Associate
- Joined
- 13 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 704
Well after selling my existing kit it would only cost me £150.... although looking at that review doesn't look like it's a big enough upgrade to bother with.
Last edited:
-
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
- Thread starter orbitalwalsh
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 2,483
I've only seen people quoting semiaccurate.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 5,849
I have had a 1700 for almost a year now and not once had any micro stutters, my 4770k on the other hand was plagued by it, hence me swapping to a 1700. She decided grade in FPS? Maybe a small increase in FPS, but I've never experienced any stuttering since.
Average session consists of me having a game open, YouTube, qnap doing its thing, winamp (yep I still use it) Asus and Zotac bloatware for RGB and fan profiles and upto 12 chrome tabs open for strats, loot lists, guides etc.
An Excel for spreadsheet nonsense for some of the games I play
My 477k used to choke under that load, my 1700 laughs and carries on, I even tried OBS to twitch for fun a while back and it had zero impact on my gaming it seemed.
Average session consists of me having a game open, YouTube, qnap doing its thing, winamp (yep I still use it) Asus and Zotac bloatware for RGB and fan profiles and upto 12 chrome tabs open for strats, loot lists, guides etc.
An Excel for spreadsheet nonsense for some of the games I play
My 477k used to choke under that load, my 1700 laughs and carries on, I even tried OBS to twitch for fun a while back and it had zero impact on my gaming it seemed.
If someone is serious about streaming while gaming, to the point CPU resources are serious consideration, they'd be better off going to an external capture card and an additional machine for compositions/encoding though obviously not everyone has the budget and/or do it often enough to be worth setting that up.
Soldato
There's bit more to it, detailed here > https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-review/21
Notice as well, Tom @6.20 mentions setting the power limit.
I think he's referring to 'CPU Core/Cache Current Limit Max'
Whilst I agree that more threads 'could' help gaming + streaming on one rig, the GN video was stupid, he ran it in software mode, which pretty much no streamer does. I have streamed e.g. at 60fps just fine using my 8600k and was a cpu demanding game but of course I had OBSS in gpu mode not software mode, why GN did that I have concluded was simply to market the AMD chip as best as he could. The video was stupid.
Also if going ryzen the 2600 seems the best buy of the bunch in my view, probably 95+% gaming performance of a 2700x for a noticeably lower cost.
Also if going ryzen the 2600 seems the best buy of the bunch in my view, probably 95+% gaming performance of a 2700x for a noticeably lower cost.
Soldato
Probably one of the most balanced, logical and non fanboy vids i have watched in a long time.
Im still on the side lines. weather to keep this 9900K thats sitting beside my desk or send it back to OCUK .....
as thinking about it my 8700k @5.2 should be plenty fast even for games that come out in the future that even let you use more cores i think my cpu will still do the job even 2 years from now..
though if i did keep it i would be sticking it in my gigabyte z370 gaming 7 motherboard and im not even sure i will get the same performance when compaired to z390 boards even though this gaming 7 has good VRM`s and being cooled by a EK monoblock....
think im just going to send it back and save myself £600 lol
as thinking about it my 8700k @5.2 should be plenty fast even for games that come out in the future that even let you use more cores i think my cpu will still do the job even 2 years from now..
though if i did keep it i would be sticking it in my gigabyte z370 gaming 7 motherboard and im not even sure i will get the same performance when compaired to z390 boards even though this gaming 7 has good VRM`s and being cooled by a EK monoblock....
think im just going to send it back and save myself £600 lol
Soldato
From the reviews is just 10C less than the 9900K at same clock speeds.
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 2,483
I would. I’m bored to death of my 4790k but it was £240 and does fine for gaming.
Even if I didn’t need a full platform upgrade I’d struggle to justify £600 for a CPU I’d see little benefit from.
Soldato
Faces Speak Louder Than Words
g.
It depends on the level of the overclock and voltage required. At stock and up to around 4.9 GHz, the 9700K runs cooler than the 8700K. At around 5GHz and above it starts to run hotter that the 8700K due to the extra cores. The 9700K will do around 5.3Ghz at the same temperature/voltage that the 9900K will do 5.0Ghz.
However, if you delid and liquid metal an 8700K it will run cooler than the soldered 9700K.
Soldato
Software encoding is on the CPU, of course he used that because the CPU is what he was testing.. Hardware encoding is off the GPU or an iGPU.. where the quality is horribly reduced and looks terrible when using the same bitrates and profiles etc.
For me the 2700X is a no brainer for streaming with a single PC setup, i can do 720p60fps, 6000kbps, Medium preset/Main profile with ease.. barely goes over 50-60% CPU usage, and that includes streaming Arma 3 aswell. That gets even lower when using Fast preset/High profile or Faster preset. Just whack a decent cooler over that CPU that is going to be encoding for a prolonged period of time and you're good to go.
Unless you have cash to throw away, streamers dont usually get a second streaming PC setup until they have earned enough from streaming to afford it. I had a 2 PC setup for a couple of months, 6700K gaming and 2700X streaming.. as good as it was, audio setup can be a real issue, updates from Microsoft, audio or your capture card can mess things up every time.. it can become a ballache, i see streamers on Twitch complain about it a lot.
AMD has made streaming a lot easier on a budget build, only question is which way do you go?
If you have the cash then go Intel (Sacriel has a single PC setup, 7900X), but most people that start streaming and want to do it for the money, cant afford a 2 PC setup in the first place.
AMD will be the more affordable way to get their streaming career off the ground, and if it doesnt work out as you would have liked it to go, then you didnt spend all that cash on a stream PC for nothing
Last edited:
Faces Speak Louder Than Words
g.
They're mirroring the audience.
There is zero downside in AMD coming in with a revolutionary design, producing more cores than anyone imagined realistic for consumers and undercutting the market everywhere.
On the other hand Intel is releasing products just to say they have something to answer AMD with... except they are dodging the price/performance challenge and trying to position as premium products with a premium price tag.
Obviously that leaves a mixed bag of feelings.
Should be popcorn and haribo time if AMD can get the clockspeeds up because that's all that can be used as justification for Intels premium, they do have higher clock speed for where it matters.
And then... then we'll have a real competition.
Soldato
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 704
Not really, the only competition is the price, if the new Intel were the RRP they should be then nobody is really going to buy AMD, only reason people (like myself) are even looking at AMD is just price nothing else.
This might change in terms of performance when the Zen chips arrive but until then it's only really price that is making AMD look good.