i9900k new pc build or wait for new gen Intel or Ryzen?

Terrorfirmer · 25 Nov 2019 at 20:01

It really depends on how important hitting max fps on your 120hz monitor is.

With a 120hz monitor and a 2080ti personally I would take the 9900. Average frames are similar on 3700X but the 1% and 0.1% lows are way behind in some games. Wouldn't make any difference on a 60hz setup but does on 120hz.

I have a 3600 but considering changing to 9900 for this reason (I have a 144hz and don't mind lowering some settings to hit max fps)

Richdog · 27 Nov 2019 at 05:26

TrM said:
whilst you say the 3900x isn't useful for gaming it is very very good for gaming and not far behind a 9900k at all.

The 3950X is also 50% more expensive than the 9900k... and overall slower at gaming.

I have zero bias and objectively speaking I do not see any better high-end CPU than the 9900k for overall gaming value.

TrM · 27 Nov 2019 at 05:34

Richdog said:
The 3950X is also 50% more expensive than the 9900k... and overall slower at gaming.

I have zero bias and objectively speaking I do not see any better high-end CPU than the 9900k for overall gaming value.

i used the 3900x for refrence witch isn't acctully much more expensive.

secondly the 9900k Is not that much better I own a 2080ti and 3900x and i game at 1440p and 144hz monitor and there is little differnce between my cpu and a i9 9900k and and at the time on overclcokers my 3900x was cheaper then the 9900k. And i get a lot more cpu for the money and at 1440p im within margain of error in a lot ot games.

sorry but 9900k With anything other then 2080 ti at 1080p 240hz then there is liitle to no reason to chose a 9900k over amd version.

amd and intel are so close these days on core to core performance people make it sound like intel are are so far ahead in gaming that were back to the intel core vs amd fx proccessors.

Orange Nexus · 27 Nov 2019 at 06:07

Terrorfirmer said:
It really depends on how important hitting max fps on your 120hz monitor is.

With a 120hz monitor and a 2080ti personally I would take the 9900. Average frames are similar on 3700X but the 1% and 0.1% lows are way behind in some games. Wouldn't make any difference on a 60hz setup but does on 120hz.

I have a 3600 but considering changing to 9900 for this reason (I have a 144hz and don't mind lowering some settings to hit max fps)

Your system is not balanced. Went all out with the gpu and cheap out on the cpu. A 3800x, which boost higher, would be more approriate or 9900k with an oc. Also, fast ram and tight timing will also help when paired with a 2080 Ti.

Richdog · 27 Nov 2019 at 06:39

TrM said:
sorry but 9900k With anything other then 2080 ti at 1080p 240hz then there is liitle to no reason to chose a 9900k over amd version.

Most people are gaming at 1080p and 1440p and with ray-tracing bells and whistles switched on that is more likely 1080p unless one has a 2080ti, which realistically speaking very few people do.

Most games are also single-threaded and CPU limited, meaning that they anyway use 1 or 2 cores. For that, the fastest IPC at the fastest mhz is still the best option for gamers.

AMD are currently unbeatable for heavy content creation, and if that is important to you, along with good gaming results, then spending the extra for them makes sense. But for purely consistently high gaming results Intel is still the best option.

Grim5 · 27 Nov 2019 at 06:42

Richdog said:
Most people are gaming at 1080p and 1440p and with ray/tracing that is mor elike 1080p unless you have a 2080ti, which very few people do.

Most games are also single-threaded and CPU limited, meaning that they anyway use 1 or 2 cores. For that, the fastest IPC at the fastest mhz is still the best option for gamers.

Dunno what games you play but it's been about 8 months since I last played a game that only used 1 or 2 cores (and I play about 30 to 40 new games each year!).

The vast majority of new games are using multiple cores, even low end indie games. Can you name some games you play that only use 1 or 2 cores? I bet they must be pretty old titles.

TrM · 27 Nov 2019 at 06:52

Richdog said:
Most people are gaming at 1080p and 1440p and with ray/tracing that is mor elike 1080p unless you have a 2080ti, which very few people do.

Most games are also single-threaded and CPU limited, meaning that they anyway use 1 or 2 cores. For that, the fastest IPC at the fastest mhz is still the best option for gamers.

sorry but i dont know how to even start with your reasons.

Most gamers period are gpu limited not cpu limited. 2080ti is the only graphic card currently in majority of games that will allow for you to notice a differnce with any current top cpu.

im not saying that 9900k isnt slightly faster then a 3900x But were talking very small at my 1440p 144hz I would say in a lot of games within margain of error. which is my advice. Im giving advice from my own reasurch and from my own experiance here.

but you brought up ray tracing and that on any gpu would make you more gpu bound even the mighty 2080ti in bf5 looses so much perofrmance at 1080p and 1440p its not worth the performance hit for me

Richdog · 27 Nov 2019 at 06:55

TrM said:
sorry but i dont know how to even start with your reasons.

Most gamers period are gpu limited not cpu limited. 2080ti is the only graphic card currently in majority of games that will allow for you to notice a differnce with any current top cpu.

im not saying that 9900k isnt slightly faster then a 3900x But were talking very small at my 1440p 144hz I would say in a lot of games within margain of error. which is my advice. Im giving advice from my own reasurch and from my own experiance here.

but you brought up ray tracing and that on any gpu would make you more gpu bound even the mighty 2080ti in bf5 looses so much perofrmance at 1080p and 1440p its not worth the performance hit for me

Reviews and aggregated benchmark results back me up. I get it, you like AMD, I like them too, but I prefer just looking objectively at facts. The 9900k for £460 is still the best price/performance gaming CPU for the vast majority of titles.

TrM · 27 Nov 2019 at 07:04

Deleted

JediFragger · 27 Nov 2019 at 07:28

Richdog said:
AMD are currently unbeatable for heavy content creation, and if that is important to you, along with good gaming results, then spending the extra for them makes sense. But for purely consistently high gaming results Intel is still the best option.

I looked at this lately and it is def +1 from me, am personally sticking with my 8600k til something worth switching to comes out (hopefully Ryzen 4000 will 'fix' this current gap).

Robert896r1 · 27 Nov 2019 at 07:32

If gaming is the goal:
9900ks at an all core of 5.2ghz
Asus xi apex
Bdie 2x8gb. Use raja profile instead of xmp
360 aio

there you go. Best possible gaming config possible for peak frame rates and best possible minimums.

Orange Nexus · 27 Nov 2019 at 07:39

Robert896r1 said:
If gaming is the goal:
9900ks at an all core of 5.2ghz
Asus xi apex
Bdie 2x8gb. Use raja profile instead of xmp
360 aio

there you go. Best possible gaming config possible for peak frame rates and best possible minimums.

That's a bit too general. If gaming with a high-end gpu like a 2080Ti a 9900K is best choice. Depends on the games you play, too. HU latest vid comparing the 3900s to the 9900K showed the former giving smoother frames in Battlefield. It is not just high fps.

TrM · 27 Nov 2019 at 07:40

JediFragger said:
I looked at this lately and it is def +1 from me, am personally sticking with my 8600k til something worth switching to comes out (hopefully Ryzen 4000 will 'fix' this current gap).

sorry but this just makes me want to cry inside

you have aamzing 4k 120hz montor and if your using it at 4k (no reason why you souldnt) it doesnt make any differnce at all for you your system ( going from i5 to i7 to i9 doesnt give any real world differnce never mind against amd)That 2080ti is screeming i want more power

but i really want that monitor

but currently no gpu can give maxuim perofmance to warrent me dropping so much on it

JediFragger · 27 Nov 2019 at 07:48

TrM said:
That 2080ti is screeming i want more power

I get no bottlenecking at this resolution so why should I switch? Seems pointless. If I do I'll just slot a 9900KS in there and have done with it for a few years

PS The monitor is epic

TrM · 27 Nov 2019 at 07:52

JediFragger said:
I get no bottlenecking at this resolution so why should I switch? Seems pointless.

sorry it didn't come across right

i meant the 2080ti isnt fast enough to hit the 120fps barrier in new relase games at 4k. with that monitor and using it to its full potential. it's why i can't justify it price of buying one maybe a 3080ti might make me upgrade to 4k high refresh rate. but saying a 2080ti isn.t fast enough doesn't feel right when its so powerful

JediFragger · 27 Nov 2019 at 07:54

JediFragger said:
I get no bottlenecking at this resolution so why should I switch? Seems pointless. If I do I'll just slot a 9900KS in there and have done with it for a few years

PS The monitor is epic

Sorry I did a quick edit, quoted for clarity. Ti handles 4k fine imo

edit - That's what the Freesync is for, and thankfully nV now support it!!

Robert896r1 · 27 Nov 2019 at 08:07

Orange Nexus said:
That's a bit too general. If gaming with a high-end gpu like a 2080Ti a 9900K is best choice. Depends on the games you play, too. HU latest vid comparing the 3900s to the 9900K showed the former giving smoother frames in Battlefield. It is not just high fps.

since the op is talking about moving to a 2080ti, that’s my reference point.

Orange Nexus · 27 Nov 2019 at 08:19

Robert896r1 said:
since the op is talking about moving to a 2080ti, that’s my reference point.

My bad, just caught that. At a later date, then Ryzen 4000 will be out.

CHokKA · 27 Nov 2019 at 11:03

Arthaei said:
Hi guys,

I want some advice on whether to upgrade my 5 1/2 year old pc now or wait for a few more months. My current setup is a i7 4770k @ 4.3ghz and I've picked up a GTX1080ti to go with it. I know the cpu is bottle-necking the system a tad, so I'm itching to upgrade to a completely new build (this machine will go to my Dad for Photoshop work) but I want to know if I'd be a fool to do it now or not?

I've been reading about the latest AMD stuff like the 3900x with all it's threads and cores etc. but none of them seem to be particularly useful for gaming at the moment. Is that fair to say?

I've been putting together builds centered around the i9-9900k, and I'm thinking of upgrading the gtx1080ti at a later date to an rtx2080ti if the super comes out/prices drop.

I don't really do much multi-tasking or video editing, some Photoshop/Lightroom work, and usually the latest pc games. I'm using an Alienware 34" 3440x1440 monitor @ 120hz, so I know I need some graphics grunt!

What would you recommend in terms of going for something now, or whether Intel would release the next gen of stuff fairly soon? I'm open to the Ryzen offerings, and even if I don't massively utilise all the extra threads and cores NOW, I'm curious as to whether developers and games in the near future are actually going to support all these extra threads and cores?

Thanks in advance for any help/support.

Budget is around £2000, I'll pop my own gtx1080ti into the new machine for now I think.

If you've decided that the extra cores aren't worthwhile for gaming, why do you need to get an 8-core CPU like the 9900k? You'd be better off saving some cash by picking up a Ryzen 7 3700X or even a Ryzen 5 3600, and then putting the saving over the 9900k toward a new GPU sometime in the future? The Ryzen CPUs have been pushing core count and threads since the 1st gen release, but game developers are yet to take full advantage of a higher core and thread count, so I don't see it happening anytime soon. I wouldn't worry about that too much right now.

With the way things are going with AMD, upgradability when you invest in a better board etc is rewarded. Given that Ryzen 4000 series has already been confirmed as AM4 means that you could spend a bit more on an X570 and then change the CPU to a 4000 series when they come out, without having to change everything else.

I think people would be crazy to go with Intel these days, unless they have a very specific reason to do so. In this case, for gaming etc, you'd be better off going Ryzen and getting all the benefits that it's bringing to us. It really has shaken up the market and the fact that AMD are still maintaining compatibility for the older generation hardware speaks volumes as to what they care about most. They really are doing things differently and are coming out on top.

Terrorfirmer · 27 Nov 2019 at 14:55

Orange Nexus said:
Your system is not balanced. Went all out with the gpu and cheap out on the cpu. A 3800x, which boost higher, would be more approriate or 9900k with an oc. Also, fast ram and tight timing will also help when paired with a 2080 Ti.

Sorry i was quoting him, I don't have a 2080ti! I have a 2070S, even still not overly happy with the 3600. It's fine but at 144hz I can lower settings to get 100fps in most games, but the minimums is what irks me.

also people who claim the 3700X is within a small margain of the 9900k are correct in one sense (avg frames) but wrong in another (min frames). it's top dog for a reason