-2% so margin of error stuff. The 2700X might have been set to gaming mode though which means it was turned into a quad-core. Whatever the case the results are bogus and that's the point of this article.

 

[VitalyT]

Do they simply not know better?

Yes and no. They are downright corrupt SOB-s, engaged in foul marketing games for many years.

 

[RaXoR]

9900K pricing was announced today and boy it’s expensive. My prediction is that it reviewers will slam it for its price but despite this it will sell like no tomorrow. Because reviewers don’t understand that not everyone out there are value buyers. A Renault is better value for money than a BMW but driving enthusiasts would pay more for the BMW because it’s a better vehicle. Same thing goes on in the CPU world. Why have AMD when you can have Intel?

Of course regarding this, Intel will exaggerate the results, they have a poor marketing department clearly. It may not be 50% faster but it’s still faster as they have better engineers and that’s what’s important. Far more important than price when it comes to flagship products anyway. Value buyers will go further down the product stack on either manufacturer. Although I’m sure the 2700X will now be considered a budget part in the face of these new prices.

They both perform practically on par. Intel leads by a slight margin but does that ultimately justify the extra cost? Even for people who want the best, the better deal will win when the competition is $200 more while providing marginal improvements.

 

[ShObiT]

Surprise Surprise!

 

[toastertuner]

9900K pricing was announced today and boy it’s expensive. My prediction is that it reviewers will slam it for its price but despite this it will sell like no tomorrow. Because reviewers don’t understand that not everyone out there are value buyers. A Renault is better value for money than a BMW but driving enthusiasts would pay more for the BMW because it’s a better vehicle. Same thing goes on in the CPU world. Why have AMD when you can have Intel?

Of course regarding this, Intel will exaggerate the results, they have a poor marketing department clearly. It may not be 50% faster but it’s still faster as they have better engineers and that’s what’s important. Far more important than price when it comes to flagship products anyway. Value buyers will go further down the product stack on either manufacturer. Although I’m sure the 2700X will now be considered a budget part in the face of these new prices.

They both perform practically on par. Intel leads by a slight margin but does that ultimately justify the extra cost? Even for people who want the best, the better deal will win when the competition is $200 more while providing marginal improvements.

Hey don't know if you read the article or not, but it was the 8700K that was just outperforming the Ryzen chip. The 8700K is performing better and costs $20 less right now so it is currently the better option from the metrics TechSpot used.

Also, it's weird to me that the original article was comparing the 9900K to the ryzen and not the threadripper as those are the "top of the line" chips. People looking for a gaming card should be looking at the 9700K.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

Principled Technologies is a marketing company and isn't even a tech review or tech journalism company. It's no wonder why they released unprofessional and misleading benchmarks - they're paid to shill for Intel.

 

[avioza]

A Renault is better value for money than a BMW but driving enthusiasts would pay more for the BMW because it’s a better vehicle. Same thing goes on in the CPU world. Why have AMD when you can have Intel?

Because AMD's recent offerings have been the BMW of Blender and several other key work related tasks. That is more important to many than fps in games. It has also been the cheaper option.

Upcoming benchmarking will have to confirm that is still the case of course.

 

[erickmendes]

9900K pricing was announced today and boy it’s expensive. My prediction is that it reviewers will slam it for its price but despite this it will sell like no tomorrow. Because reviewers don’t understand that not everyone out there are value buyers. A Renault is better value for money than a BMW but driving enthusiasts would pay more for the BMW because it’s a better vehicle. Same thing goes on in the CPU world. Why have AMD when you can have Intel?

Of course regarding this, Intel will exaggerate the results, they have a poor marketing department clearly. It may not be 50% faster but it’s still faster as they have better engineers and that’s what’s important. Far more important than price when it comes to flagship products anyway. Value buyers will go further down the product stack on either manufacturer. Although I’m sure the 2700X will now be considered a budget part in the face of these new prices.

They both perform practically on par. Intel leads by a slight margin but does that ultimately justify the extra cost? Even for people who want the best, the better deal will win when the competition is $200 more while providing marginal improvements.

Hey don't know if you read the article or not, but it was the 8700K that was just outperforming the Ryzen chip. The 8700K is performing better and costs $20 less right now so it is currently the better option from the metrics TechSpot used.

Also, it's weird to me that the original article was comparing the 9900K to the ryzen and not the threadripper as those are the "top of the line" chips. People looking for a gaming card should be looking at the 9700K.

I've checked 8700k and 2700x prices... 2700X is 100$ cheaper right now:
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-8700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-2700X/3937vs3958

And about the 9900K, Sure Intel should be comparing it to Threadripper, but Intel prefers to compare it to Ryzen because 9900K sure would beat Ryzen in games. Now let's wait and see 9900K against Threadripper 2 on productivity tasks.

 

[n3o127]

What happened to the days of benching everyone's platform at stock (including spec ram and timings), with a follow up review on overclocking and the results of such?

We can't expect Intel to roll over and play dead... its business, they are going to come out fighting as best as they can - that being said, isn't it a good day for AMD and consumers when Intel feels the need to do this...

Thank you Steve for covering this!

 

[tipstir]

Test results show the AMD very close second To me as long as it can run without locking up I am okay with AMD. Intel not bad either speed. So much factors go into test today though.

 

[mosu]

Kudos, Steve. Welcome to the right side.

 

[Lew Zealand]

I wonder how many deep-pocketed people Intel thinks they're going to fool with bogus, biased benchmarks. You'd think that when spending $500+ on just a CPU that maybe people would do a smidge of research and find out the slimy truth.

Oops I used logic again, sorry folks.

 

[wiyosaya]

This kind of paid review/research/marketing happens in every industry - even the medical industry. When looking at anything like this, if the entity funding the research/report/review has an interest in the product/drug/whatever, then the results, IMO, should be immediately suspect.

 

[Evernessince]

9900K pricing was announced today and boy it’s expensive. My prediction is that it reviewers will slam it for its price but despite this it will sell like no tomorrow. Because reviewers don’t understand that not everyone out there are value buyers. A Renault is better value for money than a BMW but driving enthusiasts would pay more for the BMW because it’s a better vehicle. Same thing goes on in the CPU world. Why have AMD when you can have Intel?

Of course regarding this, Intel will exaggerate the results, they have a poor marketing department clearly. It may not be 50% faster but it’s still faster as they have better engineers and that’s what’s important. Far more important than price when it comes to flagship products anyway. Value buyers will go further down the product stack on either manufacturer. Although I’m sure the 2700X will now be considered a budget part in the face of these new prices.

They didn't really need to do this either. The 9900K was going to be an awesome CPU regardless of this commissioned benchmark.

This is just Intel hurting themselves.

 

[skline00]

I actually read the Intel commissioned report and knew the 9900k would be faster than the 2700k but not THAT much faster. Steve Walton sure blew up the credibility of that commissioned test.