Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K Benchmarks [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 78 posts

Re: Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K Benchmarks [video]

#21

Post by nebulous1 »

asr wrote: post #12
cbg0 wrote: post #2

In text form: https://www.techspot.com/article/1722-misleading-core-i9-990...

This article says that Techspot has obtained the 9900 (without being bound by an NDA, as others are), and that Intel is releasing misleading results while other reviewers are bound by an NDA, but that Techspot is not going to show their own benchmarks--which could refute the misleading results Intel has authorized for public release--out of a sense of "professionalism." Actually , any "professional" journalism outfit…

In the video he portrays the decision as out of respect for the sources under NDA, not out of respect for Intel

Not sure I fully get it though, a scoop is a scoop

Re: Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K Benchmarks [video]

#23

Post by Ooveex2C »

dragontamer wrote: post #18
berbec wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people who won't be fooled by this are likely the customers who are interested in the actual 10% difference for the high end and likely want this chip anyway.

I'm not sure about that. At $499, the i9-9900k is almost competing against the 12-core Threadripper 2920x ($649, 12-core/24-threads, 4.4GHz clock, 60 PCIe lanes, quad-memory channels). I think most people will find more use out of +4 cores (granted, on a NUMA platform) than higher clocks. Cores for compiling code, rendering, video editing, etc. etc. Pretty much only gamers want +Clock speeds, and more and more games…

> Pretty much only gamers want +Clock speeds

I wish. We use a commercial path-tracer that scales very well to many cores, GPUs and entire clusters when it's chewing away at a single fixed scene or animation.

But in interactive mode many scene modifications are bottlenecked on a single or few threads and locks until it gets back into the highly optimized rendering code paths. So a lot of work goes into quickly shutting down as many background threads as possible to benefit from high turbo-boost clocks on Xeon Gold processors so the user doesn't have to wait long and then ramp them back up when it's just rendering the fixed scene.

Re: Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K Benchmarks [video]

#24

Post by nalllar »

gameswithgo wrote: post #13
TwoNineA wrote: post #4

Preorders for the 9900K are 578$ USD. For that you can get a Ryzen 2700X, a nice motherboard and a 256GB SSD. Performance delta shouldn't be more than 15% deficit for the Ryzen for a few specific games.

If you have a program that uses AVX instructions much the delta will hit ~2x

AVX512 on downclocks, you won't see the full 2x scaling.

Cloudflare ran into some trouble with this: https://blog.cloudflare.com/on-the-dangers-of-intels-frequen...

Re: Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K Benchmarks [video]

#26

Post by gcb0 »

dragontamer wrote: post #18
berbec wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people who won't be fooled by this are likely the customers who are interested in the actual 10% difference for the high end and likely want this chip anyway.

I'm not sure about that. At $499, the i9-9900k is almost competing against the 12-core Threadripper 2920x ($649, 12-core/24-threads, 4.4GHz clock, 60 PCIe lanes, quad-memory channels). I think most people will find more use out of +4 cores (granted, on a NUMA platform) than higher clocks. Cores for compiling code, rendering, video editing, etc. etc. Pretty much only gamers want +Clock speeds, and more and more games…

you have msrp prices. real life prices is currently around $600 for both!

Re: Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K Benchmarks [video]

#27

Post by m-p-3 »

asr wrote: post #12
cbg0 wrote: post #2

In text form: https://www.techspot.com/article/1722-misleading-core-i9-990...

This article says that Techspot has obtained the 9900 (without being bound by an NDA, as others are), and that Intel is releasing misleading results while other reviewers are bound by an NDA, but that Techspot is not going to show their own benchmarks--which could refute the misleading results Intel has authorized for public release--out of a sense of "professionalism." Actually , any "professional" journalism outfit…

The thing is you just need to piss off an industry contact once to be taken off of their list, essentially neutering themselves in the future and making them less competitive compared to other websites.

It's a sad state of affair, but that's the reality of it.

Re: Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K Benchmarks [video]

#28

Post by umvi »

holstvoogd wrote: post #16
berbec wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Delta makes you sound smarter.

#iamverysmart

Speaking of reddit, there is a subreddit called /r/changemyview where you can award deltas (Δ) to people that have changed your view or provided a particularly compelling insight.

Re: Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K Benchmarks [video]

#29

Post by wtallis »

nebulous1 wrote: post #21
asr wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article says that Techspot has obtained the 9900 (without being bound by an NDA, as others are), and that Intel is releasing misleading results while other reviewers are bound by an NDA, but that Techspot is not going to show their own benchmarks--which could refute the misleading results Intel has authorized for public release--out of a sense of "professionalism." Actually , any "professional" journalism outfit…

In the video he portrays the decision as out of respect for the sources under NDA, not out of respect for Intel Not sure I fully get it though, a scoop is a scoop

The point of a review embargo is to prevent things from collapsing into a race to be first with the scoop, by encouraging/forcing everyone to take a reasonable amount of time to prepare their review. Cooperating with review embargoes is usually the best way to promote honest and fair coverage, which is what most professional tech journalists really want.

NDAs that try to restrict the content of a review and not just the publication date are reprehensible, but that doesn't seem to be what's going on here. Intel's just trying to soften the ground with their own misleading numbers, but still permitting the trustworthy sources to do their usual thing.

Re: Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K Benchmarks [video]

#30

Post by ghaff »

gcb0 wrote: post #25

intel is failing benchmarks, security vulns all around. Nvidia is failing to deliver price/perf they promised years ago. amd is the opposite of both and it's stock continues to dive. go figure.

Stock performance is about a lot more than individual product technical specs. That said, I see AMD is down a bit recently but it's had a significant run-up the past 6 months (~2X) and even more over the past couple of years after being basically flat for ages. And it's got quite a high PE (58) which tends to make stocks vulnerable to even middling news. (By contrast, Intel's PE is about 17.)
Post reply on HN