9900k / 9700k or something else

[Journey]

Does make me wonder about next gen GPU's when even mid-range have 2080 Ti performance.

What does it make you wonder about?

Unless AMD do some serious upgrades to their line-up, the 2080Ti performance is staying at 2080Ti pricing for another 12-18 months, obviously you'll have the 2080 Super 10-15% slower for 40% less cost, which seems like that will then end up the next mid-range card 3070 +/- 5% at $499, and Ti performance will still be at $699+

 

[DarrenM343]

What does it make you wonder about?

Unless AMD do some serious upgrades to their line-up, the 2080Ti performance is staying at 2080Ti pricing for another 12-18 months, obviously you'll have the 2080 Super 10-15% slower for 40% less cost, which seems like that will then end up the next mid-range card 3070 +/- 5% at $499, and Ti performance will still be at $699+

I was thinking more about the CPU pushing the next gen GPU's. I know there won't be much in it but am I right in thinking that the consensus seems to be anythihg other than using a 2080 Ti then the Ryzen is good enough, but 2080Ti better matched to Intel top end CPU? So if next gen GPU's are >2080 Ti performance then I'm wondering if the gap will open up?

 

[Davanius]

The 5700 XT and 2070 Super has close to a 1080 Ti performance in some benchmarks for under £500 when the 1080 Ti was approx £800 or so.

I bought mine for £750 so next gen cards such as the 5800 and maybe 5900 cards from AMD may well leave some performance on the table with these Ryzen CPUs.

It's a possibility imo.

 

[Journey]

I was thinking more about the CPU pushing the next gen GPU's. I know there won't be much in it but am I right in thinking that the consensus seems to be anythihg other than using a 2080 Ti then the Ryzen is good enough, but 2080Ti better matched to Intel top end CPU? So if next gen GPU's are >2080 Ti performance then I'm wondering if the gap will open up?

Yes but you specifically said when mid-range card have 2080Ti performance, by which point the entire CPU landscape will have changed once again, and what is an expensive high end CPU will then be a bargain basement part that people are trying to shift on the MM for £60.
You have to remember that when you have competition it naturally pushes prices and performance faster, so the 2500K's bought in 2011, and replaced last year or this year, are not going to be kept as long due to the competitive market place. In 24 months you could very well have a CPU that is giving 25-30% better IPC, and as such even a lowly i3 equivalent will be better than a 9700K etc. and cost <£100, and drive that '2080 TI' equivalent with ease.

 

[Kozlicek]

Why would anyone buy Intel now even for pure gaming? Gap between 3900x and 9900K is not even noticeable and AMD CPUs will only mature with better bios and optimizations. 3900x is also future-proof and not full of security flaws. Of course 9900k is still good cpu great for games but it has no future.

 

[DarrenM343]

Yes but you specifically said when mid-range card have 2080Ti performance, by which point the entire CPU landscape will have changed once again, and what is an expensive high end CPU will then be a bargain basement part that people are trying to shift on the MM for £60.
You have to remember that when you have competition it naturally pushes prices and performance faster, so the 2500K's bought in 2011, and replaced last year or this year, are not going to be kept as long due to the competitive market place. In 24 months you could very well have a CPU that is giving 25-30% better IPC, and as such even a lowly i3 equivalent will be better than a 9700K etc. and cost <£100, and drive that '2080 TI' equivalent with ease.

Very true. I usually keep CPU's for 4-5 years but since 2016 have had three now although still have two of them atm. Definitely the pace of development has changed. 2016 4 core mainstream and 10 core HEDT. 2019, soon to have 64 core TR by the looks of it, and 16 cores mainstream.
2020 should hopefully see mid-range RT GPU's faster than the 2080 Ti too.

 

[Grim5]

Having reviewed the AMD lineup, Steve is recommending the 9700K for a pure gaming build.

Here is the thing. It’s really hard to recommend products based on future undelivered and non guaranteed performance. The bestvthe reviewer can do is recommend what works today and the fact is he’s recommended the 9700k because it significantly beats the equivalent tier and price AMD parts in games.

Yes people may see but AMd has more threads and games will eventually use it - but we don’t know when this is or if it’s even guaranteed.

When the first i5 vs i7 debacle started 10 years ago - lost of people just went with the i5 because it had the same performance as the multithreaded i7. Yes the i7 eventually did take the lead but it took years to happen and by then most people had already upgraded anyway.

It’s really hard to recommend a product on something that may or may not happen years from now

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

What is certain is the consoles will be using 8C Zen2 based CPUs,which is unlike the previous generation which used Atom class Jaguar cores found in netbooks. Intel is moving over to 10 cores next year and rumours are saying HT will be enabled on lower end SKUs. It means whereas I can see the Core i9 9900K being OK,I can see 8 thread CPUs starting to fall behind those with more than 8 threads from 2021 onwards. It will be like the Core i5 7600K in 2016.

Also all the Gamersnexus tested games have their overclocked Core i5 9600K close to a Core i9 9900K. Yet they seemingly ignore this when you look at their views on the Ryzen 5 3600.

Edit!!

Also the Core i7 9700k is actually a higher tier product than a Ryzen 7 3700X. It costs around £340 for an OEM CPU(with a minimal warranty) or £360 to £380 retail plus the cost of a basic cooler even if you don't overclock.

 

[Jacky60]

Here is the thing. It’s really hard to recommend products based on future undelivered and non guaranteed performance. The bestvthe reviewer can do is recommend what works today and the fact is he’s recommended the 9700k because it significantly beats the equivalent tier and price AMD parts in games.

Yes people may see but AMd has more threads and games will eventually use it - but we don’t know when this is or if it’s even guaranteed.

When the first i5 vs i7 debacle started 10 years ago - lost of people just went with the i5 because it had the same performance as the multithreaded i7. Yes the i7 eventually did take the lead but it took years to happen and by then most people had already upgraded anyway.

It’s really hard to recommend a product on something that may or may not happen years from now

Agreed, I've had 8 cores for nearly five years and only relatively recently have some games started to use them properly. I'm pretty sure that it will take more than two years before games use 12 cores significantly better than 8 and by then we'll have faster CPUs. I wouldn't buy a 6 core 12 thread CPU for gaming now nor an 8 core/8 thread CPU but by the time 12core/24 threads cores are significantly better in games than 8/16 we'll have the 2022/2023 CPUs or more likely 2024/2025 CPUs. Buying for 'the future' generally isn't a good idea as the landscape and prices change and early adoption is counter-productive more often than not.

 

[TangoEchoAlpha]

So for a mainly gaming build, it's really 9700k/9900k by a slim margin, but with no upgrade path in sight and seemingly more security vulnerabilities.

Or it's AMD, with a slight deficit in gaming, variable depending upon the GPU and resolution and taking a bit of a punt that games will start to make use of AMDs Zen 2 architecture and the additional cores.

 

[VortexA1]

So for a mainly gaming build, it's really 9700k/9900k by a slim margin, but with no upgrade path in sight and seemingly more security vulnerabilities.

Or it's AMD, with a slight deficit in gaming, variable depending upon the GPU and resolution and taking a bit of a punt that games will start to make use of AMDs Zen 2 architecture and the additional cores.

The PS5 has been confirmed it's going to use Ryzen so it's a cert games will make use of Zen 2 architecture and additional cores.

 

[IT Troll]

Why would anyone buy Intel now even for pure gaming? Gap between 3900x and 9900K is not even noticeable and AMD CPUs will only mature with better bios and optimizations.

Because Intel has the best performance and is cheaper! However, it is the 9700K which is the better choice for gaming. It beats the 3900X and costs £140 less (although you do need to add a cooler).

The 3700X is £20 cheaper than the 9700K but performs noticeably worse in games.

The 9900K never made any sense for gaming alone. It only pulls ahead of the 9700K for certain productivity tasks. For those duties the 3900X is now the better choice.

 

[TrM]

Because Intel has the best performance and is cheaper! However, it is the 9700K which is the better choice for gaming. It beats the 3900X and costs £140 less (although you do need to add a cooler).

The 3700X is £20 cheaper than the 9700K but performs noticeably worse in games.

The 9900K never made any sense for gaming alone. It only pulls ahead of the 9700K for certain productivity tasks. For those duties the 3900X is now the better choice.

With the right pc hardware yes intel is faster at gaming then amd at 1080p at 1400p upwards the gap is to small on a 2080ti but let’s be honest we’re taking about a 1k gpu how many people acctully own one ? And who really wants to game at 1080p on a 2080ti come on it 2019 1440p 1440hz hexk even 4K 144hz

You talk about value that a 9700k is better value then a 3900X and that a i9 sis overkill for games your cherry picking what you want to prove here . You can’t talk about value then expect everyone to own a 2080ti.

The most popular cards 1660/ti 2060 2070 sell a lot more units then the 2080ti and all ways will. And a 2070 2060 1660 makes more sense to pair it with 3700x i7 9700k and on those card no matter what cpu you use they will perform the same

Sorry but people try to make a point using the 1%er hardware and not the normal high selling stuff and atm 9700k for a pc cpu doesn’t make sense gets it arse kicked in nearly every way and the one major strength it has over a 3700x that requires a 1k gpu to show

 

[IT Troll]

The most popular cards 1660/ti 2060 2070 sell a lot more units then the 2080ti and all ways will. And a 2070 2060 1660 makes more sense to pair it with 3700x i7 9700k and on those card no matter what cpu you use they will perform the same

Sorry but people try to make a point using the 1%er hardware and not the normal high selling stuff and atm 9700k for a pc cpu doesn’t make sense gets it arse kicked in nearly every way and the one major strength it has over a 3700x that requires a 1k gpu to show

You seem to be missing the point that 1080p testing on a 2080Ti is done to establish the bottleneck. Why would you purchase a 3700K over a 9700K for gaming when the cost is so similar and benchmarks prove the 3700X will bottleneck sooner? Some people are recommending the 3900X for gaming because in the same benchmarks it get closer to the 9700K, but then convenient forget about the cost.

For a more budget friendly option based around an x60 card, the R5 3600 would make more sense.

 

[TrM]

You seem to be missing the point that 1080p testing on a 2080Ti is done to establish the bottleneck. Why would you purchase a 3700K over a 9700K for gaming when the cost is so similar and benchmarks prove the 3700X will bottleneck sooner? Some people are recommending the 3900X for gaming because in the same benchmarks it get closer to the 9700K, but then convenient forget about the cost.

For a more budget friendly option based around an x60 card, the R5 3600 would make more sense.

I see exactly what you are saying . I know why the testing is done on a 2080ti and I get why all reviewers use it and even at 720p atm on some tests. And I agreed that intel was faster.

My I’m talking from my own points of view here as you can see from cpu-z badge on my sig I own a 3900X and. A 2080 now in real world test on my pc with Acer 27 inch 1440p and 144hz there is no difference currently between 3700x 3900X i7 9700 and 9900k it if there is it’s very small.

All I’m trying to say I’m pure gaming terms around my system it didn’t matter what cpu I went with for gaming as all the cpu we have talked about perform the same as my gpu is the limiting factor. And as for future we don’t know what will happen in gaming terms nvidia rtx didn’t exactly push performance forward for the main cards (excluding the new Titan replacement 2080ti) with new consoles coming coming maybe more cores will be king over clock speed or maybe clock speed might be even more important we don’t know

But basically all I’m trying to say enless you game at 1080p with the best gpu etc Intel’s lead currently is not there in gaming that’s all I’m trying to say

 

[Orange Nexus]

You seem to be missing the point that 1080p testing on a 2080Ti is done to establish the bottleneck. Why would you purchase a 3700K over a 9700K for gaming when the cost is so similar and benchmarks prove the 3700X will bottleneck sooner? Some people are recommending the 3900X for gaming because in the same benchmarks it get closer to the 9700K, but then convenient forget about the cost.

For a more budget friendly option based around an x60 card, the R5 3600 would make more sense.

Nah, 9700K is at its end in some scenario. Need HT/SMT.

https://imgur.com/rnLwwRj

 

[IT Troll]

Nah, 9700K is at its end in some scenario. Need HT/SMT.

https://imgur.com/rnLwwRj

Battlefield V gains ~3% from HT on an 8 core CPU. There are just as many games which perform worse with HT/SMT.

 

[deuse]

If you do multi media stuff. Then it's AMD

If your a gamer. Then it's Intel. Simples really

 

[Orange Nexus]

If you do multi media stuff. Then it's AMD

If your a gamer. Then it's Intel. Simples really

If both, then its AMD.

 

[deuse]

If both, then its AMD.

Well yeh. If you like slow FPS.