• 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.

Core 9000 series

~>Dg<~ said:
why this looks like a great idea. good luck with getting the high fps. that many of us want. that card isnt doing it not even a 2080ti.
Click to expand...

Again what planet are you on? the 2080TI is £1300, the Vega 64 £450.

if you're getting the £1300 2080TI then you're getting the 9900K, for everyone else that CPU will not do a better job than the 2700X.

Why pay 100% more money for the same?
 
humbug said:
If you want the best the 9900K is your only choice, thats fine for people who are not on a budget or just keep getting other credit cards to pay off the last pile of plastic.

The problem Intel have is increasingly less people are willing to spend more and more on their hardware, like £600 for a CPU, they would rather spend half that and if in 2 years they want to upgrade they do that then, this instead of spending it all in one go and keeping it longer.

Yes there are those who blow £500 / £600 on a CPU once a year, but they are small in number.

I spent £160 on my CPU, in another year i might get replacement for £200, a £350 7700K at the time would not have been the CPU to keep for a few years, its already showing its inadequacies.
Click to expand...

I keep telling him this, but he doesn't seem to grasp the concept of not splashing all your cash in one go, might actually be beneficially in the short to medium term.

I disagree with your last statement, since the equivalent CPU for you was the 8700K at the time when you got your new AMD system, which was indeed priced at £350ish
 
Rroff said:
Not a 2080 (or equivalent) but I used to do it in the past when playing online FPS semi-competitively - higher end CPU and SLI GPUs but playing at 1680x1050@120Hz with a "lowpro" visual config when most had moved onto 1920x1080.

There will be people doing like 9900K + 2080ti + 1080p@240Hz or something silly like that.
Click to expand...

There are not many with those requirements. The 2700x is a better buy cpu, lets be frank you are not buying a 2080TI to play at 1080p, well majority will not and at 1440p or 4k the difference is marginal at best. I would rather buy a 2700x and take the extra £300 i would have spent on the 9900k and put it towards buying a better GPU, that is a difference from a 1070ti to a 1080ti or even a 2080 to a 2080ti and at 4k its a much wiser investment plan. The 9900k is a fast cpu but really aimed at those that need a very specific requirement.

They are both great CPU but the 2700x is a much better buy for many and after seeing the reviews many are buying it, specially next year you can just drop a zen 3 3700x or 2800x for £300 and have much faster CPU and with intel you have to buy a whole new motherboard.
 
B12B6 said:
GF 14 and "12nm" was made for ~3ghz products, tsmc 7nm is made for ~5ghz products. Process made for 3ghz AMD was able to make it go well beond 4. 4,5 on 7nm would be unbelieveble nosedive.
Click to expand...
5GHz for anything other than boost clocks is really unrealistic expectation especially for first gen variant of node.
Ways to increase clock speeds achieved on node those tend to be detrimental to other aspects.
Node development is simply always balancing and compromising.
That's why we have different nodes for lowest power consumption/highest efficiency chips.

And AMD certainly don't want CPUs, which won't scale well for low idle/low load power consumption.
Power efficiency is very important for servers.
And it would be also bad for desktop, if you can't make those lowish consumption variants for mass produced market PCs.

And just look at what these current clocks do to actual full load power consumption of these fastest Intels, despite of having extremely mature and finely tuned manufacturing process.
Do you want such 200W power consumption CPUs?
 
Journey said:
I keep telling him this, but he doesn't seem to grasp the concept of not splashing all your cash in one go, might actually be beneficially in the short to medium term.

I disagree with your last statement, since the equivalent CPU for you was the 8700K at the time when you got your new AMD system, which was indeed priced at £350ish
Click to expand...

I don't remember if the 8700K came out before of after i bought my 1600, i do know the 7700K was at the time of the Ryzen 1600 launch Intel best mainstream CPU. the 8700K was a reaction to Ryzen 1.

Ryzen 3600X will be better than the 8700K, i'm pretty sure of it.
 
humbug said:
Again what planet are you on? the 2080TI is £1300, the Vega 64 £450.

if you're getting the £1300 2080TI then you're getting the 9900K, for everyone else that CPU will not do a better job than the 2700X.

Why pay 100% more money for the same?
Click to expand...

who do you buy your pc for ? someone else ? :p you buy it for yourself and what you need it for. people are still arguing value. its not a value argument . i want the best. 9900k is the better gaming cpu.

people keep bring value into it when its people who want the fastest cpus for gaming who will be buying these. value isnt the concern performance is.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
who do you buy your pc for ? someone else ? :p you buy it for yourself and what you need it for. people are still arguing value. its not a value argument . i want the best. 9900k is the better gaming cpu.

people keep bring value into it when its people who want the fastest cpus for gaming who will be buying these. value isnt the concern performance is.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point, people don't spend 20% more on the CPU than they do on the GPU.

If you're getting a £450 GPU Ryzen 2600X/2700X/8700K/9900K they will all give you exactly the same performance in games, the GPU is the limiting factor and by a long way.
 
no not at 1080. your not getting it. at 1440 and above yes. at 1080 no. thats why you buy the fastest cpu.

so then you say just buy 1440 then. good luck getting high 100fps constant. in modern games :p

thats why people stick to 1080 who want high fps.
 
Dg a Vega 64 is not a lot faster than the GPU i have, especially with it overclocked.

I don't have any problems running anything other than perhaps CSGO at 1080P, but then again i don't care because i'm old and can't keep up with its youthful players reaction times. and FC5 can sometimes drop the GPU to about 90%, everthing else is perfectly fine, including Fortnite. Battlefield? dunno about pubg, i should think its a problem, a mate of mine has a 2700X and a 1080TI, he doesn't have any complaints about the performance on pubg.

Edit, Battlefield 1, not a problem...
 
where not talking about if they can play at 1080 we all know they can. i just stated the 9900k is the fastest cpu for gaming. everyone else is moving goal posts or bringing value into it. doesnt take away the intel 9900k is the quickest gaming chip.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom