Principled Technologies Releases Updated Test Results

Paul Alcorn
Editor-in-Chief

Paul Alcorn is the Editor-in-Chief for Tom's Hardware US. He also writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage, and enterprise hardware.

  • Krazie_Ivan
    it's nice that PT was immediately receptive to the criticism & retested. it would have been better if they just applied all the changes/fixes, & maybe invited an experienced 3rd party (Tech Jesus comes to mind) to be there for some oversight & prevent further critique. results are still skewed, even if just slightly, but it's beating a dead horse now.

    i'd say this fiasco will hopefully teach certain people to wait for multiple independent reviews before ordering, but lets be realistic... most people will never know any of this happened.

    (not so) eagerly awaiting all the NDA benchmark results from cherry-picked review samples next week...
    Reply
  • that1tallguy
    And yet, this site exclaims that the 9900k is one of the 'best tech deals' and we should all plunk down cash to buy it.

    https://www.tomshardware.com/news/best-deals,30458.html

    This is hypocrisy.
    Reply
  • nitrium
    It's just confirming what everyone already knew, even based off of the old tests: Intel's chip is faster than AMD's equivalent but is an absolutely terrible bang for the buck and thus only attractive to people either obsessed with having the very fastest chip regardless of value or irrational Intel fanbois.
    Reply
  • da.hilloulin
    Yeah, now in many games the 2700x is at 10% or so of the 9900k. The cooling could improve maybe by 5%. And then you are at spitting distance...
    The price difference is clearly not in the favour of the 9900k.
    I wonder who would buy the 9900k instead of buying the 2700x and putting the extra cash in the GPU instead, or the RAM, or SSD, or anything really.
    But once again it will be the "processor of choice" because everyone wants the bigger Amazon commission. (Even though probably it would make more money to recommend to upgrade the GPU)
    Reply
  • PapaCrazy
    This CPU launch is giving me Tourettes. 50% faster... price (per 1,000qty)... numbers mean nothing to Intel.
    Reply
  • rantoc
    @1080p, who beside perhaps a few who plays in the extreme fps competition plays in that resolution with a rig in the price class those chips will land in? @1440p+ the diff is perhaps a handful frames in the majority of games, sure the intel is better but at double the price... worth it?
    Reply
  • marcusvtai
    I see no mention of the AMD pre-test memory optimization???
    Reply
  • marcusvtai
    Specifically was XMP or DOCP enabled for the 2700X inn the retest - if not why not? What's to hide??
    Reply
  • marcusvtai
    Launch headline should have been "50% Higher price in 1000 quantities"
    Reply
  • barryv88
    The biggest gripe that I have for a while now, is not even based on the numbers from benchmark results by these tech companies (sorry that includes you Tom's), but the over usage of the word "faster".
    In many ways, a beefy chip such as the 2700X is no slouch at gaming whatsoever. And in sheer performance, it falls slightly short from comparative Intel chips on bench results. But does it really mean that these Intel chips are "faster"? If both chips score in the region of say 130-150fps in our favorite games, will every average Joe gamer out there see a difference if you game on both systems and have to tell them apart?
    No. No human on this planet possesses such unique abilities to tell that difference. Your FPS is FAR over the 60fps mark. You don't run faster, you don't shoot faster. It's all smooth on both systems. Stop using the "faster" term. Its BS.
    Reply