Advice on cpu route for new build

[mogwai]

I am looking to upgrade my current setup due to fitment issues for my new Asus RTX 2070 Super and some damage to the pcie socket. I will be using the pc for gaming, virtual machine's and some dev work.

Is there any advantages for the above use case to Intel over AMD or the other way round? I would be wanting it to last for a while so am considering 9900k or Ks and the Ryzen 9 3900x.

 

[Drumroll]

AMD. Going for the Intel would require a new motherboard for the next upgrade, as won't be any faster CPU than the ones around, so a dead platform.
Also the 3900x may be slightly behind on games, but for other tasks, where extra cores are important, the 3900x shows its power.

 

[azazl187]

I went Intel 9900k but maxed it out. That will do me game wise for the next 7 years easy.

I figured I'd likely be upgrading everything then anyway. Over this time period I'd obviously be upgrading the gpu.

 

[Drumroll]

I went Intel 9900k but maxed it out. That will do me game wise for the next 7 years easy.

I figured I'd likely be upgrading everything then anyway. Over this time period I'd obviously be upgrading the gpu.

The only problem is, as it comes the next PlayStation and XBox and the new games are more core hungry, the 9900k won't be slow, far from it, but more cores and a platform where even more cores are upgradable, will make a difference.

 

[azazl187]

The only problem is, as it comes the next PlayStation and XBox and the new games are more core hungry, the 9900k won't be slow, far from it, but more cores and a platform where even more cores are upgradable, will make a difference.

But at 4k I cant see the 9900k being substandard for years yet.

 

[EsaT]

I went Intel 9900k but maxed it out. That will do me game wise for the next 7 years easy.

Only if you keep playing games from now and next couple years...
8 cores/16 threads will be mainstream (not high end) when next-gen consoles come out year from now.
That should kick last of the game developers out from "Four cores is high end" Intel stagnation era.

And once ways and things to utilize higher number of cores are developed, then it's pretty trivial to scale those from use of 8 cores to say 12, or even 16.
While parts of core code/functionality of games don't scale at all for multiple cores, for example things like physics modelling or unit AI of strategy games scale pretty darn well.
That's actually why there's been push for using GPUs in those.

Remember that advance of game development was stalled pretty completely for many many years, because Intel kept milking with same old four cores reached in 2007!

 

[azazl187]

Only if you keep playing games from now and next couple years...
8 cores/16 threads will be mainstream (not high end) when next-gen consoles come out year from now.
That should kick last of the game developers out from "Four cores is high end" Intel stagnation era.

And once ways and things to utilize higher number of cores are developed, then it's pretty trivial to scale those from use of 8 cores to say 12, or even 16.
While parts of core code/functionality of games don't scale at all for multiple cores, for example things like physics modelling or unit AI of strategy games scale pretty darn well.
That's actually why there's been push for using GPUs in those.

Remember that advance of game development was stalled pretty completely for many many years, because Intel kept milking with same old four cores reached in 2007!

I maintain that the GPU will be the focus point. The top games now barely even make use of 4 cores. The 9900k oced to 5MHz and the latest high end GPU of the time will be current for many years to come.

 

[mogwai]

If I go the AMD route is there any real point in waiting to get a 3950x over a 3900x? As presumably 12 cores is fine.

 

[EsaT]

The top games now barely even make use of 4 cores. The 9900k oced to 5MHz and the latest high end GPU of the time will be current for many years to come.

Last year's Shadow of the Tomb Raider makes 9700K peak at 100% load:
https://youtu.be/7uhXkVI64I8?t=24m42s

Once game developers figure out ways to use/new things to do for high core counts it will scale pretty easily upward from 8 cores.
It's just that until year or two ago they haven't had any sense to spend time on that because of that Intel stagnation era keeping four cores high end and cheaper PCs at miserable 2c/4t.
(outside consumer space massive parallel computing has been normal for many decades)
Some few percents of overclocking isn't worth of piece of toilet paper if games are able to use more cores.

 

[EsaT]

If I go the AMD route is there any real point in waiting to get a 3950x over a 3900x? As presumably 12 cores is fine.

3950X makes sense only if you'really hammering high number of cores.
Also there's that upgrade path.
In two years improved architecture Zen3s should drop nicely in price as older models. (like how 2700X is now cheap)

 

[azazl187]

Last year's Shadow of the Tomb Raider makes 9700K peak at 100% load:
https://youtu.be/7uhXkVI64I8?t=24m42s

Once game developers figure out ways to use/new things to do for high core counts it will scale pretty easily upward from 8 cores.
It's just that until year or two ago they haven't had any sense to spend time on that because of that Intel stagnation era keeping four cores high end and cheaper PCs at miserable 2c/4t.
(outside consumer space massive parallel computing has been normal for many decades)
Some few percents of overclocking isn't worth of piece of toilet paper if games are able to use more cores.

What resolution? 1080p?