Core 9000 series

~>Dg<~ · 21 Oct 2018 at 03:26

Distracted said:
People seeking high refresh rate gaming usually turn down visual quality settings to improve frametimes and overall responsiveness. Even once they reach the fps they are seeking. Not always, but this is common.

That video was on ultra settings which anyone seeking 144/240 for an fps is unlikely to be using.

I'm not saying the claim DG made is true. I have no idea.

If you want to check if it is possible then you would need to find someone running the game at low quality with the 1070.

ive posted my fps before on here with min max and avg fps benchmarked. my avg fps is 201 fps. in pubg. if people dont believe it come join discord play with those who have similar set ups running these kind of fps. quite a few of us off here play together. also those on amd chips just cant keep the high fps like we do.

i have ryzen rigs tried cards in them just cant do the same in pubg like the intel chips can. you need the high clocks. for the high fps.

Phil2008 · 21 Oct 2018 at 03:33

Legend said:
Lol, by the time games are using 8-cores to any significant advantage over 6-cores, the 9900K will be a relic! We'll be many generations ahead by then, so in and of itself that is a terrible reason to buy it. An 8700K/8086K at a good price is a FAR better choice if someone is determined to stick with Intel for that extra gaming performance boost over AMD.

Very true, but I had a i5 2500k until last xmas, then changed it for the i7 2600k and I only kept it untill june when I got the 8086k. But I would have kept the 2600k much longer but my motherboard started having problems and I haven't really noticed any performance increase from the 2600k to the 8086k. So for people that want to keep there cpu for as long as possible maybe buy the 9900k if you can fork out £200+ more for the cpu

Perfect_Chaos · 21 Oct 2018 at 07:05

Roll on Zen 2 & Ice Lake

Panos · 21 Oct 2018 at 07:50

~>Dg<~ said:
ive posted my fps before on here with min max and avg fps benchmarked. my avg fps is 201 fps. in pubg. if people dont believe it come join discord play with those who have similar set ups running these kind of fps. quite a few of us off here play together. also those on amd chips just cant keep the high fps like we do.

i have ryzen rigs tried cards in them just cant do the same in pubg like the intel chips can. you need the high clocks. for the high fps.

You do know Pubgs shows the least gap between 2700X stock without good ram and 9900K yes? Even on the Intel sponsored benchmarks.....

Robert896r1 · 21 Oct 2018 at 07:52

Phil2008 said:
Very true, but I had a i5 2500k until last xmas, then changed it for the i7 2600k and I only kept it untill june when I got the 8086k. But I would have kept the 2600k much longer but my motherboard started having problems and I haven't really noticed any performance increase from the 2600k to the 8086k. So for people that want to keep there cpu for as long as possible maybe buy the 9900k if you can fork out £200+ more for the cpu

As someone who came from a 2600k @4.6 vs a 8080k at 5, the difference was massive. I had the luxury of getting my 2080ti right at launch so it was easier to test old vs new on the cpu side. My sim racing experience is a night and day difference running VR. For general PC usage, agreed, can’t tell a difference.

Panos · 21 Oct 2018 at 08:19

The lack of Temp benchmarks with "standard" AIOs, like the H100 was bit suspicious.... Now we know why...

TNA · 21 Oct 2018 at 08:28

~>Dg<~ said:
on avg they are about 20 percent behind in gaming. doesnt matter what ram. this is at 1080. before the usual suspects come in crying or flying the amd flag.

From what I can see it is more like 2% behind

~>Dg<~ said:
2700x is a great bargin cpu at the moment. its probably the best value cpu highend of choice gaming wise. just if you want the best though you would pick intel for gaming.

thats the problem one person will debate value. one will debate the best. value wise short term you can argue with amd. long term id argue intel is the better option and the fastest. why is the intel better long term ? well for the 3 years average most people keep their cpus. the intel will be quicker in games. so 2700x for eg = £300 no gouged i7 9900k is 490 in uk. so 190 quid difference for 3 years. which to have a faster better pc is not that much. 65 per year extra a year to have a faster gaming pc for 3 years. pretty good value tbh. you could also get the cheaper i9 and do the same with no much difference save even more and still be just as fast.

While at it also you will need a 2080Ti or maybe a TitanV? Also if you want the best visuals then you will want a 4K monitor also

Panos · 21 Oct 2018 at 08:33

TNA said:
From what I can see it is more like 2% behind

While at it also you will need a 2080Ti or maybe a TitanV? Also if you want the best visuals then you will want a 4K monitor also

Or at least 3440x1440 ultrawide.....

TNA · 21 Oct 2018 at 08:34

Panos said:
Or at least 3440x1440 ultrawide.....

That is not best visuals though Panos my friend. Some may argue it is more immersive however

He will argue though that 1080p is the most popular resolution. But my argument to that is, the reason that is is because most people either can not afford to be on a better resolution or don’t know any better. These people are unlikely to upgrade to a over priced Intel cpu anyway.

Sure there are some gamers who are on it on purpose for 240hz, but I would guess this is less than 5%. For those this 9900K would make sense.

Panos · 21 Oct 2018 at 08:50

TNA said:
That is not best visuals though Panos my friend. Some may argue it is more immersive however

He will argue though that 1080p is the most popular resolution. But my argument to that is, the reason that is is because most people either can not afford to be on a better resolution or don’t know any better. These people are unlikely to upgrade to a over priced Intel cpu anyway.

Sure there are some gamers who are on it on purpose for 240hz, but I would guess this is less than 5%. For those this 9900K would make sense.

Yeah. If you need £1800 to game at 1080p 240hz though, is stupid and you need to be looked by a psychiatrist.

IT Troll · 21 Oct 2018 at 08:55

After reading the reviews I’ve cancelled my 9900K preorder and have placed an order for the 9700K. For the things I am interested in, the 9700K is the same or not far behind the 9900K, and temperatures are much more manageable for a smaller case. It is mostly rendering workloads in which the lack of hyperthreading is really noticeable; which is not something I do. The import price is £395 which currently makes it cheaper than the 8700K. The 9900K seems to have grabbed all the headlines and the 9700K seems to be getting overlooked somewhat. Seems to have good overclocking potential too:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-review/22

DarrenM343 · 21 Oct 2018 at 08:56

Lots of options out there at the moment. Even putting aside relative bargains like the 2700X, I've just realised you can get the latest 16 core Threadripper for just £200 more than a 9900K - double the core count for 33% more. Or just £80 more if people don't mind a TR1.
All depends on what people need from a system but making a decision probably becoming difficult for many.

haszek · 21 Oct 2018 at 08:59

Panos said:
The lack of Temp benchmarks with "standard" AIOs, like the H100 was bit suspicious.... Now we know why...

Overclocked to 5.1, on a thick rad, custom loop, kinda open case setup.

He gets 96C, AIDA64 stress testing
Playing Black Ops 56C average, all with 26C room temp. So gaming looks good (when not utilising cpu much). When you want to push it to work harder, you need decent cooling

Panos · 21 Oct 2018 at 09:00

DarrenM343 said:
Lots of options out there at the moment. Even putting aside relative bargains like the 2700X, I've just realised you can get the latest 16 core Threadripper for just £200 more than a 9900K - double the core count for 33% more. Or just £80 more if people don't mind a TR1.
All depends on what people need from a system but making a decision probably becoming difficult for many.

Or the 2920X for the same money the 9900K has (or less it seems as it goes for £550 imported).

TNA · 21 Oct 2018 at 09:00

Panos said:
Yeah. If you need £1800 to game at 1080p 240hz though, is stupid and you need to be looked by a psychiatrist.

Well if you want the best gaming as dg would say (fps wise, clearly not visuals) then yeah. His argument only makes sense if one either falls in the I must have the best for gaming camp (no matter the cost) or if you are someone with a 240hz monitor which I really don’t think many 1080p users are.

2700X just makes more sense imo.

Panos · 21 Oct 2018 at 09:01

haszek said:
Overclocked to 5.1, on a thick rad, custom loop, kinda open case setup.

He gets 96C, AIDA64 stress testing
Playing Black Ops 56C average, all with 26C room temp. So gaming looks good (when not utilising cpu much). When you want to push it to work harder, you need decent cooling

Though the significant majority is using H100i. Personally I use a 360mm Predator, and find the AIOs pointless but thats what the majority has to use with the 9900K.
H100s etc.

So all those going to be damaged with 115C CPU under the pump.... (Asetek design).

haszek · 21 Oct 2018 at 09:04

Panos said:
Though the significant majority is using H100i. Personally I use a 360mm Predator, and find the AIOs pointless but thats what the majority has to use with the 9900K.
H100s etc.

Yeah definitely, just posted for informational purposes, as I thought almost 100C is still high for a cooling like this.

SiDeards73 · 21 Oct 2018 at 09:18

I'd like to see a 2080ti on G-Sync with a 9900k setup @ 1440p 144hz Vs a 2700X Vega 64 @ 1440p with Freesync setup blind tested.

No FPS counters blind test, on something like Black Ops 4 or some such recent game that's been engineered well.

I bet it would be hard to tell the difference.

Except one of the rigs would cost more than twice the other.

TNA · 21 Oct 2018 at 09:21

Panos said:
Though the significant majority is using H100i. Personally I use a 360mm Predator, and find the AIOs pointless but thats what the majority has to use with the 9900K.
H100s etc.

So all those going to be damaged with 115C CPU under the pump.... (Asetek design).

I wanted a Predator myself but with the leakage issues put me off. Also their new line off stuff that replaced the predator they are charging silly moneys and only provide 2 years warranty. Therefore again I stay away. Shame really.

SiDeards73 · 21 Oct 2018 at 09:30

TNA said:
I wanted a Predator myself but with the leakage issues put me off. Also their new line off stuff that replaced the predator they are charging silly moneys and only provide 2 years warranty. Therefore again I stay away. Shame really.

I'm looking at the BeQuiet Silent Loop for my new build, heard a lot of really good things about it and it's got very good reviews.

I currently have an Arctic Freezer 240 on my 1700 and it's been solid. Had 2 Antec AIO prior to that, one of them was a warranty replacement after the first leaked.

I was toying with the idea of getting a swiftech but it seems they are hard to come by and can have issues.

My next CPU will be the AMD 3700x or whatever it will be called. My days of using air coolers are well and truly over, that weight and strain on the motherboard can't be good long term of a heavy air cooler, plus aesthetically an AIO looks better, and I feel it allows air better circulation in a case.