• 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.

Intel to Cut Prices of its Desktop Processors by 15% in Response to Ryzen 3000

Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,543
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
benchmark games allow margin of era. its same as a 8700k single core ipc. the problem is oc. thats where the older cpus catch up with high oc.

20 percent overclock is going to net me 20 fps. on the 5820k. so 118fps.

we going off how the game benches humbug ask pubg.

we know what all the cpus get at stock.

The 7700K, with that 20% higher Mhz already dialed in is not getting 118 FPS, it's 105. explain that, i did, about 3 times...
 
Caporegime
Joined
1 Jun 2006
Posts
33,502
Location
Notts
maybe its down to dual channel ram vs quad x4 vs 6 core. you tell me. im just showin you the figures. of whats achieved in pubg. regardless of the debate the results are very very close even on older cpus. for gaming.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,543
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
maybe its down to dual channel ram vs quad x4 vs 6 core. you tell me. im just showin you the figures. of whats achieved in pubg. regardless of the debate the results are very very close even on older cpus. for gaming.

I have told you, the reason all what is it 5? Intel CPU's are within 5% of eachother is because the 1080TI is not fast enough to allow any of them, other than perhaps the 5820K to stretch their legs, the 3700X is a few % faster than all of them, but also bottlenecked by that same GPU.
 
Caporegime
Joined
1 Jun 2006
Posts
33,502
Location
Notts
its a few percent faster but scores lower. okay got you.


9900k 113 fps vs 3700x 108
3900x 113 fps vs 3700x 108

so you can see a 3900x is the same as a 9900k at pubg at 1080. so...
 
Associate
Joined
31 Dec 2008
Posts
2,284
I have told you, the reason all what is it 5? Intel CPU's are within 5% of eachother is because the 1080TI is not fast enough to allow any of them, other than perhaps the 5820K to stretch their legs, the 3700X is a few % faster than all of them, but also bottlenecked by that same GPU.
And this is why 720p benchmarks are valid if you don't have the fastest GPU to test with.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Posts
12,616
I think the best high performance CPU Intel made when looking at what you get for your money, was the 8700K, i rate that CPU quite highly even though it was still a bit too expensive in my view, the rest are just plain overpriced.... especially 'today' the 9900K.

They peaked on first gen coffee lake yeah, the 8600k and 8700k. I felt the HTT tax was high tho at 30%. Hence me buying the 8600k as I am not a content creator. Literally within a few months of me buying my cpu the prices started the upwards momentum in prep for their 9000 series.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
91,020
The 9-3900X is almost idling in some games at 4K. Something is very wrong in the game development industry.

The core game logic loops, etc. are heavily heavily serial in nature and that won't and really can't change - there is just too much requirement on data being available in order - until games start using extra threads for things like advanced AI, etc. a lot of the cores on a 3900X are going to sit there idle in the average game hence low CPU utilisation.
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Jun 2004
Posts
3,215
Well chuffed with my new 9900K. Built my new rig over the weekend, 5Ghz all core overclock was no problem but I won't run it at 5GHz, I just don't see the need right now. I've settled on 4.2Ghz all core lock with Hyper Threading disabled which keeps temps below 60c at all times on my Dark Rock 4 in all the stress tests I've run, so plenty of reserve left in the tank in the temps dept. At 4.2GHz, in IPC terms, the 9900K is a dead match for my old 4690K @ 4.7Ghz, which could run everything I threw at it except games that obvioulsy needed at least 6 cores. Battlefield 5 was completely unplayable for example on my 4690K, it stuttered all over the place, but its as smooth as silk now.

Right now in 2019, a 5Ghz clock speed and an extra 8 threads are simply not needed in any of the stuff I use, but It's nice to know that as stuff becomes more & more demanding over the 3-4yrs I'll be keeping this CPU, I can up the clock speeds and turn Hyper Threading back on when required.

...covered for the next 3-4yrs in the RAM dept as well, 32GB at 3600Mhz means I won't need to think about buying more RAM as 16GB becomes the bare minimum requirement, which no doubt it will in time.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,543
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
Well chuffed with my new 9900K. Built my new rig over the weekend, 5Ghz all core overclock was no problem but I won't run it at 5GHz, I just don't see the need right now. I've settled on 4.2Ghz all core lock with Hyper Threading disabled which keeps temps below 60c at all times on my Dark Rock 4 in all the stress tests I've run, so plenty of reserve left in the tank in the temps dept. At 4.2GHz, in IPC terms, the 9900K is a dead match for my old 4690K @ 4.7Ghz, which could run everything I threw at it except games that obvioulsy needed at least 6 cores. Battlefield 5 was completely unplayable for example on my 4690K, it stuttered all over the place, but its as smooth as silk now.

Right now in 2019, a 5Ghz clock speed and an extra 8 threads are simply not needed in any of the stuff I use, but It's nice to know that as stuff becomes more & more demanding over the 3-4yrs I'll be keeping this CPU, I can up the clock speeds and turn Hyper Threading back on when required.

...covered for the next 3-4yrs in the RAM dept as well, 32GB at 3600Mhz means I won't need to think about buying more RAM as 16GB becomes the bare minimum requirement, which no doubt it will in time.

4.2Ghz is well below the 9900K's 4.7Ghz default clocks, and if you're going to do that why not just get a 3700X and leave it as stock, vs a 4.2Ghz 9900K a 3700x is faster.

I mean the 9900K is the faster chip but not if you strangle it, what a waste.
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
19 May 2012
Posts
1,297
Well chuffed with my new 9900K. Built my new rig over the weekend, 5Ghz all core overclock was no problem but I won't run it at 5GHz, I just don't see the need right now. I've settled on 4.2Ghz all core lock with Hyper Threading disabled which keeps temps below 60c at all times on my Dark Rock 4 in all the stress tests I've run, so plenty of reserve left in the tank in the temps dept. At 4.2GHz, in IPC terms, the 9900K is a dead match for my old 4690K @ 4.7Ghz, which could run everything I threw at it except games that obvioulsy needed at least 6 cores. Battlefield 5 was completely unplayable for example on my 4690K, it stuttered all over the place, but its as smooth as silk now.

Right now in 2019, a 5Ghz clock speed and an extra 8 threads are simply not needed in any of the stuff I use, but It's nice to know that as stuff becomes more & more demanding over the 3-4yrs I'll be keeping this CPU, I can up the clock speeds and turn Hyper Threading back on when required.

...covered for the next 3-4yrs in the RAM dept as well, 32GB at 3600Mhz means I won't need to think about buying more RAM as 16GB becomes the bare minimum requirement, which no doubt it will in time.
Congrats on your new rig.:)

Now with that out the way stop trolling. :D
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,543
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
Intel provides superior ecosystem support. Those 12-core parts are HEDT and their prices seem to be justified given the target customers.

insane crap edited out*********

Like what? quad channel? Intel's HEDT chips are just per core slower higher core count versions of their mainstream CPU's, they don't even have bootable NVMe Raid.

You do realise Intel cannot sell any of them?
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Nov 2009
Posts
24,823
Location
Planet Earth
Intel provides superior ecosystem support. Those 12-core parts are HEDT and their prices seem to be justified given the target customers.

AMD's launch of Ryzen 3000 is worse than Bulldozer. They quite matched Intel's mainstream prices, but not quite matched their performance.

So now you are saying Intel 12 core CPUs are not DOA,even though they are over £1000 and the Core i9 3900X is under half the price and the 16 core Ryzen 9 3950X is cheaper. So it seems you want Intel to charge £900+ for 12 cores,and AMD charging under half that is terrible and people should buy Intel.

Like what? quad channel? Intel's HEDT chips are just per core slower higher core count versions of their mainstream CPU's, they don't even have bootable NVMe Raid.

You do realise Intel cannot sell any of them?

He said Intel 12 core prices are fine,and AMD isn't. So for him Intel is buyable at any price.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
16 Jun 2004
Posts
3,215
4.2Ghz is well below the 9900K's 4.7Ghz default clocks, and if you're going to do that why not just get a 3700X and leave it as stock, vs a 4.2Ghz 9900K a 3700x is faster.

...Why don't you stop worrying about what others do and their reasoning for it. Besides, You're in the wrong thread, this is about Intel. If you want to keep critisising others about their CPU choices, go in the Ryzen thread and tell people how stupid they were buying the 3700, 3800 and 3900 and would have been far better off being as sensible as you, and getting a 3600.:p
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,543
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
So now you are saying Intel 12 core CPUs are not DOA,even though the are over £1000 and the Core i9 3900X is under half the price and the 16 core Ryzen 9 3950X is cheaper. So it seems you want Intel to charge £900+ for 12 cores,and AMD charging under half that is terrible and people should buy Intel.



He said Intel 12 core prices are fine,and AMD isn't. So for him Intel is buyable at any price.


I know, its just mad, given also Threadripper is better at being HEDT than any of Intel's so called HEDT chips.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,543
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
...Why don't you stop worrying about what others do and their reasoning for it. Besides, You're in the wrong thread, this is about Intel. If you want to keep critisising others about their CPU choices, go in the Ryzen thread and tell people how stupid they were buying the 3700, 3800 and 3900 and would have been far better off being as sensible as you, and getting a 3600.:p

Not at all i just think it's a bit mad to buy such a high performance CPU for the money it costs and then underclock it, why not just buy a cheaper low power CPU?
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Jun 2004
Posts
3,215
Not at all i just think it's a bit mad to buy such a high performance CPU for the money it costs and then underclock it, why not just buy a cheaper low power CPU?

Why run it at 5Ghz with all threads enabled when it is simply not needed right now?

I only change my PC's every 4-5yrs, I don't want to rip out the motherboard & CPU in a few years time to upgrade, and buying a 9900K now means I won't have to do that because I know I have plenty of grunt left in reserve ready to be accessed when needed. It's just a waste of power running something at 100% capacity when not needed. As it is, the ONLY thing I'll need to upgrade during the lifetime of this PC, barring hardware failures, is my RTX 2080.
 
Back
Top Bottom