Core 9000 series

[Hotwired]

and then we will have a golden pig that flys. what is so hard to understand ? amd cant get the clock speed up there .thats why they try and sell you on the more core = better. its funny because its been 15 years roughly since they been doing this method and still cant get it up so to speak. yet you always see well the next chip will be 5ghz blah blah blah when they cant simply do it. why live in a dream ?

what they doing now they been doing for years. just trying to offer double the cores but at less clock speed. when ingaming what you need is clockspeed more than anything.

Dial down the paranoia.

Telling someone that AMD is selling cores over frequency as if its breaking news. Telling me that clockspeed matters more for games.

As if you didn't just see me write virtually the same thing.

I didn't say anything about hopes and dreams, that was your projection of an imagined argument.

I was discussing why the reviewers were pitching those images: the mixed bag Intel is offering as a reply to AMD, their premium positioning and its vulnerability.

But no, we get a psychic anti-AMD reply that AMD will never get frequency.

 

[Legend]

Surely it’s what ever the person wants it to be? Why are you stating like it’s a fact that it’s not a 1080p CPU! We should leave that decision to the purchaser right?

Also doesn’t the 9900k win in non gaming tasks as well?

Well yes, technically it can be anything you want it to be... you can have it surgically implanted in your forehead and walk around calling yourself 'The Mighty Intel' if that's your cup of tea. My point was in relation to it being a realistic and practical choice for a 1080p gamer. It quite clearly isn't. The VAST majority of 1080p gamers may indeed salivate over the 9900k, but they know it doesn't make sense from a cost perspective, and they'd probably not even notice the extra frames it brings outside of competitive FPS gaming on a 240Hz monitor.

 

[LambChop]

Well yes, technically it can be anything you want it to be... you can have it surgically implanted in your forehead and walk around calling yourself 'The Mighty Intel' if that's your cup of tea. My point was in relation to it being a realistic and practical choice for a 1080p gamer. It quite clearly isn't. The VAST majority of 1080p gamers may indeed salivate over the 9900k, but they know it doesn't make sense from a cost perspective, and they'd probably not even notice the extra frames it brings outside of competitive FPS gaming on a 240Hz monitor.

How about people buy the 9900k because they want it ?

 

[~>Dg<~]

DG clearly knows everything guys, we all know he has an IQ of 180. Kappa.

170 actually 180 would be boasting. .

paranoia hotwired ? its just pure logic. if amd cant do what intel done for last 15 years how do some expect them to just magically up the clockspeed to compete with intel ?

what have i said thats so wrong ?

ive said the 9900k is the best gaming cpu which it is.
i said most people game at 1080 which is a proven fact.
ive said amd chips are good just not as fast as intel chips at gaming.

look back at my replies the only people i replied to are those that speculate. my replies have been based on actual benchmarks and facts or surveys taken.

if we honest and look from start to finish. its basically many people on amd cpus who are replying (look in sigs ) who wont ever buy the cpus on sale in this thread. the cpus are too dear they arent worth it yada yada. all ive said is the 9900k is the best gaming cpu. its overpriced from what it could have been its the fastest at 1080 which is the most popular resolution. also to answer people who keep spouting nonsense like amd ryzen low budget chips offer better value at gaming the lowest i5s are faster. proven. the i5s even beat the high end amd chips 99.9 percent of the time. proven.

so the key elements of debate which shouldnt even be a debate about is people who are pro amd stating intel cpus are not good VALUE. ive said what AMD market its more cores to make them seem better value. yet at gaming they are slower. they give you more cores cause they cant compete on the same level clock speed wise as intel chips. which most games rely on. thats why that 180-200 i5 beats a top end amd chip ingames.

i actually prefer amd over intel as a company but i buy the product which suits my needs. the brand doesnt matter.

many here are pro one side or the other speculate in the future the amd will do this or that. you have no idea. its guess work. pure logic.

nothing wrong with picking a amd cpu. please dont make out they are better though. they arent.thats why you get double the cores. to make you think they are.

 

[B1gbeard]

Well yes, technically it can be anything you want it to be... you can have it surgically implanted in your forehead and walk around calling yourself 'The Mighty Intel' if that's your cup of tea. My point was in relation to it being a realistic and practical choice for a 1080p gamer. It quite clearly isn't. The VAST majority of 1080p gamers may indeed salivate over the 9900k, but they know it doesn't make sense from a cost perspective, and they'd probably not even notice the extra frames it brings outside of competive FPS gaming on a 240Hz monitor.

I think you continue to make assumptions based on not a whole lot. There will be a lot of people out there who cannot afford it, I can get behind that, but I wouldn’t assume that they wouldn’t buy it if they could afford it.

It absolutely is a practical choice for 1080p gaming if you can afford it. That’s ultimately what it is all about and discussing value in a 9900k thread just seems pointless.

As someone who hasn’t upgraded their system for 7-8 years a 9900k upgrade will cost me about £1100, less than a grand if I sold off my old stuff. That really is not a lot considering the length it has been since my last upgrade. I bet a fair number of people looking at an upgrade at the moment are a bit like me.

 

[Legend]

I think you continue to make assumptions based on not a whole lot. There will be a lot of people out there who cannot afford it, I can get behind that, but I wouldn’t assume that they wouldn’t buy it if they could afford it.

It absolutely is a practical choice for 1080p gaming if you can afford it. That’s ultimately what it is all about and discussing value in a 9900k thread just seems pointless.

As someone who hasn’t upgraded their system for 7-8 years a 9900k upgrade will cost me about £1100, less than a grand if I sold off my old stuff. That really is not a lot considering the length it has been since my last upgrade. I bet a fair number of people looking at an upgrade at the moment are a bit like me.

You're stating the obvious. IF you can afford it. Let's put aside the general pointlessness of it for one second if you're solely using a PC for gaming at 1080p (which it is, unless you gain some competitive edge)... there's the simple fact that the VAST majority of the 1080p gaming population simply cannot afford it. 1080p gaming is, for the most part, the purview of low budget gaming. The 9700k/9900k is not going to be within their reach. There's no assumption here, this is fact. It's why surveys show the 1060 being the most popular GPU at 1080p, not the 1080Ti lol!

How on EARTH is it practical for 1080p gaming in the grand scheme of things? Seriously? How are you making an argument for a £600 CPU when one half the price does an amazing job and performs within 10-15% of it?? You need to look up the word 'practical' in the dictionary. It's like arguing a Porsche Turbo is a practical car for doing the daily school run... sure it can do it, has four seats after all, and in and of itself is more than capable... but really??

 

[Legend]

How about people buy the 9900k because they want it ?

Of course, but what's that got to do with anything? It hardly renders talk of value, practicality and common sense null and void does it? The "I want it" argument isn't an argument for anything... it's an attitude... a childish one at that, and extremely prevalent, sadly.

 

[Journey]

I see that Caseking have their delidded 9900K CPU's up now.

€779 for 4.8GHz
€799 for 4.9GHz
€849 for 5.0GHz
€929 for 5.1GHz

Utter bargains in my eyes, especially the €779 4.8GHz variant, a whole 100MHz faster than stock-all-core-overclock.

 

[B1gbeard]

You're stating the ovbvious. IF you can afford it. Let's forget the pointlessness of it for one second if you're solely using a PC for gaming at 1080p (which it is, unless you gain some competitive edge)... there's the simple fact that the VAST majority of the 1080p gaming population simply cannot afford it. 1080p gaming is, for the most part, the purview of low budget gaming. The 9700k/9900k is not going to be within their reach. There's no assumption here, this is fact.

How on EARTH is it practical for 1080p gaming in the grand scheme of things? Seriously? How are you making an argument for a £600 CPU when one half the price does an amazing job and performs within 10-15% of it?? I think you need to look up the word 'practical' in the dictionary.

I never said it is in the price range of most gamers, it’s a given that it is not.

You keep using words like practical and value when it is not relevant here. I really don’t care if a CPU does it for within 10-15% for half the cost. Maybe I just want the fastest available for my use case irrespective. That is what you seem to have a problem taking in.

And its not because I am rich or have rich parents or more money than sense, it’s because less than 1k for an upgrade is not a huge amount of money for someone in my situation regardless of if I am gaming at 1080p, 240p, whatever. I don’t need to make an argument for it or justify it.

I understand it will be outside of a lot of gamers budget but that doesn’t make it an irrelevant CPU if you want it and can afford it.

 

[Legend]

I never said it is in the price range of most gamers, it’s a given that it is not.

You keep using words like practical and value when it is not relevant here. I really don’t care if a CPU does it for within 10-15% for half the cost. Maybe I just want the fastest available for my use case irrespective. That is what you seem to have a problem taking in.

And its not because I am rich or have rich parents or more money than sense, it’s because less than 1k for an upgrade is not a huge amount of money for someone in my situation regardless of if I am gaming at 1080p, 240p, whatever. I don’t need to make an argument for it or justify it.

I understand it will be outside of a lot of gamers budget but that doesn’t make it an irrelevant CPU if you want it and can afford it.

Well that's obviously fine, your money, your choice... if you're happy that's all that matters, but it doesn't change the underlying facts. Value may not be relevant to you, but it is to most people, and it's evident from this thread alone that there are plenty of people who could also easily afford it, but choose not to purchase precisely because they DO care about that mere 10-15% improvement for 100% more money... surprise, surprise!

That said, it seems to go beyond value not mattering to you, as you genuinely don't appear to appreciate the value of money full stop if you're talking about £1K vs what the alternatives would cost, for a performance bump that you probably won't notice. And you don't care what resolution you're playing at? "1080p whatever"?? You do realise that 10-15% improvement gets slashed as you increase resolution right?

 

[Panos]

I see that Caseking have their delidded 9900K CPU's up now.

€779 for 4.8GHz
€799 for 4.9GHz
€849 for 5.0GHz
€929 for 5.1GHz

Utter bargains in my eyes, especially the €779 4.8GHz variant, a whole 100MHz faster than stock-all-core-overclock.

You forgot the prices of the overclocked Kabylakes?

 

[B1gbeard]

Well that's obviously fine, your money, your choice... if you're happy that's all that matters, but it doesn't change the underlying facts. Value may not be relevant to you, but it is to most people, and it's evident from this thread alone that there are plenty of people who could also easily afford it, but choose not to purchase precisely because they DO care about that mere 10-15% improvement for 100% more money... surprise, surprise!

And that’s fine, I tip my hat to them. It’s also fine to go the other way.

Value is not anathema to me by the way, it’s just that around 1k for an upgrade for my situation is not the end of the world it is being made out to be.

Not that I am any closer to a decision mind you as I have always liked HEDT systems and TR is such and interesting proposition.

 

[Legend]

And that’s fine, I tip my hat to them. It’s also fine to go the other way.

Value is not anathema to me by the way, it’s just that around 1k for an upgrade for my situation is not the end of the world it is being made out to be.

Not that I am any closer to a decision mind you as I have always liked HEDT systems and TR is such and interesting proposition.

£1K doesn't need to be the end of the world... but if you appreciate value, then you surely see the absurdity of spending money on something that you see no real world benefit/improvement from, other than a higher number in a benchmark? How is going that way "fine"? You're contradicting yourself. And like I ask, you seem to not be cogniscant of higher resolutions impacting this value even further based on your "1080p whatever" comment, but perhaps you can clarify incase I've misunderstood your meaning there.

 

[B1gbeard]

£1K doesn't need to be the end of the world... but if you appreciate value, then you surely see the absurdity of spending money on something that you see no real world benefit/improvement from, other than a higher number in a benchmark? How is going that way "fine"? You're contradicting yourself. And like I ask, you seem to not be cogniscant of higher resolutions impacting this value even further based on your "1080p whatever" comment, but perhaps you can clarify incase I've misunderstood your meaning there.

I don’t see the absurdity no. I appreciate the value argument but find absolutely nothing wrong with buying the 9900k if you can afford it regardless of their being another, cheaper option. It what options are all about. It’s good we have some again.

I appreciate we are coming at this from opposite ends but I just can’t see the justification for making judgements about someone’s situation because they want to buy a 9900k whether it be their usage or financial situation.

 

[Legend]

I don’t see the absurdity no. I appreciate the value argument but find absolutely nothing wrong with buying the 9900k if you can afford it regardless of their being another, cheaper option. It what options are all about. It’s good we have some again.

I appreciate we are coming at this from opposite ends but I just can’t see the justification for making judgements about someone’s situation because they want to buy a 9900k whether it be their usage or financial situation.

I'm not making judgements about your situation. I'm just pointing out the obvious. It makes no sense for you to say you appreciate value, yet you don't see any problem whatsoever about spending money on something that offers terrible value, and not only that, what little it does offer above and beyond the far cheaper competition is going mostly unnoticed!

Opposite ends of what? I'm just looking at the facts... that's my 'end'. I'm not quite clear where yours is. All this seems to come back to is the good old "I wanted it" point of view... which is fine and your perogative, but that's all it is.

 

[B1gbeard]

I'm not making judgements about your situation. I'm just pointing out the obvious. It makes no sense for you to say you appreciate value, yet you don't see any problem whatsoever about spending money on something that offers terrible value, and not only that, what little it does offer above and beyond the far cheaper competition is going mostly unnoticed!

Opposite ends of what? I'm just looking at the facts... that's my 'end'. I'm not quite clear where yours is. All this seems to come back to is the good old "I wanted it" point of view... which is fine and your perogative, but that's all it is.

To be fair you did say things like rich parents and more money than sense. That seems pretty judgemental and probably doesn’t describe anyone who has bought the CPU.

It’s not fact unless you know how everyone defines what value is to them. All you are proclaiming is your opinion.

Let’s say I appreciate the value argument but value someone’s choice to spend their money how they want without judgements much more.

 

[SiDeards73]

End of the day if people are happy to give Intel cash for an overpriced space heater of a CPU that in all honesty would still be an i7 and £900 if AMD had not brought Ryzen to the market then that is their perogative.

Some people are just disgusted that in the face of such great competition Intel are blatantly giving it the hands over ears and eyes closed"no no Ryzen not happening" and carry out churning out the same guff with some extra cores bolted on... Riddled with security holes and over priced.

The fact is Intel are an arrogant company who deserve a lesson to be taught to them, and I hope AMD and Zen2 etc teach them, that is why I was happy to give AMD my cash recently and will again next year.

Intel could do with some hard failures, loss of market share and a general kick up the rear then maybe we'll get something truly great from them, rather than the same rubbish, tweaked and pushed out the door with a price hike.

Right now AMD is the one doing the truly great innovation in the CPU space and people should be backing them regardless if your an Intel or AMD fan, then you may see Intel get off their rear ends and push the envelope.

 

[Legend]

To be fair you did say things like rich parents and more money than sense. That seems pretty judgemental and probably doesn’t describe anyone who has bought the CPU.

It’s not fact unless you know how everyone defines what value is to them. All you are proclaiming is your opinion.

Let’s say I appreciate the value argument but value someone’s choice to spend their money how they want without judgements much more.

I can bet you there are plenty of purchasers of this CPU who meet one of those criteria! Doesn't take much reading online to figure that out.

Value isn't open to interpretation in the sense of the core ability of the 9900K vs the alternatives. It doesn't exist in isolation. Why is the 9900K of value to you, but the 2700X/8700K is not, for example? What benefits does it offer you that the 2700X/8700K does not, and how much extra are you paying for those benefits? Those benefits may be worth it to you, but that doesn't make them good value in the grand scheme of things. I agree you can choose to intepret that word in a different and far more nebulous way, but to the point of absurdity where you could justify renting a helicopter every week to go and play golf. But let's be a bit more sensible in the interpretation of the word. It's not about judgement, it's about sense and ability to recognise what your money is actually getting you. No assumption or opinion there.

 

[kitfit1]

Its a shame he has the presenting style of goat...He probably flogs all that free gear down the local pub

Lol, he may well flog the free stuff down the pub (just imagine the amount of beers that a 9900K costs ) That dosn't alter the fact that what he had to say was 100% correct. As a Cockney myself, i quite liked his presenting style...................honest, straight forward and completely understandable.

 

[Hotwired]

170 actually 180 would be boasting. .

paranoia hotwired ? its just pure logic. if amd cant do what intel done for last 15 years how do some expect them to just magically up the clockspeed to compete with intel ?

what have i said thats so wrong ?

ive said the 9900k is the best gaming cpu which it is.
i said most people game at 1080 which is a proven fact.
ive said amd chips are good just not as fast as intel chips at gaming.

look back at my replies the only people i replied to are those that speculate. my replies have been based on actual benchmarks and facts or surveys taken.

if we honest and look from start to finish. its basically many people on amd cpus who are replying (look in sigs ) who wont ever buy the cpus on sale in this thread. the cpus are too dear they arent worth it yada yada. all ive said is the 9900k is the best gaming cpu. its overpriced from what it could have been its the fastest at 1080 which is the most popular resolution. also to answer people who keep spouting nonsense like amd ryzen low budget chips offer better value at gaming the lowest i5s are faster. proven. the i5s even beat the high end amd chips 99.9 percent of the time. proven.

so the key elements of debate which shouldnt even be a debate about is people who are pro amd stating intel cpus are not good VALUE. ive said what AMD market its more cores to make them seem better value. yet at gaming they are slower. they give you more cores cause they cant compete on the same level clock speed wise as intel chips. which most games rely on. thats why that 180-200 i5 beats a top end amd chip ingames.

i actually prefer amd over intel as a company but i buy the product which suits my needs. the brand doesnt matter.

many here are pro one side or the other speculate in the future the amd will do this or that. you have no idea. its guess work. pure logic.

nothing wrong with picking a amd cpu. please dont make out they are better though. they arent.thats why you get double the cores. to make you think they are.

So from the start, I wasn't taking a side so your paragraphs about fighting false news are all irrelevant to me.

And then there's your claim of fighting speculation.

My words:

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.

And then yours:

and then we will have a golden pig that flys. what is so hard to understand ? amd cant get the clock speed up there .thats why they try and sell you on the more core = better. its funny because its been 15 years roughly since they been doing this method and still cant get it up so to speak. yet you always see well the next chip will be 5ghz blah blah blah when they cant simply do it. why live in a dream ?

what they doing now they been doing for years. just trying to offer double the cores but at less clock speed. when ingaming what you need is clockspeed more than anything.

So when I say AMD needs clock speed to compete you take that to mean speculation... I'd call that a pretty solid fact.

You reply with the speculation that AMD cannot get the frequency because they didn't in the past...

The flaws are strong in your position.