• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

3800X or 9900K

x570 is expensive

Either way, if you are getting a new board and CPU, then Ryzen 3000 is going to cost you more than any of the previous ryzen generations

That may be true, especially of the halo model(s), but with Asus alone releasing ~30 boards, they're certainly not going to start at 500 and go upwards. There'll be plenty of choice in every budget I should imagine.
 
You are right. I read a wrong news item. It is the mitigation for Meltdown that opens 8th and 9th Gen to Fallout.
Partially correct. The hardware-level Meltdown mitigation in the 9th Gen i9 CPUs makes them more vulnerable. However, other Coffee Lake Refresh CPUs like the i7-9700 are not affected in the same way because they don't have HT.
 
Paying 700£ for a mobo. Wtf?
x570 is expensive

Either way, if you are getting a new board and CPU, then Ryzen 3000 is going to cost you more than any of the previous ryzen generations

The halo products yes. The Taichi is expected between $200-300, the mATX X570 Pro 4 is at $179.

Because with the same logic you applied Z390 is expensive with it's £1000 upcoming motherboards!!!!!!
 
Makes 9900K look a bargain if you consider the silly priced extreme boards lol.

I am just glad Intel finally have proper competition again..In a few years they might deliver another epic like Core2 was. Also.... If you already have a 9900k, I don't see a need to swap over to ryzen unless it has some critical feature you need.
 
I will be replacing my old 2500k but I will wait for reviews before picking between the 3700x and the 3800x and which mobo and ram to pair it to...still have a budget to stick to
 
Makes 9900K look a bargain if you consider the silly priced extreme boards lol.

I am just glad Intel finally have proper competition again..In a few years they might deliver another epic like Core2 was. Also.... If you already have a 9900k, I don't see a need to swap over to ryzen unless it has some critical feature you need.

12 cores 24 threads for the same price as a 9900k...
 
depends what you doing with your pc. if the intel is faster for games. maybe worth losing a couple of cores. we need to see benchmarks first.
 
I will not get an Intel CPU until they completely fix the CPU's security issues in hardware, this will probably not get done for several generations if ever. IO performance with a fully patched Intel system has been hit hard.
 
I will not get an Intel CPU until they completely fix the CPU's security issues in hardware, this will probably not get done for several generations if ever. IO performance with a fully patched Intel system has been hit hard.

Yes, it has ... and it effects a lot of things, some very badly.

It will be interesting to see which reviewers retest the Intel CPUs on latest fully patched Windows, when July the 7th comes ... I'm expecting a lot of them not to.
 
Makes 9900K look a bargain if you consider the silly priced extreme boards lol.

I am just glad Intel finally have proper competition again..In a few years they might deliver another epic like Core2 was. Also.... If you already have a 9900k, I don't see a need to swap over to ryzen unless it has some critical feature you need.

8700k still kicking ass as well.

6 or 8 cores are fine. Quad on the other hand.
 
Yes, it has ... and it effects a lot of things, some very badly.

It will be interesting to see which reviewers retest the Intel CPUs on latest fully patched Windows, when July the 7th comes ... I'm expecting a lot of them not to.
The software I created for work is IO limited, for years I have been spending on faster drives to keep testing times down and then meltdown, I have not update my BIOS as it would be to much of a hit although I think the OS may have partially patch it as its a lot slower than it was.
 
x470 boards are selling for a little over £100 at some places and only need a BIOS update for Ryzen 3000. Or there's the new B550. There's plenty of options for those moaning about silly priced extreme boards.
 
x470 boards are selling for a little over £100 at some places and only need a BIOS update for Ryzen 3000. Or there's the new B550. There's plenty of options for those moaning about silly priced extreme boards.

If you don't need bleeding edge there are some very good buys out there.
 
depends what you doing with your pc. if the intel is faster for games. maybe worth losing a couple of cores. we need to see benchmarks first.

If it's literally only a few percent i definitely would rather have more cores, eventually devs will use them making having less redundant. Honestly i feel the quad core mania over the last decade has allowed too much focus on graphical fidelity, when what people really experience from games is their interactions... which is pretty shockingly poor for how mature the scene is.

I want a deep learning intelligence to be the main driver of innovation this generation, utilising as many cores as feasible. So that every time you play a game it should be different the next time. It would make games like Dark Souls truly a marvel.

I'm really tired of gimmicky graphics that get used in a few games when the tech is ready to be PR blasted for sales before being forgotten about.

Alas this seems like it would require cloud connection like to azure or something to achieve, which is something i really dont like the idea of...
 
^^ this makes my decision so much easier now.

Aesthetics is a big factor in my hardware purchasing decisions (or the ability to create/modify the aesthetics), and I rarely venture away from ITX these days. Right now, X570 is pointless to me on ITX and the few ITX boards shown look horrendous. So let's see what B550 brings later on, and if they're still horrid then it's an existing X470 ITX board, which hopefully should be a big cheaper by then.

Sweet.
 
If it's literally only a few percent i definitely would rather have more cores, eventually devs will use them making having less redundant. Honestly i feel the quad core mania over the last decade has allowed too much focus on graphical fidelity, when what people really experience from games is their interactions... which is pretty shockingly poor for how mature the scene is.

I want a deep learning intelligence to be the main driver of innovation this generation, utilising as many cores as feasible. So that every time you play a game it should be different the next time. It would make games like Dark Souls truly a marvel.

I'm really tired of gimmicky graphics that get used in a few games when the tech is ready to be PR blasted for sales before being forgotten about.

Alas this seems like it would require cloud connection like to azure or something to achieve, which is something i really dont like the idea of...

we really need to see actual benchmarks before judging overall performance. too many dive in double footed . some games will only cater for 4-6 cores so a 8 core higher mhz chip maybe better than a amd 12+ . just need to see those benchmarks and see ones done properly. not all single player or settings people dont actually use for the games they do bench.

we all want the best we can possibly hope for . its just what we end up getting. marketing hype men will pipe everyone up.

drawbacks i can see at moment are onboard fans. how noisey are they ?
memory maybe having big impact on performance like ryzens.hopefully this is sorted for this release and we havent got to buy specific ram just for normal performance.

im sitting here with money waiting to here and see about the 12 core.
 
Back
Top Bottom