In their "CPU Tests", which I guess is an average of synthetics like Prime and rendering workloads. So this makes perfect sense and still goes to prove that 6/12 < 8/8 < 8/16.No performance difference between 6/12 and 8/8 here, compared against a Ryzen 9 3900X:
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/22.html
-
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.
Bad time to buy a high-end CPU?
- Thread starter BuToNz
- Start date
8/8 ≤ 6/12 < 8/16 < 12/24
At best HT gives 30%, 6 * 1.3 = 7.8. In reality, across a range of tasks, it is lower than this.
Then you have the cases where the scheduler will not balance HT processes well across physical cores. Processes then have to be moved as load changes which is inefficient. HT cores run hotter and often boost lower. If you run Prime all day then 6/12 is a perfect choice. For everything else 8/8 will perform better and more consistently overall.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,583
This is quite correct. There are times when for certain tasks that I've had better transcoding fps by disabling HT because the scheduler was prioritising a 'fake' core over a 'real' core.
I understand where you are coming from, but to play devils advocate, for gaming, it is often most cost effective to over-spend on GPU and scrimp in other areas, unless you take this to extremes. An imbalanced system can outperform a 'balanced' one in games, unless playing at low resolution, or in a subset of games that is cpu limited etc.
Or in this case, a 4.6ghz Skylake paired with a 2080Ti can be as effective as getting a new mobo, a 3700x, and a 2070s or whatever. Clearly quadcore isn't the greatest any more but high clockspeed and pretty decent IPC means an overclocked 6700k is very good at resolutions above 1440p.
I rarely practice what I preach, as I've never bought a high end card. But e.g. when I upgraded to Ryzen from a 3570K that was arguably a 'bad' buy for gaming as the cost of the new mobo/cpu/ram could have funded a gpu upgrade instead.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 895
The i5 3570K would still be good paired with a 2060.
A 4690K @ 4.6Ghz was a really bad CPU for my 1070 even in some cases at 1440P, horrible performance and strangles the life out of the GPU.
This more than 2 years ago.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 895
Just to reiterate something. When EITHER the GPU or CPU is a bottleneck you will have framepacing issues in your games, as well as the if the GPU is having a holiday.
So pairing a 2080ti with a weak quadcore is never a good idea - let's look at a common outcome for this configuration. Most people have 1080p screens. So let's say you want the 2080ti to future proof and you only play at 1080p 60hz. So now the 2080ti is running at 10 or 15% load, doesn't know what to do with itself = framepacing issues and higher latency because the 2080ti can't stretch out. Or you want to play at 240hz, so now the 2080ti is stretching but not fully and the game is CPU bound with the CPU hanging on for dear life and asking to be put out of it's misery = framepacing issues and higher latency.
Pairing a 2080ti with a quad core means that you'll also have a bottleneck in your system creating uneven framepacing and increased latency.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,840
The i7-9700K is £349.99 right now on Overclockers. The i7 pricing hasn't changed so I dont see your point?
i9 pricing has changed though as they used be over £1,000 but now the price has plumeted. They have never been so cheap. Imagine paying that sort of money in 2017? Yet your saying 2019 is a bad time? Right now is the best time to buy a CPU in over a decade.
On the other hand, it's a very bad time to buy a GPU because they have never been so expensive.
Last edited:
i9-9900K is a badly rebranded i7-9900K in order to mislead the customers and justify the gigantic price tag.
Top i7 cannot go with disabled HT..
i7 has never been with disabled HT. The first i7, i7 920 was 4-core/8-thread.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2014
- Posts
- 404
Of course there is, crap expressions won’t change that, nor will pretending it’s uncool to choose not to fritter money away.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2010
- Posts
- 1,194
I postpone my new desktop build every 8 months or so.
I still am with a Q9550 core 2 quad that sais a bit of how affected i am with when is a good time to buy technology.
I wait for new technology, then new technology comes, there is no availability, then newer technology gets announced so i wait for that and the whole circle continues...
To be fair no availability and price gauging started last year when i almost bought the 9900k but i refused to pay the prices they were asking back then. I am so close in skipping this gen again AMD this time though, but cannot wait anymore i need a new system.
Long story short, based on needs you can buy whatever and whenever you deem its worth it. I didn't need it, my pc was running the games I wanted easily and gpus were running nicely. Up to now where i put a Vega 56 and noticed that it didn't give me what the benchmarks say it would. And a lot of low minimum fps on games where my old geforce 680 was running 60 locked.
I still am with a Q9550 core 2 quad that sais a bit of how affected i am with when is a good time to buy technology.
I wait for new technology, then new technology comes, there is no availability, then newer technology gets announced so i wait for that and the whole circle continues...
To be fair no availability and price gauging started last year when i almost bought the 9900k but i refused to pay the prices they were asking back then. I am so close in skipping this gen again AMD this time though, but cannot wait anymore i need a new system.
Long story short, based on needs you can buy whatever and whenever you deem its worth it. I didn't need it, my pc was running the games I wanted easily and gpus were running nicely. Up to now where i put a Vega 56 and noticed that it didn't give me what the benchmarks say it would. And a lot of low minimum fps on games where my old geforce 680 was running 60 locked.
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Jul 2012
- Posts
- 694
- Location
- Nottingham
Ofc there is if a new cpu is coming out in a few months then buying a CPU now would be pointless even if you don't care about the increase performance you'll get current gen cheaper
right now is a great time to be building or upgrading a pc. most things apart from the highest end gpus are as cheap as you will ever get.
amd 2600s £100 is all thats really needed cpu wise for gaming.
amd 2700s start at £140 which is a hell of a lot for what it is.
amd 2600s £100 is all thats really needed cpu wise for gaming.
amd 2700s start at £140 which is a hell of a lot for what it is.
there is always something new coming
There is always something cheaper coming
it never ends
There is no bad time to buy
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,583
That simply is not correct.
If you did content creation and wanted a new CPU back in May/June then it would have been a bad time to buy a 9900K or even a 2700X. A couple months later the 3900X came out and wiped the floor on fully threaded use on performance/cost ratio. It would have been a bad time to buy a CPU then, whereas waiting a couple months would have netted you something that you could use for content creation for years. If you'd had bought a 2700X or 9900K for such tasks in May/June then you would end up regretting it.
There can be a bad time to buy. Though I wouldn't say right now is necessarily it.