AMD Zen 3 (5000 Series), rumored 17% IPC gain.

[Joxeon]

This 8700K?

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/inte...ocket-lga1151-processor-retail-cp-63r-in.html

You can almost get R5 3600, ram and motherboard all new for that price, then might get a better gpu in the process. Hardly any difference between these cpus.

That is prolly the reason why most here are recommending an AMD system now. And it also indicated to the sales figures here in Europe.

https://i.imgur.com/ZblOCJF.jpg

This.

If your on a budget then getting a cheaper ryzen 5 3600 CPU and putting more cash into a gpu will get you better fps than spending double that on a 8700k and an inferior gpu and if you have an unlimited budget then it's likely that you wouldn't be choosing either of these cpus.

 

[humbug]

This.

If your on a budget then getting a cheaper ryzen 5 3600 CPU and putting more cash into a gpu will get you better fps than spending double that on a 8700k and an inferior gpu and if you have an unlimited budget then it's likely that you wouldn't be choosing either of these cpus.

This, you get a lot more FPS from spending an extra £200 on a GPU than you would spending it on any high end CPU. It has to be said the Ryzen 3600 is like the 2500K of all those years ago, its cheap with excellent performance in everything in anything you throw at it, that's why rather frustratingly for a few everyone recommends it to anyone looking for anything but the best of the best in gaming or work specifically.

Whats more its gradually improving on its already good gaming performance as AMD slowly but surely twist Microsoft's arm to fix their ancient and inefficient Scheduler. with Intel you don't know what performance you're going to have next year, all you do know is its not going to be better.

 

[Deleted User 456458]

The only viable chip in the lineup right now is the 9900k with 8c/16t If you tune it along with good ram, it's unmatched for gaming and will remain relevant for a number of years.

The 9700k is fine if you close everything else and only game. If you need to multitask with gaming the chip starts to struggle.

I tested this with my setup where I had HT disabled for a week and was doing the normal things. The 9700k would stutter and struggle intermittently when doing multiple parallel takes. Even loading up certain programs meant a small "freeze" of the system. No crashes or errors just a general blip here and there. With HT enabled, silky smooth. All else being equal.

For a proper OC enthusiast who wants to squeeze everything out of a 9900k(s) and will hand tune his bdie, the 9900k(s) will smoke anything 8core Ryzen can throw at it. But if you want to set n forget, then it's hard to recommend that combination.

 

[Orange Nexus]

The only viable chip in the lineup right now is the 9900k with 8c/16t If you tune it along with good ram, it's unmatched for gaming and will remain relevant for a number of years.

The 9700k is fine if you close everything else and only game. If you need to multitask with gaming the chip starts to struggle.

I tested this with my setup where I had HT disabled for a week and was doing the normal things. The 9700k would stutter and struggle intermittently when doing multiple parallel takes. Even loading up certain programs meant a small "freeze" of the system. No crashes or errors just a general blip here and there. With HT enabled, silky smooth. All else being equal.

For a proper OC enthusiast who wants to squeeze everything out of a 9900k(s) and will hand tune his bdie, the 9900k(s) will smoke anything 8core Ryzen can throw at it. But if you want to set n forget, then it's hard to recommend that combination.

You mean intel line up?

 

[LePhuronn]

lol OK, Robert, OK.

 

[henson0115]

my mistake, getting my figures all mixed up. nevermind

 

[humbug]

The only viable chip in the lineup right now is the 9900k with 8c/16t If you tune it along with good ram, it's unmatched for gaming and will remain relevant for a number of years.

The 9700k is fine if you close everything else and only game. If you need to multitask with gaming the chip starts to struggle.

I tested this with my setup where I had HT disabled for a week and was doing the normal things. The 9700k would stutter and struggle intermittently when doing multiple parallel takes. Even loading up certain programs meant a small "freeze" of the system. No crashes or errors just a general blip here and there. With HT enabled, silky smooth. All else being equal.

For a proper OC enthusiast who wants to squeeze everything out of a 9900k(s) and will hand tune his bdie, the 9900k(s) will smoke anything 8core Ryzen can throw at it. But if you want to set n forget, then it's hard to recommend that combination.

I think that's pretty much spot on, the 9900K is the gaming king and tho to a lesser extent it also benefits from carefully tuned B-Die RAM making it even faster in games.

As for the 9700K, for its price i don't rate it much either.... its no better than a 3600, i think it and the 8700K are better at multitasking.

 

[Deleted User 456458]

I think that's pretty much spot on, the 9900K is the gaming king and tho to a lesser extent it also benefits from carefully tuned B-Die RAM making it even faster in games.

As for the 9700K, for its price i don't rate it much either.... its no better than a 3600, i think it and the 8700K are better at multitasking.

For synthetic, I used TimeSpy cpu as it scales well with cpu and mem. With a 52/47x cpu, XMP on my 8pack 18-19-19/4000 kit was around 13,200 while my daily tuned 17-18-18/4200 1T with manual tightening is about 13,700. In the actual games tested I see that while the average is notably up, where it shines is the low fps being a lot higher. This makes sense ofcourse as when you speed up the ram, the cpu can work faster and is not waiting. As a byproduct, the chip runs hotter and needs more vcore but you are certainly getting a lot more performance for it.

I think there is one reviewer who might be working on maxing out bdie along with a 9900ks to show this but i'm not sure when that will be out.

 

[humbug]

Fire Strike, a quick dirty stock run from the other week, crappy LPX 3000 RAM at 3266Mhz. https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/43725173?

Physics: 19,229.

My RAM really is junk, and it cost me £180, i had to buy it in 2017 when the pricing was insane, i was upgrading from a DDR3 system so it had to be done, RAM cost me more than the CPU.

I'm seriously contemplating getting some 3600Mhz B-Die and a new board, GPU comes first tho, GTX 1070 performance isn't what it once was...

 

[Deleted User 456458]

Fire Strike, a quick dirty stock run from the other week, crappy LPX 3000 RAM at 3266Mhz. https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/43725173?

Physics: 19,229.

My RAM really is junk, and it cost me £180, i had to buy it in 2017 when the pricing was insane, i was upgrading from a DDR3 system so it had to be done, RAM cost me more than the CPU.

I'm seriously contemplating getting some 3600Mhz B-Die and a new board, GPU comes first tho, GTX 1070 performance isn't what it once was...

Same here. Bought my ram when the 9900k was launched and it was 200+ GBP. Today, better bins drop to ~100.

Yeah a bump in a gpu is always a win.

 

[sideways14a]

The only viable chip in the lineup right now is the 9900k with 8c/16t If you tune it along with good ram

Totally agree, the rest of the range is totally overshadowed by zen2. Why would i want a hamstrung 8 thread cpu which can maybe play games a couple of % better than a 3700/3800 while having a shed load of issues (9700) or one of the silly overpriced HEDT chips that get there ass handed to them by TR and even AM4 chips.

Even the 9900k is not a very compelling cpu being that its only capable of being ... what 6% or 7% better when totally rung out in gaming over say a 3900...

 

[Kelt]

Is the 9900K even the best at gaming these days, given the security flaws and the performance killing patches they require?

Before I removed these patches, they were costing me between 5 and 10% performance on my X5650, a not insignificant figure.

 

[humbug]

Is the 9900K even the best at gaming these days, given the security flaws and the performance killing patches they require?

Before I removed these patches, they were costing me between 5 and 10% performance on my X5650, a not insignificant figure.

Yes. Coffeelake doesn't suffer near as bad from the security issues as older architectures like Sandy/Ivy/Hasy. Coffeelake has the most performance gimping fixes in the architecture, that however doesn't make it immune from the endless cycle of new ones that keep cropping up, so far nothing that hurt older CPU's as much, that is unless you're running some data centre workloads......

Still makes me laugh that the 'self-proclaimed' industry leaders could design an architecture that is apparently easily poked full of holes while the under dog appears to be as solid as a Battle Ship to a BB gun.

 

[LePhuronn]

Still makes me laugh that the 'self-proclaimed' industry leaders could design an architecture that is apparently easily poked full of holes while the under dog appears to be as solid as a Battle Ship to a BB gun.

I don't think Intel intended the arch to be around as long as it has been. Cut a few corners on internal security with Sandy Bridge to get the performance comfortably above Phenom II, drastically improve efficiency with Ivy Bridge to ensure that lead and then rework the thing to fend off AMD's counter...oh wait, Bulldozer does what now? No need to change this then, and thus the milking and drip-feeding continues.

In an alternative universe, had AMD remained competitive with Haswell and onwards, Intel probably would've made more significant changes to their arch, or even moved away entirely before any of these issues were identified (wasn't the new Ice Lake stuff on 10nm planned for 2015 or something?).

None of this is an excuse of course, because the simple premise of "cutting corners on internal security" to maintain a lead over AMD is just repugnant, and then to knowingly milk a broken arch for as long as they have even more so.

Don't forget AMD had issues too when this ********* first made landfall, but they already had a complete redesign with Zen in the works so it wasn't really an issue for them - they knew all the problems were going away pretty soon.

 

[alec]

it's unmatched for gaming and will remain relevant for a number of years

If number of years is 1.
I hope/predict that Ryzen 4000 will match it in games and stay better in all other areas, including power consumption.
After that 9900k will remain relevant if you got one (just as I am content with my 6700k, almost 5 years going strong), but there will be no case where you would recommend anybody to get one (or its replacement 10700K).

 

[LePhuronn]

but there will be no case where you would recommend anybody to get one

In my little corner of the world, there isn't one already.

1080p gaming? 2600X + RX 570
1440p gaming on a budget? 3600X + 5700 XT (or 2070 Super if you can get one cheap enough)
Pushing higher resolutions than that? 3800X or 3900X, 2080 Super, 2080 Ti (if you're mental)
High FPS twitch shooters at potato resolutions when you're not actually a pro gamer? Grow up

 

[opethdisciple]

I really must not upgrade the 3700X to a 4000 series CPU when they lunch this time! (－‸ლ)

I want to buy a new board have been eyeing up the X570 Aorus Elite, but havent pulled the trigger yet. £180 is steep when my current board works just fine and all I want it for is BIOS support and pcie4 as an added bonus for next gen GPUs.

 

[Sargatanas2511]

I really must not upgrade the 3700X to a 4000 series CPU when they lunch this time! (－‸ლ)

I want to buy a new board have been eyeing up the X570 Aorus Elite, but havent pulled the trigger yet. £180 is steep when my current board works just fine and all I want it for is BIOS support and pcie4 as an added bonus for next gen GPUs.

I am in the same boat, I am on a 3900X with a X370 Crosshair VI Hero. I don't think I should upgrade cpu anyway and I definitely wouldn't without upgrading my board. I kind of hope the 4000 series aren't as good as rumoured just so I don't get the same kind of itch to upgrade!

 

[~>Dg<~]

tbh i think you will have x670 boards and other new varities...i wouldnt touch the x570 boards. you have what you need now.

 

[opethdisciple]

tbh i think you will have x670 boards and other new varities...i wouldnt touch the x570 boards. you have what you need now.

Yea. I will be buying a new 3000 Nvidia card when they launch so perhaps I can just wait for that and pick up a new x670 as well because by that time they probably wouldn't be far off.

But then as this is the last series of AM4 anyway is it even worth it. I was hoping this x370 board would last me through the 4 years of AM4. Technical it will, but ASUS seem to have droped support for the board now. No AGESA 1004.

Just my OCD doesn't like being on the ABBA bios. (As if it really matters) (－‸ლ)