Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: [news] Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core i9-9900K Benchmarks

  1. #1
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Grimsby, UK
    Posts
    627

    [news] Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core i9-9900K Benchmarks

    Intel Benchmark Results & Methodology >> http://www.principledtechnologies.co...terim_1018.pdf

    Original Source >> https://www.techspot.com/article/172...0k-benchmarks/



    Quote Originally Posted by TechPowerup | Posted 9 October 2018
    At its 9th Generation Core processor launch extravaganza earlier this week, Intel posted benchmark numbers to show just how superior its processors are to AMD 2nd generation Ryzen "Pinnacle Ridge." PC enthusiasts worth their salt were quick to point out that Intel's numbers are both flawed and misleading as they misrepresent both test setups - by optimizing Intel processors beyond their out-of-the-box performance, and by running AMD processors with sub-optimal settings.

    Intel paid Principled Technologies, a third-party performance testing agency, to obtain performance numbers comparing the Core i9-9900K with the Ryzen 7 2700X across a spectrum of gaming benchmarks, instead of testing the two chips internally, and posting their test setup data in end-notes, as if to add a layer of credibility/deniability to their charade. The agency posted its numbers that were almost simultaneously re-posted PCGamesN, gleaming the headline "Up to 50% Faster than Ryzen at Gaming." You could fertilize the Sahara with this data.



    Right off the bat, we see Principled Technologies use a sub-optimal memory configuration for the Ryzen 7 2700X machine, saddling it with a dual-rank memory with all four memory slots populated, and running at stock memory speeds with the motherboard BIOS determining "stable" memory timings. AMD processors compensate for dual-rank / 4-module setups by either restricting memory clocks or loosening up memory timings in the interest of stability. Principled Technologies incompetently set the Ryzen setup's memory clocks to 2933 MHz, leaving the motherboard BIOS to find extremely loose memory timings to stabilize the memory clock.

    In stark contrast to this, for the Core i9-9900K machine, the testers simply flicked the XMP profile of the Corsair Vengeance RGB DDR4-3000 memory kit, which ended up running at not just higher clocks, but also tighter timings (which have been tested by Corsair on an Intel platform to obtain the XMP certificate). They reinforced the memory by adjusting the frequency manually. This gives the Intel platform a significant performance advantage against AMD. Ryzen processors are more memory-sensitive than Intel, as DRAM clocks are synchronized with other clock domains such as the InfinityFabric clock, which determines the data-rate of communication between the two Zen Compute Complex (CCX) components on the 8-core "Pinnacle Ridge" die.

    The next part of its deception was testing both setups at 1080p on "Ashes of the Singularity" CPU benchmark with medium settings, to obtain extremely suspicious performance numbers. When HardwareUnboxed used similar settings to compare their Core i7-8700K with the Ryzen 7 2700X (using sane memory settings for both setups), the performance numbers obtained were very different, and don't bode well for the credibility of their i9-9900K numbers. Without the unfair advantage to the i9-9900K, the Ryzen 7 2700X yields up to 18% higher frame-rates than what Intel's numbers suggest. The story repeats (albeit to a smaller degree), with most other benchmarks posted by Intel. "Assassin's Creed Origins" is another benchmark where Principled Technologies numbers paint the Intel 8700K at 36% faster than the 2700X, while in reality, the 8700K is more like 8% faster.

    Normally, performance numbers released by hardware manufacturers at launch are disregarded by consumers as hardware launches are almost always simultaneously followed by independent reviewers being allowed to post their benchmark numbers. Off late, however, there is a worrying trend of hardware manufacturers launching their products with reviewer NDAs expiring weeks later, letting them solicit pre-orders on the basis of questionable performance data. In this case, Intel's gilded numbers release almost 2 weeks before the review NDA, and the Core i9-9900K is up for pre-order, in some places even at $540.

    We strongly recommend you to wait until you read performance reviews from multiple tech publications before basing your purchase decisions. It's a foregone conclusion that the i9-9900K will be faster than the 2700X, as the i7-8700K already trades blows with it despite having two fewer cores. However, the percentage-difference in performance, and the cost-performance numbers put out by Intel for the upcoming chip, are extremely questionable at this point.
    Last edited by Nelly; 10-11-2018 at 05:03 AM. Reason: More info
    i5 2500K @ 4.9GHz MSI Z77 MPower G.Skill Trident 8GB 2400C10
    EVGA GTX 1070 SC 8GB @ 1784/4004MHz Corsair HX 750 PSU
    Samsung 830 256GB Creative ZxR Thermalright Silver Arrow
    NEC 24WMGX3 24" TFT Fractal Design Define S Win 7/10 64bit

  2. #2
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Grimsby, UK
    Posts
    627
    Appears that Principled Technologies who were commisioned to do the benchmarks on behalf of Intel ran the AMD 2700X with a CCX module completely disabled, essentially turning it into a quad-core.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hardware Unboxed | Posted: 9 October 2018
    The benchmarks carried out by Principled Technologies are even more bogus than we first thought. A few viewers pointed out that the Ryzen 7 2700X was listed as tested in the “Game Mode” within the Ryzen Master software and I foolishly thought they might have just made a simple copy and paste error in their document as they would have used this mode for the 2950X. This does explain why the Threadripper CPUs were faster than the 2700X in every test.

    What this means is a CCX module in the 2700X was completely disabled, essentially turning it into a quad-core. I’ve gone ahead and re-run the XMP 2933 test with Game Mode enabled and now I’m getting results that are within the margin of error to those published by Principled Technologies.
    More info here >> https://www.patreon.com/posts/21950120
    Last edited by Nelly; 10-09-2018 at 06:15 AM.
    i5 2500K @ 4.9GHz MSI Z77 MPower G.Skill Trident 8GB 2400C10
    EVGA GTX 1070 SC 8GB @ 1784/4004MHz Corsair HX 750 PSU
    Samsung 830 256GB Creative ZxR Thermalright Silver Arrow
    NEC 24WMGX3 24" TFT Fractal Design Define S Win 7/10 64bit

  3. #3
    I am Xtreme FlanK3r's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Czech republic
    Posts
    6,758
    Shame you Intel :-(
    ROG Power PCs - Intel and AMD
    CPUs:i7-6950X, i7-5960X, 4x i7-7700K, i3-7350K, 2x i7-6700K, i5-6600K, R7-1800X, R7-1700X, 3x AMD FX-9590, 1x AMD FX-9370, 4x AMD FX-8350,1x AMD FX-8320,1x AMD FX-8300, 2x AMD FX-6300,2x AMD FX-4300, 3x AMD FX-8150, 2x AMD FX-8120 125 and 95W, AMD X2 555 BE, AMD x4 965 BE C2 and C3, AMD X4 970 BE, AMD x4 975 BE, AMD x4 980 BE, AMD X6 1090T BE, AMD X6 1100T BE, A10-7870K, Athlon 845, Athlon 860K,AMD A10-7850K, AMD A10-6800K, A8-6600K, 2x AMD A10-5800K, AMD A10-5600K, AMD A8-3850, AMD A8-3870K, 2x AMD A64 3000+, AMD 64+ X2 4600+ EE, Intel i7-980X, Intel i7-2600K, Intel i7-3770K,2x i7-4770K, Intel i7-3930KAMD Cinebench R10 challenge AMD Cinebench R15 thread Intel Cinebench R15 thread

  4. #4
    Xtremely High Voltage Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    16,044
    That's pathetic.
    The Cardboard Master
    Crunch with us, the XS WCG team
    Intel Core i7 2600k @ 4.5GHz, 16GB DDR3-1600, Radeon 7950 @ 1000/1250, Win 10 Pro x64

  5. #5
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Grimsby, UK
    Posts
    627
    Follow up here by Gamers Nexus >> https://www.gamersnexus.net/industry...sting-concerns

    Last edited by Nelly; 10-11-2018 at 04:22 AM.
    i5 2500K @ 4.9GHz MSI Z77 MPower G.Skill Trident 8GB 2400C10
    EVGA GTX 1070 SC 8GB @ 1784/4004MHz Corsair HX 750 PSU
    Samsung 830 256GB Creative ZxR Thermalright Silver Arrow
    NEC 24WMGX3 24" TFT Fractal Design Define S Win 7/10 64bit

  6. #6
    Xtreme Owner Charles Wirth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    12,255
    Thanks Nelly

    @ 9:50
    Intel 7960X ES @ 4.4Ghz
    ASUS Rampage VI Extreme
    GTX 1080ti Galax Hall of Fame
    32GB Galax Hall of Fame
    Intel Optane
    Platimax 1350W
    Enermax 240 Liqtech AIO

    Intel 8700K @ 5.2Ghz
    Asus Maximus X Apex
    GRX 1080ti Galax Hall of Fame
    16GB Galax Hall of Fame
    Intel Optane
    Platimax 1350W
    Enermax 240 Liqtech AIO

  7. #7
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    NE Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,524
    What a conman...he should run for president.
    Home PC -- 24/7 Cruncher #1
    GA-P67A-UD4-B3 BIOS F8 mod, 2600k (L051B138) @ 4.5 GHz, 1.260v full load, Corsair H70 (Boots into Windows @ 5.6 GHz per Massman binning)
    Samsung Green 2x4GB @2133 C10, Gigabyte 7950 @1200/1250, Vertex 4 128GB, 4x3TB WD Red RAID10, BR Burner, Win7 Ult x64, CM690, HX750

    Work PC -- 24/7 Cruncher #2 ... Crucial M225 64GB SSD Donated to Endurance Testing (Died at 968 TB of writes...no that is not a typo!)
    GA-EP45T-UD3LR BIOS F10 modded, Q6600 G0 VID 1.212 (L731B536), 3.6 GHz 9x400 @ 1.312v full load, Zerotherm Zen FZ120
    OCZ 2x2GB DDR3-1600MHz C7, Sapphire 7870 @1100/1275, Crucial MX100 128GB, 2x500GB Hitachi RAID1, Win7 Ent x64, Centurion 590, XFX PRO650W

    Music System
    SB Server->SB Touch w/Android Tablet as a remote->S/PDIF->Denon AVR-X3300W->JBL Studio Series Floorstanding Speakers


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •