• 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

i think its as close to logic and fact as any of us can predict. if there was any truth in amd being able to get the high clock speed they wouldnt market cores as there main selling point. also 15 years and nothing close is also a sign they just cant match intel. if they finally do good ! until it actually happens though cant see it.
 
i think its as close to logic and fact as any of us can predict. if there was any truth in amd being able to get the high clock speed they wouldnt market cores as there main selling point. also 15 years and nothing close is also a sign they just cant match intel. if they finally do good ! until it actually happens though cant see it.

I'm sure there is a vague point to your badly written and misspelt comments, but I'm at a loss to see how it has anything to do with the actual facts being discussed here. What do cores have to do with anything? Intel are at parity with AMD now, and the only reason they are is because AMD dragged them kicking and screaming to that point! They'd still be churning out 4-core mainstream CPUs otherwise!!

And clock speed is all well and good, but as has been pointed out to you on numerous occassions, SO WHAT?? Most gamers at 1080p are at 3.3-3.7Ghz. At 1440p and above, that single core speed advantage diminishes rapidly. But please, carry on with the Intel worship, it's very amusing.

:D
 
Last edited:
AMD actually had the frequency advantage in the past, launching a 5Ghz chip almost 5 years ago, so I'd say they got it up fine :p ;) unfortunately clockspeed is not important, it is what you do with those clocks that is. :D
 
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.

Well, because that's the reason why I'm buying. You have your reasons for buying what you buy, you break it right down to what the weather's like outside it seems, others have their reasons, they are all relevant. You seem to have an issue with why other people buy, calling it childish. No-one is spending your money. Drop your attitude and smart arsed responses and people won't argue with you. You're way too opinionated to even have a normal conversation with.
 
Well, because that's the reason why I'm buying. You have your reasons for buying what you buy, you break it right down to what the weather's like outside it seems, others have their reasons, they are all relevant. You seem to have an issue with why other people buy, calling it childish. No-one is spending your money. Drop your attitude and smart arsed responses and people won't argue with you. You're way too opinionated to even have a normal conversation with.

Clearly you've not been reading what I've said. I don't have issue with what people buy, everyone is of course free to do so. I never said someone buying a 9900K was childish, I said the "I want it" argument was. No one is even arguing... a conversation would be a fine thing, but there's far too much denial going on from certain people for that.

So the reason why you're buying is simply because you want it. No reasoning or logic beyond 'want', just pure emotion. How can an intelligent, reasoned and factual conversation be had about that... it's absurd, and yes, childish in its manifested form where there is a complete lack of any other sensible and considered analysis or rationale.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure there is a vague point to your badly written and misspelt comments, but I'm at a loss to see how it has anything to do with the actual facts being discussed here. What do cores have to do with anything? Intel are at parity with AMD now, and the only reason they are is because AMD dragged them kicking and screaming to that point! They'd still be churning out 4-core mainstream CPUs otherwise!!

And clock speed is all well and good, but as has been pointed out to you on numerous occassions, SO WHAT?? Most gamers at 1080p are at 3.3-3.7Ghz. At 1440p and above, that single core speed advantage diminishes rapidly. But please, carry on with the Intel worship, it's very amusing.

:D

Occasions.
 
So if I understand it, the video reviewers are now stating that if you don't have a high VRM mobo, Turbo mode only kicks in for 30 seconds then ramps down, but if you have a higher VRM mobo & better cooling it can stay that way longer/indefinately?

Fair enough, but christ it means you need to spend EVEN MORE on high end motherboards :/
 
So if I understand it, the video reviewers are now stating that if you don't have a high VRM mobo, Turbo mode only kicks in for 30 seconds then ramps down, but if you have a higher VRM mobo & better cooling it can stay that way longer/indefinately?

Fair enough, but christ it means you need to spend EVEN MORE on high end motherboards :/

£600 for the CPU and maybe £275-£300+ for the MOBO and that's before factoring in ram etc. So close to a grand for 2 components. Cha ching!
 
Aye, it seems as if the £200/£220 mobos come with lower VRMs so you get the throttling above - Which whist is within Intel's guidelines as "ok" it's hard not to feel as if you need to blow the extra £60 to fully get what you're paying for out of the chip.
 
9900k at £468 delivered now from US
Yeah, don't think I'd bother. Reddit thread full of disappointed.

https://twitter.com/MrEManLoL/status/1054711052070543360

---------------------------------------
Aye, it seems as if the £200/£220 mobos come with lower VRMs so you get the throttling above - Which whist is within Intel's guidelines as "ok" it's hard not to feel as if you need to blow the extra £60 to fully get what you're paying for out of the chip.

In the vid below, Tom's using a £220 Asus ROG Strix z370-e which is in the 200w range. The next step down is 150W range e.g. Strix z390-h, I'd guess that level could have problems with the 9900K full power.

He rerun the tests. They came out the same, 75C no throttling @5GHZ with power limits opened up. Note: No AVX

watch
 
Last edited:
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.

When I upgrade the cpu I buy the fastest one that I can afford, regardless if its over the top at the present time.. I just think It will last me longer.

I have always thought about going back in time about 10 yrs with my current pc setup. It would be bliss not having to upgrade for 10-15 yrs, and it would be interesting to see if a overclocked pc system would keep going for 10-15 yrs too.
 
Yeah, don't think I'd bother. Reddit thread full of disappointed.

https://twitter.com/MrEManLoL/status/1054711052070543360

---------------------------------------


In the vid below, Tom's using a £220 Asus ROG Strix z370-e which is in the 200w range. The next step down is 150W range e.g. Strix z390-h, I'd guess that level could have problems with the 9900K full power.

He rerun the tests. They came out the same, 75C no throttling @5GHZ with power limits opened up. Note: No AVX

watch

Hardware unboxed uploaded a new video about this....
It shows on 4vrm board like the Asus Hero, it goes at 4.3 boost all core only.
 
Hardware unboxed uploaded a new video about this....
It shows on 4vrm board like the Asus Hero, it goes at 4.3 boost all core only.
This video is in response to that. If I'm keeping up.

There does seem to be some confusion started by Hardware Unboxed if the Hero is a fake 8
phase or the standard 4x2. I've read it uses 8x SiC639 50A Vishay powerstages. That would put it in the 250W range. When you look at the design of VRM on the higher end motherboards most use phase controllers (Hero's is ASP1400CTB) then doublers to control the phase signals. So on a 4x2 there's 4x PWM signals driving 8x powerstages. The 'package' has driver, high-side and low-side MOSFET. A doubler interleave's each PWM signal into the pair of powerstages, switching between then to deliver the total power. But as there's still 8x powerstages the output current is up there with a true 8 phase. A simple 4 phase VRM would sequentially signal power 1,2,3,4 and only have 4 powerstages. So I don't know what to think.
 
Last edited:
This video is in response to that. If I'm keeping up.

There does seem to be some confusion started by Hardware Unboxed if the Hero is a fake 8
phase or the standard 4x2. I've read it uses 8x SiC639 50A Vishay powerstages. That would put it in the 250W range. When you look at the design of VRM on the higher end motherboards most use phase controllers (Hero's is ASP1400CTB) then doublers to control the phase signals. So on a 4x2 there's 4x PWM signals driving 8x powerstages. The 'package' has driver, high-side and low-side MOSFET. A doubler interleave's each PWM signal into the pair of powerstages, switching between then to deliver the total power. But as there's still 8x powerstages the output current is up there with a true 8 phase. A simple 4 phase VRM would sequentially signal power 1,2,3,4 and only have 4 powerstages. So I don't know what to think.


You much watch some Buildzoid's videos of what is vrms on doublers and what are 4 vrms with 8 power stages.
 
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.

I'm sorry I just don't understand you logic. What you are saying is that I should buy a 2700X essentially even though I have zero interest in it.

Buying something because you want it is a thing and there is nothing wrong with it. I hope it's what most peoples decisions are based on. You are making far too much of this value crutch imho. Here's the thing, I don't need to justify it. That's the bottom line. I will though. If I have £600 to spend on an item and the item I want is £600 but there is another similar item that is £300 that I don't want to buy, I'll buy the £600 item. That's how it works. It's why someone may spend £1500 on a TV instead of a £1000 one that gives a similar experience. Or spend £100 on a kettle even though a £50 boils the water a bit slower but still boils it in the end. If you base your purchasing decisions on value then that's fine, other people don't.

So I have no interest in Ryzen, nor a 8700k for that matter, I already have 6/12. I don't know why except that it doesn't excite me, Threadripper does, not Ryzen. I'm not going to buy something I don't want just because and that's how it should be. We make our purchasing decisions on what excites us or at least I do. If you buy something you are interested in and have a passion for but the purchase is not made mostly on emotion I'd find another hobby.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom