Any point to Intel X-Series CPUs?

[LePhuronn]

OK, troll thread is trolling now. I can't see how you've done all this research and come to the conclusion you have.

I'm out.

 

[Gavin786]

I suspect this thread is thinly veiled excuse to promote an expensive EOL Intel CPU. I wouldn't spend too much time trying to convince anyone. One attempt is all they get from me then it's caveat emptor.

If you've done your research the answer is obvious. I bought an expensive motherboard for a reason, the 4950X. Try that with LGA1151...

I assure you sir, I do not have any agenda. IF AMD seems to be the better choice for me then I will go with that. I am asking questions because I dont know the answer, not because I already have a position which I am trying to promote. My reasoning/conclusions/information is leading me down a certain path, if this is wrong, then please do provide the facts/figures/reasons. All the numbers are saying the Intel 9900KS seems to be the best CPU for people who have a primarily gaming/development use-case which is what I have. I have never heard of the 4950x or seen it anywhere.

 

[Gavin786]

OK, troll thread is trolling now. I can't see how you've done all this research and come to the conclusion you have.

I'm out.

I am not trolling. Both userbenchmarks and gamersnexus video which was provided above give benchmark results which show that for gaming/art programs, and I would assume development also, that the 9900 series chips beat out the AMD offerings, sometimes as much as 30%. I know people seem to be very passionate and very convinced the AMDs are the better chip. So please explain this to me? I just dont get how people are saying one thing(and it does seem to be everyone on the thread), yet the numbers tell the opposite story. The only use-cases, based upon what I have seen where the AMD becomes the better chip is where there is a highly threaded workload, and this is not normal, I seriously doubt there will ever be the scenario where I will use 9 threads to full capacity for an extended period of time.

You are forgetting I am not an expert, I have a very good mind for numerical thinking, but on CPUs definitely not an expert. So this is a circle that is hard to square for me. I assure you, I do not have an agenda, and I do not wish to offend or upset anyone on this thread, especially as people have been kind enough to spend their time answering/helping me.

 

[Tetras]

It is rarely as high as 30%, Gamersnexus themselves (at the end) said it averages out around 15% in gaming and both they and the review I linked you made it clear that you won't see anything like this unless you have a really high-end (£500+) graphics card because most systems are GPU limited. As I said in my post, a lot of people had the same argument as you back when it was "why will I need more than 4/6 threads?", chased the top-end FPS and (a few years later) that didn't work out so well, even for games. The simple truth is you're paying more for an older and less efficient architecture and getting less of a CPU. Will history repeat? Who knows, but the consensus is that the advantage is rarely worth it unless you're desperate for the top-end FPS.

Edit:
If you're more interested in the raw numbers, you could compare the ratings on other benchmarks (like cpubenchmark), which show the delta in potential performance between the CPUs. While right now, games don't take full advantage of this, they are fast doing so, whereas the Intel CPU will never get any faster. You can't bodge 4 more cores and the platform is now obsolete.

That's relevant to another important point with the FPS you're comparing, what level of performance is actually meaningful? Since the 3rd-gen Ryzen CPU offers a pretty similar gaming experience even if a little slower, but with greater utility and potential for improvement. There are some use cases that the top-end FPS is critical (like competitive gaming, or high-refresh monitor), but you'll know if it is.

 

[Joxeon]

I am not trolling. Both userbenchmarks and gamersnexus video which was provided above give benchmark results which show that for gaming/art programs, and I would assume development also, that the 9900 series chips beat out the AMD offerings, sometimes as much as 30%

I wouldn't believe userbenchmarks I mean how can a 9900k score 5% higher and a 9900ks is 12% higher than a 3970x with 32/64 cores threads.

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-9900K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-TR-3970X/4028vsm970030

Yea it's slightly better for gaming but for art programmes and development...

https://www.cgdirector.com/blender-benchmark-results-updated-scores/

 

[marms]

I assure you sir, I do not have any agenda. IF AMD seems to be the better choice for me then I will go with that. I am asking questions because I dont know the answer, not because I already have a position which I am trying to promote. My reasoning/conclusions/information is leading me down a certain path, if this is wrong, then please do provide the facts/figures/reasons. All the numbers are saying the Intel 9900KS seems to be the best CPU for people who have a primarily gaming/development use-case which is what I have. I have never heard of the 4950x or seen it anywhere.

You'd be mad to get a 9900ks now, Intels next generation of processors are just around the corner, the AMD 4950x won't be released for a while, probably about 6 months time.

 

[Troezar]

You'd be mad to get a 9900ks now, Intels next generation of processors are just around the corner, the AMD 4950x won't be released for a while, probably about 6 months time.

Exactly, the price is through the roof and it's a dead end platform. Did anyone mention the performance per watt? Power cost is less of an issue than heat in my eyes.

The 10 series look to be on par with performance but energy usage looks very high compared with the 3000 series from AMD. The 4000 series promises to be even more efficient on 7nm euv.

 

[Lolik]

any1 considering Intel cpu right now is either dumb or fanboy to the point of "no matter what" , but it is their money at the end of the day, let them spend it, we gonna have a right giggle at their expense in the next few years

 

[subbytna]

If you game at 1440p or higher, then it's the GPU that will be running the show so the CPU choice will be less of a thought.

Intel CPU's cost so much, for little performance advantage over AMD.

 

[Darkpassenger]

In short no not that I can see...

 

[timorous]

I am not trolling. Both userbenchmarks and gamersnexus video which was provided above give benchmark results which show that for gaming/art programs, and I would assume development also, that the 9900 series chips beat out the AMD offerings, sometimes as much as 30%. I know people seem to be very passionate and very convinced the AMDs are the better chip. So please explain this to me? I just dont get how people are saying one thing(and it does seem to be everyone on the thread), yet the numbers tell the opposite story. The only use-cases, based upon what I have seen where the AMD becomes the better chip is where there is a highly threaded workload, and this is not normal, I seriously doubt there will ever be the scenario where I will use 9 threads to full capacity for an extended period of time.

You are forgetting I am not an expert, I have a very good mind for numerical thinking, but on CPUs definitely not an expert. So this is a circle that is hard to square for me. I assure you, I do not have an agenda, and I do not wish to offend or upset anyone on this thread, especially as people have been kind enough to spend their time answering/helping me.

If you are planning multibooting and dev work then check out https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd-ryzen9-3950x&num=1