Performance is so close the only metric that matters (ignoring the many problems Intel have) is price, even if your plan is building a 1920x1080 games console with the latest top end Nvidia card.
-
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
Performance is so close the only metric that matters (ignoring the many problems Intel have) is price, even if your plan is building a 1920x1080 games console with the latest top end Nvidia card.
Soldato
I have no trouble hitting that in games where high hz can help, counter strike for example.
Granted from 120-165hz isn't noticeable.
Neither do I or anyone else with a half decent CPU.
Soldato
Must we do this every time?
I can provide many examples of where Intel's clock speed and ipc make ryzen a poor choice for high hz screens. And you know this, you just choose to argue.
Total BS and you know it. The load is on the graphics card unless you are now reverting back to how people should spend thousands on a system to game at 1920x1080.
Start talking sense maybe?
Soldato
So ryzen is better for high refresh rates?
The load is on cpu and gpu, hence why 8700k beats out the ryzens in every damn 1080p test.
Otherwise it would be equal.
Associate
Yeah I do have to agree with you, an overall system cost these days is certainly not cheap, especially when you haven't even mentioned these ridiculous ddr4 prices (I've just had to fork out £330 for a used 4x8gb bundle of ddr4 gskill tridentz rgb 3200mhz) add that to the Nvidia tax (they seem to have forgotten the mining craze has finished). Then youre talking a system that as you say many people just cant afford.
I know as an enthusiast i want the very latest and greatest and i want to be able to buy the most cutting edge, but i have to also draw the line somewhere.
I'm personally going to have to put cash aside for a gpu....I've got the new phanteks evolx x on preorder, just bought this ram, going to buy an asus z370 formula cheaply and take the risk in hoping it takes the 9900k with a bios update. This will leave me about £700 left and that will hopefully get me the 9900k with (fingers crossed) leaving me a couple of hundred or so towards a gpu. I can't justify £1100 on the 2080ti (the Asus rog tax on the strix versions make it £1500 for the 2080ti and the 2080 £900! which is ridulous)...
Ray tracing isn't ready yet (at least at any decent resolutions), and who will have a 1080p panel then buy an £1100 gpu? Even those that do have a 1440p or a 4k screen, who will want to drop to 1080p to have Ray tracing on?
I find it all a little counter productive (for now at least). It is just to me a sort of side feature gimmick that gives us just a very small taster of what the future brings. It's certainly not ready yet in my eyes and when the 1070/1070ti/1080/1080ti is dropping like it is, there are some definite justifiable bargains to be had.
A few fps and ray tracing for an extra 500-600 over a used 1080ti price seems ludicrous to me, I'd rather sli 2x used 1080tis for roughly same money. In some games you may even get close to 144hz at 4k with AA off, definitely a shout for if you have a 120hz tv/monitor.
Anyway, back to topic...
I honestly think that if the i9-9900k is £500 to £550, it isn't at all that bad for what it offers, sure It's a fair amount of cash but that's a lot of future proofing and power there for any task. It honestly sounds a brute for the price and people also need to remember that the AMD 1800x on release was around the same price.
Last edited:
Associate
whoops, sorry for the double post guys
I find as long as I'm 100+ Hz all is good. Not sure I'd notice much above that but I can notice dips below maybe 90 FPS and things start to look sluggish below around 70ish FPS.
Soldato
I agree, those with 75hz monitors wouldn't understand
Intel is better at extracting every last frame, that's the cold hard truth. And this is why many come to Intel, myself included. Do I want my £800 GPU being held back because I decided to skimp out and save £100 on CPU?
Some of us want the absolute fastest, others cannot seem to comprehend this.
I agree, those with 75hz monitors wouldn't understand
Intel is better at extracting every last frame, that's the cold hard truth. And this is why many come to Intel, myself included. Do I want my £800 GPU being held back because I decided to skimp out and save £100 on CPU?
Some of us want the absolute fastest, others cannot seem to comprehend this.
Those with TFT panels wouldn't understand
Yeah 90-100 without windows handling the network stack and everyone within 20ms ping of each other is my ideal scenario. That said I can be pretty dominant from 60 with a little adjustment.
Soldato
Those with TFT panels wouldn't understand
https://www.asus.com/uk/Monitors/ROG-SWIFT-PG279Q/
IPS, superior to that VA of yours but I digress.
I don't understand why you are in this thread, are you going to buy one? Do you own one?
Associate
Poople make constant points on future proofing and value for money being with amd and so on, but please correct me if im wrong here but as gpu's improve and provide higher framerates at the higher resolutiions, wont this then increase draw calls for the cpu, thus resulting in being reverted back to the same situations at 1440p+ as we already do now at 1080p? (where cpu clockspeed and ipc need to be fast enough to push those frames else you drop fps). The point is that the amd options are always going to struggle to maintain a certain number of fps without seeing penalties in performance once the gpu can sufficiently provide those numbers of frames per second (regardless of resolution)...or as i say, am i totally wrong here and this just me thinking this?
If i am indeed correct then regards gaming, the 9900k as with the 8700k will be more futureproof and more significant for more years due to having the higher ipc, higher clockspeed and better oc headroom potential (especially now the top 9000 series will be soldered).
For now they say Ryzen (only at the high resolutions) will result in seeing little to no performance losses due to the main workloads being put mostly onto the gpu's (that at present cant maintain the same high frames and cpu pressure you would expect to see at 1080p and lower).
As an enthusiast and mostly gamer, i personally have the opinion that unless youre on a really tight budget, then it's not a good idea to be going for the lesser performing components for your needs, simply because it is cheaper and ONLY in certain scenarios TODAY that you can get away with it. This will always result in tomorrows situations or other scenarios/circumstances where this option shows all the negative signs of why it was the cheaper option.
Great bang for buck and great value for money, sure. The best?.... not for for now in my opinion.
I also want to see the evidence of all these so called new flaws and security issues being found all of the time. I want to see data and factual figures that suggest that any current fix (which makes it irrelevant anyway) hinders performance to the extent that it makes it a lesser performing component than that of the competitions alternatives (not just throwing out hearsay or anything just to suit your views with nothing concrete or evidential to offer). Until then, it is an invalid argument in terms of values/pricing for the best perfoming components on the market. If something is 10% faster and loses just 2% of its lead through a fix, then it is still very much 8% faster than the rest of the field, thus will have the higher premium for being the fastest regardless of the margins, period! (being the best value for money however, thats an entirely different debate).
If i am indeed correct then regards gaming, the 9900k as with the 8700k will be more futureproof and more significant for more years due to having the higher ipc, higher clockspeed and better oc headroom potential (especially now the top 9000 series will be soldered).
For now they say Ryzen (only at the high resolutions) will result in seeing little to no performance losses due to the main workloads being put mostly onto the gpu's (that at present cant maintain the same high frames and cpu pressure you would expect to see at 1080p and lower).
As an enthusiast and mostly gamer, i personally have the opinion that unless youre on a really tight budget, then it's not a good idea to be going for the lesser performing components for your needs, simply because it is cheaper and ONLY in certain scenarios TODAY that you can get away with it. This will always result in tomorrows situations or other scenarios/circumstances where this option shows all the negative signs of why it was the cheaper option.
Great bang for buck and great value for money, sure. The best?.... not for for now in my opinion.
I also want to see the evidence of all these so called new flaws and security issues being found all of the time. I want to see data and factual figures that suggest that any current fix (which makes it irrelevant anyway) hinders performance to the extent that it makes it a lesser performing component than that of the competitions alternatives (not just throwing out hearsay or anything just to suit your views with nothing concrete or evidential to offer). Until then, it is an invalid argument in terms of values/pricing for the best perfoming components on the market. If something is 10% faster and loses just 2% of its lead through a fix, then it is still very much 8% faster than the rest of the field, thus will have the higher premium for being the fastest regardless of the margins, period! (being the best value for money however, thats an entirely different debate).
CRT superior to all and the only tech you have a chance of noticing the incredibly small time variances being talking about. I doubt you understand what you are talking about at all.
Soldato
Let's all go back to CRT and hifi then eh?
I can tell you like the older stuff, hence the ancient 290x
Associate
You didnt did you? Well i guess someone had to. lol
I see Ryzen in two regards. One is the what's on offer from the platforms and the other is software compiled with Ryzen in mind in terms of future proofness.
Depending what you want from the system or in the points about the graphics* performance on offer then it will always be the graphics cards needs to be the most relevant, but then you get into driver, API and engine performance.
If you want the best... You just don't have any clue what that actually is.
I'd 100% be up for dropping a few k on a new CRT and I do much prefer WAV over just about all other formats.
Last edited:
Associate
I'm going to guess you are a Linux user and that in itself must be pretty difficult in terms of finding compatible games/software for it in the first place .....There is Directx12 with windows 10 and isnt Nvidia renowned for having the better and more frequently updated drivers?
Last edited: