'

Retested Ryzen 7 2700X VS i9-9900K benchmarks from Principled Technologies reveals smaller performance gap

The performance gap has gotten considerably smaller

Retested Ryzen 7 2700X VS i9-9900K benchmarks from Principled Technologies reveals smaller performance gap

Retested Ryzen 2700X VS i9-9900K benchmarks from Principled Technologies reveals smaller power gap

Last week a Principled Technologies released a report which called Intel's upcoming i9-9900K CPU the "world's fastest gaming processor", quickly coming under fire for testing AMD processors in a manner which could be considered unfair, presenting results which favoured Intel's upcoming 8-core processor. 

One of the main problems with Principled Technologies' methods was their use of "Game Mode" within AMD's Ryzen Master utility, which halves the Ryzen 7 2700X's core count. By using this feature, Principled Technologies was comparing a quad-core processor to an Intel eight-core processor. 

Since their "misleading" benchmarking methods came to light, Principled Technologies promised to deliver a new set of results which would test AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X in "Creative Mode", disabling Game Mode to allow the processor to use all of its eight cores and sixteen threads in modern games. As expected, this change resulted in performance numbers which gave AMD a clear advantage over Intel in terms of value for money. 

Right now, AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X is available for purchase for £289.99 (at Overclockers UK) and Intel's i9-9900K is available to pre-order for £599.99 (at Overclockers UK), making Intel's processor over 2x as expensive as AMD's desktop flagship. To offer more value for money, Intel needs to provide a performance increase of over 2x to be seen as worthwhile. In actuality, Intel's performance sees a maximum of 48.4%, but this value is in a game that runs at almost 300FPS on AMD hardware (Counter-Strike: Global Offensive), making this game feel cherry picked at best and deliberately misrepresentative at worst. 

With Principled Technologies' latest results, we can see the performance advantage of the Intel i9-9900K drop from 51.9% to 17.8% in Total War: Warhammer II when testing the game using the title's "The Lab" mode, from 42.9% to 26.9% in Gears of War 4 and from 57.2% to 17.7% in Ashes of the Singularity. This performance gap can be as low as 3% when Final Fantasy XV's benchmark is tested. Allowing all of the Ryzen 7 2700X's cores to remain active has enabled AMD's processor to offer results that are reasonably close to Intel's i9-9900K at 1080p when using a GTX 1080 Ti, close enough to imagine that this performance gap would all but disappear at higher resolutions like 1440p or 4K. 
  

Retested Ryzen 7 2700X VS i9-9900K benchmarks from Principled Technologies reveals smaller performance gap
Intel's commissioned report from Principled Technologies may have confirmed that their i9-9900K is the best gaming processor on the market, it has also confirmed that AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X offers significantly more value for money, something that will no doubt make the £599.99 i9-9900K hard to recommend. 

Principled Technologies' updated report is available to read here

You can join the discussion on Principled Technologies retested Ryzen 7 2700X and Intel i9-9900K benchmarking data on the OC3D Forums

«Prev 1 Next»

Most Recent Comments

15-10-2018, 12:05:57

jimthethesnake
well still runing a i7 5830 at 5 ghz and 2 maritex in sli monator asus swif G sync so why would need to speend £ 6000 to replace it for best 30% fps lolQuote

15-10-2018, 12:42:35

Avet
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimthethesnake View Post
well still runing a i7 5830 at 5 ghz and 2 maritex in sli monator asus swif G sync so why would need to speend £ 6000 to replace it for best 30% fps lol
Same as you spent decent chunk of money few years back, and your rig still serves you well someone who's upgrade is due to happen will spend now and have a rig that will last him few years.Quote

15-10-2018, 15:45:20

wozza365
I've read that the 2700X was also on a stock cooler, something which can affect performance with modern CPUs that tend to boost/overclock themselves out of the box based on temperature headroom.

I do think (and hope) AMD have a "2800X" in the works that will be cherry picked 2700Xs that I reckon they've been building stock of since release. At least 4GHz out of the box.

That would make these completely pointless benchmarks a little more interesting.Quote

15-10-2018, 18:16:00

tgrech
Yep, AMD has released Ryzen 2 chips with turbos as high as 4.4Ghz now, but that's generally 1-core boost, so the real jump comes in the base clock rise, and if 4.3Ghz boosts and regular 4.2Ghz overclocks are possible on current 2700X's, then well binned could come in with a base of 4.0-4.1Ghz, or around a 10% boost. If a 4-core boost of 4.4Ghz can be reached then that should help many games. If necessary there's also room to bump the TDP, with most B350 or higher motherboards are probably being capable of supporting a little jump, with their top end stock coolers going to over 125W.Quote

16-10-2018, 08:21:15

Bartacus
My 2700x tops out at 4.35Ghz on all 8 cores. I don't daily drive it at those speeds though, but it's bench stable. The new precision boost turbo whatyamacallit thingy is no joke.Quote
Reply
x

Register for the OC3D Newsletter

Subscribing to the OC3D newsletter will keep you up-to-date on the latest technology reviews, competitions and goings-on at Overclock3D. We won't share your email address with ANYONE, and we will only email you with updates on site news, reviews, and competitions and you can unsubscribe easily at any time.

Simply enter your name and email address into the box below and be sure to click on the links in the confirmation emails that will arrive in your e-mail shortly after to complete the registration.

If you run into any problems, just drop us a message on the forums.