Gadgetory

over the last couple of days I've been doing what I do around the studio here that's getting deals doing videos cutting new builds whether it be potatoes or brand-new computers and then this news story pops up and it was set loose via Steve over at hardware unboxed and then after that followed up by the tech Jesus himself Steve from a games Nexus and they made some really good points I where I'm boxed even took it a step further and put the benchmarks that that posted on the principle technologies commissioned benchmarks against their own benchmarks and found these numbers to be seriously misleading and this is why I'm making the video here today because these benchmarks only aren't just misleading they differ from what we would expect out of companies from the guess the pre-release benchmarks the numbers that they're used to posting up now when Nvidia or AMD and Intel usually have these pre-release benchmarks they kind of show their CPUs in the best possible light in other words they cherry pick some benchmarks where their products will be running better than the competitors but the biggest problem this time around is that the competitors product and that's AMD and mainly the 2700 X because this is going to be the main competitor to the 99 hundred K this CPU has been seriously hemorrhaged and debilitated in these benchmarks and it is disgusting when you look at it really and apparently Intel commissioned these benchmarks to a company called principal technologies and in this case I think Intel or to decommission these benchmarks straight away and that's because they're misleading and the average person that goes up and looks up some 9900 k benchmarks on Google might go then and see these benchmarks and be like oh I better get one of these because I'm going to get 50% extra performance in games when we know that as reviewers this is completely false most people with a 1080 GI and even the RT X 2018 28 G eyes are going to be playing to higher resolutions whether it be 144 Hertz 1440p or 4k and you're going to see sometimes as little as like a 2 or 3% difference and they cut the 8 core 16 threaded $300 CPU in half and I feel like the 2700 X is currently AMD's it's the best value proposition but it's their best gaming CPU - and I'm looking through these benchmarks there's a total of 19 of them conducted that were then posted by a website called PC gamers n where they then put them in graph form and you can see in some of these benchmarks there was a big difference between the 2700 X and the 9900 K and also if you look closely you'll see that the 9900 K is also sometimes beating out the 8700 K and the 808 6 K which shouldn't be happening and so we go back to this original paper we start doing some more in-depth reading and we see that the settings are just all over the place for starters on the 9900 K they're using the Z 390 and they haven't really disabled anything then you move over to the 8700 K that disabled multi-core enhancements so they're making sure these run at lower clocks than the 9900 K this is within Intel's own CPU lineup and then we move over down to the 2700 X and again everything's been disabled and then we move over to the memory timings which is so important for AMD CPUs especially when it comes to benchmarking video games AMD's Verizon CPUs love a combination of higher memory speeds as well as lower latencies as I was a bit surprised to see here that they just locked in a lazy manual 29 33 megahertz without changing the timings at all and then they went to Intel side and they enabled the X and P profiles essentially dropping the latency down on the memory and then capping that to 26 66 megahertz as if to say hey we gave AMD an advantage here guys when in fact they actually gave Intel another advantage on memory speeds - because Intel if you guys didn't know it actually likes lower latencies for gaming more so than higher speeds on the memory AMD on the other hand especially with Rison it likes as we just said before a combination of higher speeds and lower latencies you couple them together you're going to get better fps to a certain point and moving through these benchmarks at least the ones that show the biggest discrepancies at least from what I know and testing some of these games and what we're seeing here ashes the singularity this game uses up - pretty much a maximum of 16 threads and isn't it ironic that the 9900 K has Steen threats past that you'll see the core utilization really drop off in this game and it's not that good of an optimized game it's actually it got inherent input lag in the game itself and I've tested this in the past and hence why I've dropped it from my benchmark suite of games but here's where we saw the biggest difference between the risin 5 1400 and the 9900 Kay moving through some more of these benchmarks we could see big discrepancies in four night pop G Far Cry 5 Civ 6 Rainbow six siege and rise of the Tomb Raider and now the biggest telltale sign is that these benchmarks should not be taken seriously is when we look at the 2700 X numbers also compared to the 2950 X and the 2990 W X I've tested all these three CPUs in the past and the 2700 X does the best for gaming out of AMD CPUs so I was really surprised to see it losing to even its Big Brother counterparts which have more cores and threads in a more suited to streaming and also productivity but then we also take things back on these benchmarks and we look at for instance Rainbow six siege versus pop G with their own numbers with the 808 6 K versus the 8700 K and we see that it's just inconsistencies within their own benchmarks themselves which just makes me really scratch my head as a reviewer who actually does proper benchmarking and test things apples to apples because I don't believe these CPUs were even tested apples to apples but wait the ridiculousness the ridiculousness is it but wait the ridiculousness doesn't stop there if we look at the way they've tested these games they've used the in-game benchmarks whenever they could but then they've also used fraps and just reported average FPS numbers there's no point 1 and 1% lows which are arguably way more important in a CPU test for gaming than they offer a graphics card I'm absolutely fine with people using average and minimum fps for GPU benchmarks but when it comes to CPU benchmarks at high frame rates we want to know if the CPU stuttering so other variables with that CPU and combination of testing can be identified as maybe flawed or whatnot and so what we're seeing is average numbers across fraps and in game benchmarks and that's from games Nexus pointed out to they're only using a median benchmark in other words they're only just picking one benchmark out of the who knows how many runs they did they could have just run these benchmarks once for all we know they're just that inconsistent but now here's where things get more frustrating for me as a reviewer I'm under NDA so I can't refute these claims until the 19th of October this month but I want to send an open message to Intel and that is please decommission these benchmarks because they're just not accurate they're not even cherry-picked benchmarks which is kind of as I said in the intro expected of major companies like yourself Nvidia and AMD everyone knows you do it but when you're hemorrhaging the competitors products it's just not fair and it's misleading to consumers other than the average guy could search up numbers for the 9900 K come across these benchmarks in these fancy graphs and think wow I'm performing 50% better in games but then when you go to the bottom of the page there's a freaking disclaimer to say hey we don't take any accountability for these inconsistent benchmarks so the end of the day is someone who takes pride in my benchmarking in the way I present numbers to you guys I just find this so misleading and I mean we're all guilty of making mistakes when I make a mistake I'll tell you guys if it's a big enough mistake that I feel it could mislead people I'll take my video down any guys that's about it for today I hope you enjoyed this video if you did and be sure to hit that like button but also let us know in the comment section below what you think about this whole 9900 Kay Commission benchmarks I just think it's it's not right I mean until don't have to do this I mean I'm sure the 99 hundred K is going to be a solid product they're bringing back soldiering to between the IHS and the die so it feels like they're listening to the consumers and and reviewers like myself who have critiqued them in the past for these things but then they go and Commission these things and put out a statement saying that this data is consistent with what they're getting in their own labs I really don't know what was going on with that reply either I mean seriously just decommission these benchmarks we'll get you guys out some solid numbers day one that you can actually rely on and make a solid purchasing decision when it comes to the 9900 kay but anyway when it comes to opinions I'm sure everyone has one and I'm for you guys to reserve yours until the product is released and we can see real numbers from trusted sources anyway I'll catch it in another tech video very soon peace out for now they trusted sources like this new merch right here you got to get some tear gas City retro shirts baby link in description below you