Ranmacanada
There is no doubt they have a superior chip, by why go to such lengths to tarnish it?

 
Because of the price.

Hardware Unboxed lol
 
I couldn't imagine a more shill techtuber out there. Maybe Hardware Canucks?

fearpoint
Hardware Unboxed lol
 
I couldn't imagine a more shill techtuber out there. Maybe Hardware Canucks?

Maybe you'll take Gamer's Nexus instead?  Basically everyone who isn't blinded by Intel's $$ sees these test results for what they are, garbage.

Viper453
Only 1080p on these benchmarks, if 4k/1440p we would see closer to the same numbers. I don't know going from 8 series to a re branded 9 series then 10 nm cpus come out this time next year lots of $ on cpus :(

1080p pushes the workload onto the cpu. How do you showcase a cpu? Put the workload on the... cpu.

Aside from that, Intel made a bad move and it will bite them back.

kram36

the_Scarlet_one

Viper453
Only 1080p on these benchmarks, if 4k/1440p we would see closer to the same numbers. I don't know going from 8 series to a re branded 9 series then 10 nm cpus come out this time next year lots of $ on cpus :(

1080p pushes the workload onto the cpu. How do you showcase a cpu? Put the workload on the... cpu.

Aside from that, Intel made a bad move and it will bite them back.

It will not bite Intel at all. The people complaining were not going to buy this CPU anyways.

The 9900k is still considered a mainstream processor, so the people complaining should be anyone that wants to buy z390 anything.

the_Scarlet_one

kram36

the_Scarlet_one

Viper453
Only 1080p on these benchmarks, if 4k/1440p we would see closer to the same numbers. I don't know going from 8 series to a re branded 9 series then 10 nm cpus come out this time next year lots of $ on cpus :(

1080p pushes the workload onto the cpu. How do you showcase a cpu? Put the workload on the... cpu.

Aside from that, Intel made a bad move and it will bite them back.

It will not bite Intel at all. The people complaining were not going to buy this CPU anyways.

The 9900k is still considered a mainstream processor, so the people complaining should be anyone that wants to buy z390 anything.

The 9900K works in either the Z370 or Z390. People that want the 9900K and are willing to spend the cash for it could care less about the testing method. The 9900K is going to stomp the snot out of the 2700X no matter what testing method is done.

fearpoint
Hardware Unboxed lol
 
I couldn't imagine a more shill techtuber out there. Maybe Hardware Canucks?

Who is Hardware Canucks a shill for?
 
 

Steve from Gamers Nexus spoke with Principled Technologies.
 

I feel sorry for Principled Technologies, they are being made the patsy in Intel's game.  Like any business, they had a history, a portfolio of services, and along came a customer (Intel) and I don't know how many big names come their way; it must have seemed like THE opportunity, and if it went well it would be showcased in all their marketing.  This drama is going to affect their company and regular customers.

That being said, enabling Game Mode reduced the 2700X to one CCX, effectively making it a quad-core w/HT, i.e. 2300X.  With Intel confident of their product, I can see how their quality control on this 3rd party review didn't catch any discrepancies in testing.  I mean honestly, few criticize their favorites.  Anyone here intending to get 9900K isn't questioning this review, I doubt the errors in testing is bothering them, they just blow it off, 'oh well, it's still faster, even by a lower percentage than stated'-- which is ultimately all Intel cares about.

But I agree with the criticism of this review, Intel just didn't need to have it done, any enthusiast reviewer website would have come to a similar conclusion anyway, although maybe 9900K is faster than 2700X by a lower percentage gap that implied in this review.  I'm almost thinking Intel's 9900K customers don't read reviews, or enthusiast-based ones; as if they aren't DIY'ers or naive enough to not research.  It's hard to tell, but it's clear Intel didn't want people to think about the differences too much.

Only is enought to see names from politic, congress, state department and huge corporations who are presented on Intel events to understand that they manipulate with everything. 
 
On Western Balkan and many countries in Europe where Intel closed offices reviews and sites need to pay Intel processor to present him to customers. Customers send messages and ask tests they answer is Call Intel and tell him to send us processors. And now more and more test and show Threadripper, Ryzens, etc... AMD give them for free, even motherboards provide them and memory.
Intel become jerk example. 
Did you saw power section on ASUS Dominus, ready to overclock 28 cores and on that way to outperform AMD.
Dual 24 pin connections, you need 2x Antec 1000 W connected to provide enough power for system.
Half meter wide heatsink, who knows how much weight.
 
Intel not dominate only in benchmarks thanks to developers, they dominate in all programs, Premiere, Photoshop, 3D Rendering, all of them love Intel and his frequencies more. But now I think with that is over. 

fearpoint
 
The dyson vacuum scandal exposed most of them for what they are.

Are you referring to Hardware Canucks?  I like his reviews unless he's evidently a paid shill, I won't feed the apparent paid troll.  

Ranmacanada
I take that all back, apparently Intel owns Principled Technologies and they are a marketing firm, not a tech firm.  So this is Intel back to playing their illegal games and tactics again.  They essentially paid themselves to make the 2700x look bad.  "We investigated ourselves, and we found that we're not guilty"

Well if you're taking that back, so will I, I also found out that they had been working with Intel for a long time, this is all just status quo and I feel bad for feeling sorry for them. Really thought they were a small businesses caught up in the tech war drama to take the fall (and they still might), I gave benefit of doubt.

lehpron
I mean honestly, few criticize their favorites.  Anyone here intending to get 9900K isn't questioning this review, I doubt the errors in testing is bothering them, they just blow it off, 'oh well, it's still faster, even by a lower percentage than stated'-- which is ultimately all Intel cares about.

With this product it's also important to consider the price points. The 2700X is considerably cheaper than the 9900K. The Intel product has the better of the AMD offering but, at the price point and resulting PC performance it makes zero, ZERO sense to purchase the blue chip.
 
On the other hand, the 9900K destroys lower end Threadrippers. Now THAT'S bad for AMD given the even keel in pricing and a much more efficient TDP on the 9900K, unless PCIe lanes mean so much to you. AMD need to kick in the turbos on their new releases or this kind of garbage will continue.

Ranmacanada
 
But a low end Threadripper, the 1900x sells for just a bit more than a 2700x these days.  The only Threadrippers in the price range of the 9900k are the 1920x (currently $399) and a bit more expensive the 1950x ($679), using Intel marketing speak haha.  If you're making a rendering machine, or a deep learning machine, you absolutely NEED those PCIE lanes, so even buying a cheap 8 core Threadripper makes sense.  But even people on this forum have claimed that the 9900k isn't HEDT and that Threadripper isn't the target, the 2700x is the target market.  So really we have to argue, is the 9900k nothing more than a rebranded i7, which honestly I think it is, and Intel is just once again proving how quickly stupid people will part with their money.
 
I've yet to see any REAL benchmarks outside of the cooked ones that pit Threadripper vs the 9900k.  Let's wait and see for things outside of gaming.  I'd like to see some proper x265, blender, lightroom, etc.  We know that Intel will "always win" on gaming when it's cpu bound, but let's see what happens when you take their tricks out of the game and actually have to rely on real world work loads.

Canada Computers lists standard retail price (no discounts):
 
1900X - $699
9900K - $669
2700X - $429
 
And I forgot the 1900X offers 60 PCI-e lanes. Both AMD products bracket the 9900K with significant disparity.
 
And yes, these are rebranded 8 core Intel models. Most consumers purchasing the i7-9700K ($519) won't realize/care it's 8c/8t as long as it has the best benchmarks in gaming. An attribute not worth the price difference over a 2700X. Or the 8700K at the expense of what, a few fps in a game?

panzlock

Ranmacanada
 
But a low end Threadripper, the 1900x sells for just a bit more than a 2700x these days.  The only Threadrippers in the price range of the 9900k are the 1920x (currently $399) and a bit more expensive the 1950x ($679), using Intel marketing speak haha.  If you're making a rendering machine, or a deep learning machine, you absolutely NEED those PCIE lanes, so even buying a cheap 8 core Threadripper makes sense.  But even people on this forum have claimed that the 9900k isn't HEDT and that Threadripper isn't the target, the 2700x is the target market.  So really we have to argue, is the 9900k nothing more than a rebranded i7, which honestly I think it is, and Intel is just once again proving how quickly stupid people will part with their money.
 
I've yet to see any REAL benchmarks outside of the cooked ones that pit Threadripper vs the 9900k.  Let's wait and see for things outside of gaming.  I'd like to see some proper x265, blender, lightroom, etc.  We know that Intel will "always win" on gaming when it's cpu bound, but let's see what happens when you take their tricks out of the game and actually have to rely on real world work loads.

Canada Computers lists standard retail price (no discounts):
 
1900X - $699
9900K - $669
2700X - $429
 
And I forgot the 1900X offers 60 PCI-e lanes. Both AMD products bracket the 9900K with significant disparity.
 
And yes, these are rebranded 8 core Intel models. Most consumers purchasing the i7-9700K ($519) won't realize/care it's 8c/8t as long as it has the best benchmarks in gaming. An attribute not worth the price difference over a 2700X. Or the 8700K at the expense of what, a few fps in a game?

And that's your problem, you're buying your CPU's in Canada.  The price's I quoted were from Amazon.com.  You can easily have them shipped to your Canadian address from Amazon.com.  As a fellow Canadian, it sucks to buy hardware in Canada.  Hardware in Canada is inflated.  When 1st gen Threadripper prices dropped in the USA because the 2nd gen parts were released, Canadian retailers increased their prices on the 1st gen.  So seriously <insert your favourite swear word> to Canadian retailers.  They want to know why they are going under?  Because they refuse to realize we can easily buy our stuff elsewhere.  I mean even newegg.ca didn't even drop the price on 1st gen Threadripper when they were being fire saled on newegg.com!  And the prices on amazon.ca even when you buy from amazon, are stupidly high compared to amazon.com.  
 
Amazon.ca has the 1900x at $491-$703 compared to $346.52-$397 on amazon.com ($451 cdn is the lowest price converted from US).
Amazon.ca has the 1920x at $678.14-$1609!! compared to $399-$499 on amazon.com ($521 cdn is the lowest price converted from US)
Amazon.ca has the 1950x at $923.07-$1429.99 compared to $679.99-$754.48 on amazon.com ($885.42 lowest price converted from US)
 
So as you can see, buying Threadripper in Canada, is stupidly overpriced.  As for the 2700x, it's currently $294.99 ($384 CDN) vs $402.50 directly from amazon.ca, with the next seller, Memory Express, having it $449 Cdn.  And let's not get started on boards and memory.  I don't want to take this discussion more off track than we already have.
 
Canadians already over pay for everything.  Intel is just making you pay more again.