Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:: Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Name
Email
Subject
Message icon

Other options

Return to this topic
Don't use smileys

Verification:

Please leave this box empty:

Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by PCJ

- October 14, 2018, 19:39:39

Intel has never cared about its reputation. people have been complaining for years about its attitude to its customers; artificial restrictions everywhere to suit its pricing structure.

Posted by Ale

- October 14, 2018, 10:19:55

Except there was a big difference between a processor that costs 2X more that was 40-60% faster and one that costs 2X more and is only 15-20% faster.

Now of course there has always been an unequal premium scaling up, but that's enough money to go up a tier in GPUs which would do much more for gaming.

Overall, it being faster is not shocking since it is newer, but will it compete with Ryzen 3 come april?

Posted by Redaktion

- October 13, 2018, 16:19:53

Following severe backlash over what has been described as "incompetent" benchmarking, Principled Technologies retested their AMD CPUs with creator mode. In their new results, the 2700X narrowed the gap between the 9900k down to about 15-20% on average, whereas previously the 9900k was sometimes 60% faster than the 2700X. Intel stated that these new results prove that the 9900k is still the "world's best gaming processor."

https://www.notebookcheck.net/2700X-gains-ground-on-the-9900k-in-Principled-Technologies-s-retests-Intel-still-claims-the-9900k-is-still-the-world-s-best-gaming-CPU.338174.0.html