Core 9000 series

[Journey]

According tho the latest steam hardware survey less than 4.5% of people are using the GTX 1080 & 1080 Ti combined, which means that more than 95% of people don't need anything faster than an i5 8400 or a Ryzen 5 1600 to play games at 1080p (without being the bottle neck to the GPU), which as we keep getting told is the best, optimal, and most popular resolution.

There must be less than 1% of people using a 1080Ti or better at 1080p 165Hz+, so the demand for Intel CPU's is not a real demand, just that they are the dominant market player presently, the performance has nothing at all to do with it for literally 99% of the people playing games.

I couldn't give a stuff what people buy, but some folk need to realise they are in a minority, of a minority, of another minority and get off their soap boxes.

 

[~>Dg<~]

intel i5s are faster than even the top end amd chips across the board ingaming. what is this debate even about. as soon as a valid point is made the goal posts are shifted. amd offer more cores cause they cant match the clockspeed needed for games. thats it . no goal post shifting. how much more is a low end i5 over the similar ryzen product ? 100 tops.yet the i5 in games is a lot faster. the system budget or not will be kept probably if budget for 3 years plus. so 100 pound possibly less over 3 years to have a faster budget gaming system with a intel i5 in.

 

[B1gbeard]

According tho the latest steam hardware survey less than 4.5% of people are using the GTX 1080 & 1080 Ti combined, which means that more than 95% of people don't need anything faster than an i5 8400 or a Ryzen 5 1600 to play games at 1080p (without being the bottle neck to the GPU), which as we keep getting told is the best, optimal, and most popular resolution.

There must be less than 1% of people using a 1080Ti or better at 1080p 165Hz+, so the demand for Intel CPU's is not a real demand, just that they are the dominant market player presently, the performance has nothing at all to do with it for literally 99% of the people playing games.

I couldn't give a stuff what people buy, but some folk need to realise they are in a minority, of a minority, of another minority and get off their soap boxes.

The weird thing is, it doesn't look like, to me anyway, that it is the people actually buying the 9900k on any soap box. In fact the few people with them on here and using them seem to just be getting on with it. It seems as though most of the people soap boxing here is from people not intending to buy it, who are cross about the price/temps/whatever, but not actually posting anything about the CPU's.

 

[RavenXXX2]

Ohh look at that, half the price of the i5 8400 yet the 2600 which you can overclock spanks it even at 720p.

 

[B1gbeard]

Exactly. Yet I am stunned by the number of comments I'm reading elsewhere, and videos popping up on YouTube in respect to a 2080Ti+9900K being the ULTIMATE 4K PC lol, with no mention of the 2700X. It's laughable, but people fall for it. Some of these YouTubers are clearly in the pocket of Intel though I reckon.

It'll be interesting to see if we see the same arguments when Zen 2 comes out, which will gain on 1080p in some form, but at higher res will be exactly the same as what we have at the moment. For high res gaming we have reached an impasse on the CPU side of things for some time potentially.

 

[SiDeards73]

Dunno why you guys are even bothering replying to Dg everyone knows he is just a troll with no substance.

What people need to start doing is when looking for a new PC firstly figure out what the main use will be, if it's productivity then more cores will probably come to the fore, if it's gaming then the GPU is going to be one of the biggest influences.

Then if you have a strict budget it's fairly easy to work out from there where you setup is going to be, another driving factor is monitor, if your buying new or if you already have one.

Right now, if I have a £2k budget and my prime focus is gaming I can forget about 9900k and a 2080ti it's just not gonna happen, so then I have to settle for less, ok I'll opt for a 2080 and I play black ops 4 and battlefield mostly, 1440p is a good res for me and I need a new monitor, so before I'm even anywhere into the spec I'm £1200 or so down straight off on a GPU and Monito, that means £800 for Mobo, Ram, PSU, CPU, Cooler and case..

Concessions start needing to be made straight away even at £2k right now if you want a decent gaming PC..

Alternatively just spend £450 on an Xbox one X lol

 

[beany_bot]

Exactly. Yet I am stunned by the number of comments I'm reading elsewhere, and videos popping up on YouTube in respect to a 2080Ti+9900K being the ULTIMATE 4K PC lol, with no mention of the 2700X. It's laughable, but people fall for it. Some of these YouTubers are clearly in the pocket of Intel though I reckon.

It's because EVERY and I mean EVERY single youtuber reviews high end CPU's at 1080p. So over and over people see intel winning.

 

[~>Dg<~]

dont point out its me look at the subject. if you attacking a person but cant argue debate the subject then you clearly are blinded.

what i said is true. amd offer cores to compensate for not having as fast clockspeed as intel. its their whole marketing sales.we got more cores.which is great if you use them but once you break through the marketing bs which both intel and amd do but for some reason ocuk forums and amd fanboys is beyond approach. yet look at the pure facts.

base i5s are faster at gaming than even the top end amd chips.
mid range i7s are faster at gaming
top intel faster at everything.

so then its down to budget. forget the 4k talk. its no one. in the scheme of things. especially not to budget gamers who are buying amd chips. you cant say budget and 4k in the same sentence yet its often the first thing amd pro people will bring up. " oh but there is no difference once you get to 4k " what on a 150 pound chip ? you really buying a 4k monitor and top end gpu. stop lying to yourself.

so then it comes down to what chip you buying which is realistically amd wise 100-200 pound 95 percent of the time. which is mainly going to be used at 1080 res. cause its the sector its used in mainly and the main gaming resolution. so for that it does a great job. but....how much extra is the faster i5 equivelent ? next to nothing yet its faster in 99.9 percent of games.

so your basically buying the amd chip for cores. if you buying a low end one.

the only worth while addition at the moment id look at if gaming and doing other multi stuff which makes kinda sense is the 2600/2700x all the rest pointless.

 

[LambChop]

I think as the previous video posted says, if you want to buy AMD buy it, if you want to buy Intel, buy it. There's no right or wrong choice.

 

[beany_bot]

I think as the previous video posted says, if you want to buy AMD buy it, if you want to buy Intel, buy it. There's no right or wrong choice.

Hmmm, if you want a "cool and silent" system then I would say 9900k is the wrong choice. Equally if you are looking for a pro Esports cpu for uber FPS at 1080p then AMD is the wrong choice.
Just playing devils advocate here.

 

[TrixX]

It's all good ~>DG<~ you maybe thinking of the now with no thought to the future, but some people do think further than their nose.

So the i5's are equal in price to the top end AMD's. That's a good thing for the AMD purchaser going forward. i5 8600K and 9600K are both 6c/6t processors for a similar price to AMD's 2700X with it's 8c/16t. Performance depends on game time and DX type more than anything currently. Games prior to 2018 will generally prefer more GHz and IPC than core count so if that's all you are going to play then sure the Intel is the better buy. However going forward more cores and threads will be used more efficiently, and in turn you'll start to see games performing better on the 8c/16t CPU's as they'll be less of a bottleneck than a CPU with a focus on single core performance.

The equivalent from Intel is the 9900K, which hasn't had a very strong start. Thermal issues, a die thickness 4x that of the 8xxx cpu's with 0.5mm of solder aren't helping. There's a bit of a problem with price too which is double that of a 2700X. Seeing as there is only a few situations where the 9900K will be an outright benefit to the 2700X the latter is the better buy for the most part. Interestingly the 8600K is a better buy too as if it's contemporary gaming it's faster than the 9900K, can OC higher though while it loses out on power per core efficiency it's still less power hungry even at 5.3GHz.

Then there's the use case. If you are going for 1080p then meh it's not a problem on either the AMD or the Intel. Both provide good performance, with the Intel pushing some really high framerates, but the 0.1% and 1% lows are much of a muchness between the two. Same at 1440p and then at 4K there's no difference from the CPU. As usual there are edge cases, but they aren't mainstream and therefore outside the scope of a generalized discussion.

At the end of the day for the mainstream, it's more on Budget for the PC and currently there is no price point that Intel holds the lead in. Intel lose out at all price points to the AMD CPU's in that class. The requirement for low latency RAM is still offset the cost differences with AMD still ahead and even the end user getting better memory as a byproduct.

So far I'm yet to see a compelling argument to run Intel over AMD outside of edge cases like iRacing or retro gaming.

 

[DragonQ]

so amds market is mainly budget or lower end. now work it out what res are those gamers going to be playing at ? 4k lol. these forums.

Your idea of budget and low-end are completely out of whack with reality.

 

[Swinbag]

Generally speaking, if you're building a new PC/ upgrading for "general gaming" above 1080p, AMD feels like a no-brainer right now.

It can be user/ case specific though - personally, I run a 144hz 1080p monitor which I have no intention of changing for the foreseeable future - many of the games I play (ARMA, Squad, CS:GO, Quake) seem to prefer the higher IPC/ Clock speed of Intel processors and I don't edit/ stream, so have no use for the extra cores Ryzen offers.

I just want the absolute max FPS I can get from my games, but there's absolutely no way I'm paying the premium for these new 9 series CPU's - I'd much rather wait & see what Zen2 has to offer, failing that a used 8700k is probably going to be my upgrade path.

 

[LambChop]

Hmmm, if you want a "cool and silent" system then I would say 9900k is the wrong choice. Equally if you are looking for a pro Esports cpu for uber FPS at 1080p then AMD is the wrong choice.
Just playing devils advocate here.

I'm not looking for that, nor am I looking for uber fps at 1080. Nor am I looking for advice on what to buy, doesnt seem to stop anyone (not signalling you specifically here) trolling or ramming it down peoples throats.

 

[LambChop]

Generally speaking, if you're building a new PC/ upgrading for "general gaming" above 1080p, AMD feels like a no-brainer right now.

It can be user/ case specific though - personally, I run a 144hz 1080p monitor which I have no intention of changing for the foreseeable future - many of the games I play (ARMA, Squad, CS:GO, Quake) seem to prefer the higher IPC/ Clock speed of Intel processors and I don't edit/ stream, so have no use for the extra cores Ryzen offers.

I just want the absolute max FPS I can get from my games, but there's absolutely no way I'm paying the premium for these new 9 series CPU's - I'd much rather wait & see what Zen2 has to offer, failing that a used 8700k is probably going to be my upgrade path.

It's already been said with the best advice.

If you want to bitch and moan about the 9900k, then go buy the 2700X. It's really that simple.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

 

[sandys]

" oh but there is no difference once you get to 4k " what on a 150 pound chip ? you really buying a 4k monitor and top end gpu. stop lying to yourself.

I'd disagree, 4k screens are two a penny now as it is not just monitors but TVs. Save on CPU plough more dough into GPU. Always worked for me gaming wise.

Money no object it would be highend HEDT platform, both X470 and z390 are dead end platforms from expandability viewpoint, no PCIe lanes once you've started to grow your M2s

 

[chrcoluk]

Does anyone have any idea wether the 9700K will run cooler when OC'd than the 8700K and 9900K?
Maybe a cooler running and higher OC'd 9700K would be the fastest "gaming" CPU?

Deffo runs cooler, HTT increases power usage significantly.

Although the impact depends on the workload, if you e.g. gaming where HTT usually only has neglegible impact barring a few games, then in those scenarios temps wont be much higher than non HTT.

Given the thermal limitations I expect a 9700k to have higher overclock potential than a 9900k. So in games that like single core performance the 9700k could be faster than a 9900k. The 9900k is the first mainstream flagship for a while that doesnt clock as fast as its predecessor.

 

[chrcoluk]

The world has evolved, a lot of younger people and "millennials" believer everything they read on the internet or some YouTube or twitch stream without any regard for how the person advertising got their gear or is paid to promote it.

I read a retweet this morning from some moron streamer in the USA, advertising some NZXT pc building website and stating he just paid $4k from a PC on there. Someone reminded him that the very night before the same streamer was going on about building a pc and getting bang for buck etc.

Next day buys an over priced pre built with a 2080ti and 9900k.. so much for practicing what you preach.

Half these streamers wouldnt even know how to setup a PC properly, they just buy or recurve the best of everything then preach how great it is to their mass sheep following.

That's why they make so much cash, they all have referral pages and whatnot and product placement etc.

It seems people's ability to formulate their own opinion and do some research has gone out of the window, it's the state of the fast food society world we live in where everyone wants every thing now and quicker and faster than before and will just throw money at it.

So there is Nvidia and Intel and Apple etc waiting rubbing their greasy hands together. And the masses just allow them to bend them over.

Anyone stopping to think "I can achieve the same from alternative vendors and cheaper" is laughed down and scoffed at.

That is the sad state of the consumer driven world we live in.

you said it how it is, its what adoredtv keeps trying to put across in his videos as well.

The review industry would only be fixable (and could easily stay broken) if reviewers brought everything they reviewed, no freebies, no pre launch kit, no special access to PR departments, just buy from a retailer, and review the damn thing. The problem is I expect 90% of them would quit in that scenario.

So much web links are tracked/intercepted now days, on the rain forest site they heave featured products which go through a 3rd party tracking provider only to lead back to the same site, I mean completely ridiculous, if you see a url in a video text box to a product, its probably going through a referral link.

Also talking about good review practices?

I noticed just about every reviewer is removing the power limit when reviewing 9900k's, to me thats a big no no. I personally have a power limit set on my 8600k thats not much higher than the stated TDP limit. If I had a 9900k I would probably set it at 140-190 watts which that chip can easily exceed on the stress/bench tests. If I was reviewing a 9900k as a honest review using sensible settings, I would either keep the TDP limit, or set one within asus (a manufacturer) recommendations (2x TDP limit). Given the 9900k is marketed as a 95 watt chip I would maybe set it as high as 190, but it would throttle, I would get lower results than the other other reviewers and would probably be labelled as a bad reviewer because my results are "different".

 

[chrcoluk]

Ohh look at that, half the price of the i5 8400 yet the 2600 which you can overclock spanks it even at 720p.

sad that the 8400 costs more now than I paid for my 8600k.