Core i9-9900K, benchmarking controversy, adios mainstream hyperthreading? | The Full Nerd Ep. 71



Join The Full Nerd gang as they talk about the latest PC hardware topics. Today’s show is all about Intel’s Core i9-9900K, the news, the benchmarking controversy, and is this the end of mainstream hyperthreading? As always we will be answering your live questions so speak up in the chat.

Check out the audio version of the podcast on iTunes and Google Play so you can listen on the go and be sure to subscribe so you don’t miss the latest live episode!

Follow the crew on Twitter: @GordonUng @BradChacos @MorphingBall @AdamPMurray

Follow PCWorld for all things PC!
——————————­—-
SUBSCRIBE: http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=PCWorldVideos
TWITCH: https://www.twitch.tv/PCWorldUS
TWITTER: https://www.twitter.com/pcworld

source

27 thoughts on “Core i9-9900K, benchmarking controversy, adios mainstream hyperthreading? | The Full Nerd Ep. 71

  • October 11, 2018 at 6:17 pm
    Permalink

    Okay im gona try this just once.. I'm first!! 🙂

    Reply
  • October 11, 2018 at 6:31 pm
    Permalink

    Fall is here, time to make stew. Don't forget to stir pot every few minutes. lol

    Reply
  • October 11, 2018 at 6:52 pm
    Permalink

    So in the UK the i9 9900k can be pre ordered for £600 that is 794.24 dollars

    Reply
  • October 11, 2018 at 6:56 pm
    Permalink

    You know, I play WOW every once in a while on my little 2400G (the AMD APU)… and even I don't run it at 1080p (!). I run it at 1440p at 60hz. Low settings, sure… it aint perfect, but it works quite well and that's on a dinky little APU. But I'm not going to run that game at 1080p, it looks horrible on my 4K monitor at 1080p. Why would anyone spending the money to buy a 9900K based system want to run their games at 1080p ? I just can't imagine why, it makes no sense to me.

    In anycase, I agree… the cooling and the game mode is inexcusable. There's no way those could have been a mistake on PT's part, and their reasoning for both is just straight-out absurd… gross incompetence at best. I don't know just how deliberate it was (why would PT want to completely destroy their reputation like this?), but it couldn't be less than gross incompetence for certain.

    But for Intel its even worse. There is no way Intel couldn't have known precisely what was going on… Intel was purposefully trying to deceive their customers in both their direction to PT their publishing of the numbers, and their attempt to justify the results in later follow-ups… and for what? To try to boost pre-orders? The 9900K was already a good cpu, they did not need to do what they did. And the crazy thing is that THEY ARE STILL DOING IT! Even now after all this has come out. The embargo is still in place on the real reviewers, Intel has doubled down on the nonsense. No apology, no retraction… nothing. Honestly, given that type of behavior, even an Intel fan should have a fairly foul taste in his or her mouth if contemplating buying a new (very expensive) Intel CPU.

    -Matt

    Reply
  • October 11, 2018 at 7:19 pm
    Permalink

    @STOCK Cooler: AMD Part sold for 329$ comes with 29$ cooler, Intel 455$ with no cooler.. even if it;s 50% faster it's 50% more expensive. THe problem is – you need to spend another 50$ on cooler. To trully compare those product need to take all spendings into account. This is how i see it. In fair comparition there is financial room for puting even 124$ cooler AMD. And 0$ room for Intel. If put 124$ cooler on both will have 455$ part comparet to almost 600$ part. Compare total price, even ncluding averange AMD/Intel motherboard price. Make graphs of performance / price at certain price segments not raw performance get right conclusions. Most if not 100% benchmarking sites are full of stupid people who cant make such simple product comparitions. It's not only Principal problem, but other benchmark sites aren't better. It pisses me off since forever. Principal case is like caricature of this industry witch also pissed me off. Hope PCWORLD and GOrdon start doing this perf/$, perf/watt and so on comparisions.. It's like we have all those Excels, all those OpenCL accelerated software but most people cant even understand how to make comparision. Principal it's repeated story of BAPCO SysMark2002 (AdoredTV made great video about that) but it's actually not much worse than regular benchmark parties.

    Gordon hope to start objective tests, good comparitions use calculator Excel or whatever. Put all hope in pcworld.com cause already this show is one of mine favorite.

    Reply
  • October 11, 2018 at 7:36 pm
    Permalink

    My Ryzen 1600 didn't bottleneck my RTX 2080 @3440x1440p playing Shadow of Tomb Raider. It did bottleneck standard 1440p by 6 fps compared to Intel.

    Reply
  • October 11, 2018 at 7:42 pm
    Permalink

    If you think about, hyperthreading gives you roughly 30-50% more performance, depending on the workload. 8/16 is around 130% vs 8/8's 100%. It doesn't take too many additional cores to match that in a non-hyperthreaded processor. Intel didn't want to do it before because they didn't want to give consumers CPUs with lots of cores before. But now that their hand is forced by AMD, that dam is starting to break.

    The other big issue with hyperthreading waiting in the wings has to do with exploits. It's beginning to appear that a hyperthread can leak information to its sibling fairly trivially, in ways that essentially cannot be fixed or protected against in hardware. In otherwords, security issues might wind up being the actual death knell to hyper-threading.

    And finally, processors are no longer really bound by chip area. Instead they are bound by heat. Hyperthreading is not necessarily more core-efficient than straight cores that are loaded a bit more lightly (to match the equivalent hyperthreaded load), or running at a slightly lower frequencies. It could very well be that cores are better than hyperthreads now. As the fab process continues to get smaller and smaller, this dynamic will only get better.

    Ultimately, a few years down the line, we may see a situation where ALL cpus across the entire line, consumer and commercial both, drop hyperthreading. That said, what Intel is doing right now probably has nothing to do with security… its pure marketing to try to push consumers into buying more expensive CPUs by witholding features (such as hyperthreading, or ECC support) on the less expensive CPUs.

    -Matt

    Reply
  • October 11, 2018 at 8:00 pm
    Permalink

    since when was 10 grand server processors news to anyone outside of IT managers?

    Reply
  • October 11, 2018 at 8:00 pm
    Permalink

    totally disagree with you that what Principled did makes sense

    Reply
  • October 11, 2018 at 8:10 pm
    Permalink

    There's no way this was a rookie mistake, they are in the business of doing testing and benchmarks, this was a bought and paid for review that was meant to show the processors in the best light under flawed circumstances. Not sure how you guys dont understand that.

    Reply
  • October 11, 2018 at 8:14 pm
    Permalink

    Ryzen first gen had 3% less IPC than zen+.

    So no, it's not horrible at 1080p.

    Reply
  • October 11, 2018 at 8:19 pm
    Permalink

    The problem with them leaning hard into the "you arent getting any benefit out of more cores" is that the competition is providing those cores already, for less money. They already had soldered TIM. They might be slower, but we got the extra cores to do more and other things with. How about trying new things and pushing the technology forward instead of being locked into a specific core count for the rest of time.

    Reply
  • October 11, 2018 at 8:23 pm
    Permalink

    Core + HT is worth 1.5x just the core in applications that will use HT. So best case for the 8700k is the equiv. of 9 physical cores, but this will perform worse than a true 8 core in any real game and most other applications. I think Intel are making HT about people that are semi-serious about streaming + gaming, or have another reason for the logical thread count.

    Reply
  • October 11, 2018 at 8:23 pm
    Permalink

    I don't care how many cores something has, I care what performance it gives. I can't believe AMD fanboys are going on about number of cores when they got so burned 5 years ago. Short memories?

    AMD still has a 20% clock disadvantage and even if Intel does nothing, AMD will not be in the lead in that metric (or single thread perf as a result) next year. And why are people comparing Intel 14nm to AMD 12nm, like smaller number is always better? I get it, AMD is doing great, they are still winning in multithread, but god dam, let's not chuck common sense out with it too. Yes, IPC is getting close to Intel, but IPC is just IPC, clocks matter too. Hello?

    Reply
  • October 11, 2018 at 8:27 pm
    Permalink

    Intel was using paste because it saved a pfennig, and they had no competition. Really strange because they were selling these parts to gamers who just so happen to might want to OC them.

    Reply
  • October 11, 2018 at 8:33 pm
    Permalink

    9900k with 8/16 which can be overclocked passed 5Ghz…AMD can only dream about.

    Reply
  • October 11, 2018 at 8:46 pm
    Permalink

    Glad I went with a 2700x and 2080ti for my 4k gaming.

    Reply
  • October 11, 2018 at 8:54 pm
    Permalink

    Congrats. I recently discovered this podcast and it is now among my favorites for PC Tech. Keep up the great work.

    Reply
  • October 11, 2018 at 9:11 pm
    Permalink

    I have a 8600K and will hold out until Ice Lake in 2020 or 2021 with Spectre and Meltdown fixes in hardware.

    Reply
  • October 11, 2018 at 9:41 pm
    Permalink

    Great show as always guys.
    Im using a 4th gen xeon 1231e3 haswell chip clock @3.6ghz I've been looking to upgrade i was thinking about picking up a good deal on a ryzen 2700x w/mb combo on black friday but after hearing Amd is gonna be doing a key note address at CES for the first time in like 50 something years!!! I'm definitely waiting to Amd's 7nm lineup before I go out and buy anything CPU or Graphics wise, i don't know my gut feeling says this is gonna be big well cpu wise that is.

    Reply
  • October 11, 2018 at 9:44 pm
    Permalink

    Everyone is saying the 9900k isn't worth the money, yet they haven't seen the performance. I have one sitting on my test bench, and I'm running a 2700x. I'd take the 9900k all day. Its a great processor.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *