9900k vs new AMD CPU's 2019

[Billy85]

Hi guys,

When and how many new AMD CPU's will be launched this year and what are they likely to be spec wise?

I was hoping to build a pc a couple months ago but waited for CES hoping they would start selling the new CPU's straight away, however no sign......

My question is it worth waiting until June 2019 for AMD's new CPU or "CPUs" or should I just make an intel 9900k pc.

I was hoping and still am hoping for a 12 core CPU with the spec from Adoredtv the 3700x 12c/24t 4.2 - 5.0ghz cpu? Is this likely?

Also what are the key differences between using an Intel CPU vs AMD CPU if any?

 

[tamzzy]

My question is it worth waiting until June 2019 for AMD's new CPU or "CPUs" or should I just make an intel 9900k pc.

the real question is, can you wait before you need to upgrade? if you can't then your question is answered

I was hoping and still am hoping for a 12 core CPU with the spec from Adoredtv the 3700x 12c/24t 4.2 - 5.0ghz cpu? Is this likely?

there will be a 12c24t part. re: clockspeeds...no one really knows. still engineering sample phase...
https://hexus.net/tech/news/cpu/126764-amd-matisse-12c-24t-cpu-spotted-userbenchmark-db/

Also what are the key differences between using an Intel CPU vs AMD CPU if any?

in what respect?

 

[Distracted]

the real question is, can you wait before you need to upgrade? if you can't then your question is answered

This. If you can wait then do it and you'll have your answers come June/July and you can make an informed decision.

 

[Vexr]

This. If you can wait then do it and you'll have your answers come June/July and you can make an informed decision.

It's true. I was one of the ones who couldn't wait (was on an FX-8350 system), so went for a Ryzen+. The time was simply up for me - it was either upgrade now or abandon the PC platform for gaming for 6 months/until whenever Ryzen 3000 is released.

 

[Billy85]

the real question is, can you wait before you need to upgrade? if you can't then your question is answered


there will be a 12c24t part. re: clockspeeds...no one really knows. still engineering sample phase...
https://hexus.net/tech/news/cpu/126764-amd-matisse-12c-24t-cpu-spotted-userbenchmark-db/


in what respect?

Is the 12c/24t part likley to be launched in june or more towards the end of the year, I personally think they just going to launch the 8c cpu in june and the rest later on maybe end of the year?

Key differences in respect of amd and intel cpu's - I was reffering to performance and compatibility of windows operating systems, as well as third party software in genral.

Furthermore, anyone ever had an AMD cpu go bad, as i've never has any issues with my intel systems to date.

 

[tamzzy]

Is the 12c/24t part likley to be launched in june or more towards the end of the year, I personally think they just going to launch the 8c cpu in june and the rest later on maybe end of the year?

no one knows...all rumours at this point, really...

I was reffering to performance and compatibility of windows operating systems, as well as third party software in genral.

all programs will be compatible
re: performance, this depends on the specific program. at the current moment, intel has the single core lead, amd has the multicore lead at the same price points.
so programs that leverage one but not the other, will give better performance to intel or amd, depending on whether it's single/multithreaded

of course, at the moment, intel holds top trumps with the 9900k. but, you pay for that privilege
as i keep mentioning, who knows what ryzen 3000 will bring to the table

Furthermore, anyone ever had an AMD cpu go bad, as i've never has any issues with my intel systems to date.

luck of the draw. by and large, cpus are the components that will rarely go bad

 

[IT Troll]

Key differences in respect of amd and intel cpu's - I was reffering to performance and compatibility of windows operating systems, as well as third party software in genral.

There is at least one case in which compatibility is an issue. AMD processors cannot run macOS VMs. This is a edge case, but is something which is important to me and so I had to stick with Intel. It is quite rare to find software which requires a specific architecture. Intel CPUs do also have lower latency which can be a benefit it some critical real-time applications. For general purpose use there will be no perceivable difference.

 

[Rainmaker]

There is at least one case in which compatibility is an issue. AMD processors cannot run macOS VMs. This is a edge case, but is something which is important to me and so I had to stick with Intel. It is quite rare to find software which requires a specific architecture. Intel CPUs do also have lower latency which can be a benefit it some critical real-time applications. For general purpose use there will be no perceivable difference.

Don't forget also, OP, that Intel CPUs are really APUs - i.e. they include a graphics chip. AMD CPUs proper (i.e. Ryzen 5, 7, TR, Epyc) require you to have a dedicated graphics card. That's no deal breaker, especially if you're a gamer and need one anyway; but it is a consideration (eg you can put the x hundred pounds graphics card budget into a better Intel CPU). For example, I don't game at all but do rely on gfx for transcoding, hardware acceleration etc.

Another (growing) edge case is Linux. I use Linux as my daily driver OS (and BSD, macOS etc) and they have superb support for AMD and Nvidia gfx cards. BUT, for hardware acceleration it's generally easier (even sometimes OOTB) to run Intel with its integrated gfx. Intel provide great open source drivers direct to the Linux kernel, so it's much easier to use VAAPI (hardware acceleration) with integrated Intel chips. AMD are a close second (VAAPI again), but Nvidia - while having closed source drivers available - are more difficult/fussy and rely on VDPAU instead of VAAPI. TL;DR, for Linux it's usually easier to go Intel but if you do buy AMD it's not the end of the world, especially if you grab an AMD graphics card also.

 

[Distracted]

Don't forget also, OP, that Intel CPUs are really APUs - i.e. they include a graphics chip. AMD CPUs proper (i.e. Ryzen 5, 7, TR, Epyc) require you to have a dedicated graphics card. That's no deal breaker, especially if you're a gamer and need one anyway; but it is a consideration (eg you can put the x hundred pounds graphics card budget into a better Intel CPU). For example, I don't game at all but do rely on gfx for transcoding, hardware acceleration etc.

Be sure to avoid the 'f' sku of a given cpu if this is a requirement. The 9900k includes an igpu while the recently announced and soon to be available 9900kf and the rest of the f cpus do not.

 

[IT Troll]

Don't forget also, OP, that Intel CPUs are really APUs - i.e. they include a graphics chip.

In some cases, e.g. Adobe Premiere, you can make use of the integrated graphics in addition to any discreet graphics to accelerate encoding and decoding tasks.

 

[Gabbatek]

The question is, how long after amd release their cpu do intel drop there's

This cpu race is pathetic drip feeding.

2600k > 5820k > 9900k >?> 1320k?

 

[CuriousTomCat]

It depends how often you upgade. If you normally keep the same CPU for over 5 years then it would be worth waiting until June so you can be 100% happy that you're buying the right CPU because you'll then be stuck with that decision for a very long time.

However, if you upgrade every couple years then it's not so important to get right. Some people buy ryzen 2000 to use temporarily with the intention of upgrading to Ryzen 3000 later in the year. I call that floored logic but each to their own. The point is, it just depends how long you intend to keep it.

 

[ltron]

Is the 12c/24t part likley to be launched in june or more towards the end of the year, I personally think they just going to launch the 8c cpu in june and the rest later on maybe end of the year?

Key differences in respect of amd and intel cpu's - I was reffering to performance and compatibility of windows operating systems, as well as third party software in genral.

Furthermore, anyone ever had an AMD cpu go bad, as i've never has any issues with my intel systems to date.

May/June, 16 core may come later. Wait until June if you can as they will be very exciting parts hopefully.

 

[SlugForAButt]

It depends how often you upgade. If you normally keep the same CPU for over 5 years then it would be worth waiting until June so you can be 100% happy that you're buying the right CPU because you'll then be stuck with that decision for a very long time.

Yeah, but by then there'll be another CPU around the corner, there always is. When you need to upgrade just do it, or you'll procrastinate forever for, in Intel's case, very little extra. DRIP DRIP!

However, if you upgrade every couple years then it's not so important to get right. Some people buy ryzen 2000 to use temporarily with the intention of upgrading to Ryzen 3000 later in the year. I call that flawed logic but each to their own. The point is, it just depends how long you intend to keep it.

Fixed that for ya.

 

[4K8KW10]

Yeah, but by then there'll be another CPU around the corner, there always is.

The point is that Ryzen 3000 in the form of the first 7nm CPUs, will be of higher level interest for the people, more so than the thing that will come one year later on 7nm+.
And much better than the 12nm offerings now.

Look, if you say AM5 with DDR5 and PCIe 5.0, but that's a 2021 thingie... so very, very long time to wait.

 

[CuriousTomCat]

there'll be another CPU around the corner, there always is

Normally I'd agree with you based on the last 20 years. However, AMD is about to turn the whole industry upside down in 6 months. It will be the biggest change in recent times.

 

[cossie0]

It depends how often you upgade. If you normally keep the same CPU for over 5 years then it would be worth waiting until June so you can be 100% happy that you're buying the right CPU because you'll then be stuck with that decision for a very long time.

However, if you upgrade every couple years then it's not so important to get right. Some people buy ryzen 2000 to use temporarily with the intention of upgrading to Ryzen 3000 later in the year. I call that floored logic but each to their own. The point is, it just depends how long you intend to keep it.

I have a 4690K and after a 4k qled tv upgrade and a 2080ti I am itching to upgrade the processor and was actually wondering if I should go for a 2700x with a decent X470 m/board and upgrade to the 3000 series later in the year selling the 2700x. I think a lot of people are probably in the same position.
I am wondering if the money I lose on the 2700X will be offset by the further depreciation of my old cpu, mboard and memory when I come to sell only to find the market flooded with gear from everyone else that upgrades to Zen 2 at the same time.

 

[~>Dg<~]

if the amd cpus are like people hope for i see no point in doing so. 2700xs will drop like rocks. as most intels will. i guess it just comes down to how fast the new amd cpus really are and how they are priced. 2nd will become joke prices soon for really not bad set ups. older i7s for eg just arent really worth buying now when you can get 4770k performance new for 120ish quid brand new with 6 cores.

just wait till june then buy what works. no point in 2700 then change. you paying twice and making it not worth it. its not that long anyway.

 

[4K8KW10]

if the amd cpus are like people hope for i see no point in doing so. 2700xs will drop like rocks.

2700X and the entire 2000 series line should be discontinued and with the empty wafers, they can make the IO dies.

 

[subbytna]

older i7s for eg just arent really worth buying now when you can get 4770k performance new for 120ish quid brand new with 6 cores.

4770 is a 4core 8 thread cpu, not a 6core