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

Post by SteveNuts » Tue, Oct 09, 2018, 3:02 PM UTC

holtalanm wrote: post #37

fromthestart wrote: post #34

Further reason to never purchase Intel again.

yeah. I went Ryzen for my new laptop. 100% happy with it, and this kind of crap from Intel just solidifies my decision.

Post by m_mueller » Tue, Oct 09, 2018, 3:04 PM UTC

moconnor wrote: post #7

I worked in HPC when NVIDIA started taking serious market share from Intel. My memory of Intel’s performance comparisons were that they were often technically unsupportable once you scratched the surface. In one case a third party who were demonstrating how much faster Intel Xeon Phi was for deep learning admitted that they were comparing highly-optimised code to unoptimised code in their results. This doesn’t surpri…

Post by zoggenhoff » Tue, Oct 09, 2018, 3:10 PM UTC

Ooveex2C wrote: post #23

dragontamer wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 shuttin…

Post by detaro » Tue, Oct 09, 2018, 3:20 PM UTC

holtalanm wrote: post #35

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…

the video doesn't dispute the benchmarks of the 9900, but rather they dispute the published compared benchmarks of the ryzen 7 2700X, which used default, unconfigured memory settings to push the benchmark down, while the 9900 benchmarks used configured memory settings (as it should) Did you even watch the video?

Post by SteveNuts » Tue, Oct 09, 2018, 3:27 PM UTC

swarnie_ wrote: post #42

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.

> amd is the opposite of both and it's stock continues to dive. go figure. AMDs share price is up almost 1400% in 2 years, what on earth are you on about?