A new Geekbench comparison has been unearthed that appears to give a snapshot of the true performance of the upcoming Intel Core i9-9900KS processor. The chip from the blue team has been measured against a powerful AMD Ryzen 7 3800X once again, and this time it has outshone the competition in both the single and multi-core benchmarks.
https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Ryzen-7-3800X-in-X570-motherboard-surpassed-by-unhindered-Intel-Core-i9-9900KS-in-latest-Geekbench-reveal.427669.0.html
1) i9900KS needs a big liquid cooler and has undisclosed TDP vs an air-cooled AMD 3800X
2) This bench has the i9900KS running on overclocked memory specification vs the Ryzen 3800X
Conclusion, when you give the Ryzen 3700MHz memory and provide a liquid cooler the gap will be closed fairly easily, plus you'd be using significantly lower power since Intel states TDP on base-clocks and AMD states TDP on boosted-clocks. Besides there's nothing exciting about the i9900KS. The Ryzen platform also has room to grow to 16C/32T, can't say the same for intel.
Don't you just hate fanboy posts like this. Trying to trash the rising star with unfair tests.
Bottom line, if you can't be fair and non biased please leave the testing to the pros who brings out pros and cons on both sides with fair and just conclusions.
What a pointless article. Comparing a $400 CPU to a likely $550 CPU (with cooler) when you could've used the 3900X that is a bit closer in price just to push your Intel bias.
I need to figure our how to get this website to stop showing up in my recommended articles tab.
-Intel fan
Intel desperately pushes out an overclocked KS version of the i9-9900 and fakes another Geekbench result knowing the websites that will jump on it! LOL!
What is it you can't fake? Price is much higher WITHOUT a cooler!
Power consumption that is 50% higher! Not to mention temperature!
Not to mention the suspected durability of such overclocked chips!
Intel sucks. Intel marketing BS sucks even more!
Well well, what a strange times, if readers are better, than the journalists, isn't it?
This writer is boast and an Intel fan. He should be fired for not being objective. What an idiot.
So we talking of a 2 or 3 percent difference in performance for possibly twice the price
1600MHZ ? Did I miss something? Who uses 1600?
Why did they test on 10 enterprise? Why didn't they disclose what version 10 enterprise was updated to? Why did they test on 1600mhz memory? Why are they using only one benchmark?
This is the biggest nothing burger of an article ever written. Leave the benchmarks to the real tech journalists. This is the sloppiest tech article ever written.
I would usually skip over a stupid article and continue on with life, but I couldn't let this one slide.
The article contains no price comparison, a bizarre ram selection and really provided no value at all. Gonna do my best to never come back to notebookchat ever again. Poor poor content!
Geekbench 4 is known to show half the actual DDR speed (reports the base clock instead of accounting for the Dual Data Rate effective speed). Both of those systems will have been running with DDR4 at 3600 MHz.