• 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.

The Sandy, Ivy and Haswell (Hazzy?) Upgrade Thread

I think I'll save up until the start of winter. Hopefully the platform will have settled by then and there might be cheaper 3,600Mhz+ memory on the market.

I see 100% CPU usage in PUBG so am likely CPU limited. An upgrade will be most welcome.

God knows what Brexit or not is going to do to prices around that time though!
 
I have a Xeon E3-1275 at the moment, paired with a 1660Ti and 16GB RAM. Do you think I will get huge benefit in gaming upgrading to a Ryzen 3600 when used with the same card?
 
Same as you guys... recently went from a 3570K to a 3770K purely because i couldn't see anything on the horizon that was as good as the 3570k price for performance. Upgraded to the 3770k for the extra threads, makes a world of difference at multi tasking.
 
So I'm a weirdo and I just got a 9700k with a Z390 pro (coming from Haswell).

My reasoning is all I care right now is gaming, and that's the best gaming CPU today.
By the time 8 physical cores aren't enough, we'll get noticeably better CPUs (as what Ryzen did was, as far as gaming goes, just almost catching up).
 
razorpakk said:
So I'm a weirdo and I just got a 9700k with a Z390 pro (coming from Haswell).

My reasoning is all I care right now is gaming, and that's the best gaming CPU today.
By the time 8 physical cores aren't enough, we'll get noticeably better CPUs (as what Ryzen did was, as far as gaming goes, just almost catching up).
Click to expand...
You should also state that you are not concerned by the security vulnerabilities. It is important that you let others know you are happy to mange the risk.
 
It depends what you mean by 9700k is the best gaming cpu. It depends on the games and resolutions etc. yes it is the best for shooters on low res monitors with a top gpu. I prefer things like total war Warhammer 2 mortal empires and perhaps more threads may be benefical to reduce turn times.
 
Alan1969 said:
It depends what you mean by 9700k is the best gaming cpu. It depends on the games and resolutions etc. yes it is the best for shooters on low res monitors with a top gpu. I prefer things like total war Warhammer 2 mortal empires and perhaps more threads may be benefical to reduce turn times.
Click to expand...
Overclocked 9700k and 9900k are the best gaming CPUs in 90% of cases.

I'm happy Ryzen is awesome, but let's not change the facts :/
 
razorpakk said:
Come on now. For the regular consumer, letting windows update do its thing, that's not even a factor.
Click to expand...
Windows update does not manage these HT vulnerabilities, its down to BIOS update (if the vendor bothers to provide the update for older chipsets) and basic advice is to turn off HT if in doubt. I manage my 4790K exposure by making sure no one gets access and admin rights to exploit the vulnerabilities, but the risk is still there. I have no issue with Intel performance and accept its better for games, but one slip up and you have massive exposure. A tech enthusiast or IT pro can manage this, but average consumer is at risk.
 
Stephanie Peterson said:
Intels lead in gaming is now next to puff all, there is not much between the Zen2 chips and intels old stuff.
So why would you take the intel side?
Click to expand...
I take the side of myself, I don't care about the name of the company.

I wanted the best gaming cpu and in every benchmark around, the overclocked 9700K and 9900K are tied for the top spot.

Even if it's for 0.01% (and it's more), that still applies.

The games I play the most right now are Odyssey:

ac-odyssey-2560-1440.png


And Hitman 2:

AYndDSr.png


Big difference? Of course not.

Noticeable? Maybe not.

Still, why should I buy what, for my case scenario (gaming at 1440p), would actually be the inferior product?

P.S. And with an overclocked 9700k at 5Ghz, is a slightly bigger gap.
Plus I love overclocking and tweaking things, that's also something I would've missed.
 
Last edited:
The inferior product is not the new Zen2 chips, if you take the big picture into account.
This is whats confusing me, intel has... big issues. Heat,power, old platform and of course security. Yet there gaming lead is next to nothing, its practically a few % and that might even be under threat if all the chat of dodgy boosting and nvidia drivers are right.

If you just look for what is at the top of the table your missing the point. Zen2 is as good as intel in gaming and far superior everywhere else and thats not just performance we are talking about.
 
Stephanie Peterson said:
The inferior product is not the new Zen2 chips, if you take the big picture into account.
This is whats confusing me, intel has... big issues. Heat,power, old platform and of course security. Yet there gaming lead is next to nothing, its practically a few % and that might even be under threat if all the chat of dodgy boosting and nvidia drivers are right.

If you just look for what is at the top of the table your missing the point. Zen2 is as good as intel in gaming and far superior everywhere else and thats not just performance we are talking about.
Click to expand...

Heat, power, old platform and security are things that might not mean anything to some people, would you concede that?
 
Nope i am afraid i dont concede that, they are very important metrics when looking at a processor.
Heat of course directly relates to how much you have to spend on cooling the dam thing, the 9900k is saddled with a big heat problem - although the 3900 is likely going to be a hot bugger as well but then it does have 24 threads.
Power usage, well i dont care too much for that to be honest but having an old platform with no upgrade path, no pcie4 ect ect is much more of an issue.
As for security, well i dont want my cpu getting slower one day because someone found a vuln that means god knows what needs to be plugged.

All these things are not critical to most folk yet are still important things to think of, imho much more important than 3% - 5% of FPS. This is what i am wondering, most seem to look right at the top of the table and thats that.

I am struggling to justify upgrading my 5820k, its been solid (well solid since it got all the early day bugs out of the bios's on X99) and gaming results of the new processors dont really have a huge difference.
But when i look at the big picture i can see my little ol 6 core is ancient and needing pushed on.

Well thats what i keep telling myself. :p
 
Alan1969 said:
Just for consideration, the 3900x tops the passmark charts https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

and has a reasonable price.
Click to expand...

Holy balls that's a big improvement! Kept scrolling and scrolling, the bars kept getting longer and longer... Even for the 3700x

I might dig out some Cinebench R15 scores for the 4770k with fast DDR3 (can't get to my PC at the mo :( ) to see how it would compare.

razorpakk said:
So I'm a weirdo and I just got a 9700k with a Z390 pro (coming from Haswell).

My reasoning is all I care right now is gaming, and that's the best gaming CPU today.
By the time 8 physical cores aren't enough, we'll get noticeably better CPUs (as what Ryzen did was, as far as gaming goes, just almost catching up).
Click to expand...

I am also not ruling out Intel and am holding short of the raving praise and hype (both of which are genuinely deserved). The 9700k is a bit more expensive but a bit quicker than the 3700x. I can order both now and not worry about BIOS updates to get my CPU to work. I don't have a chipset fan. I don't care that much about the vulnerabilities as a home user who just games. I am still probably getting a 3700x, just not ruling out Intel.
 
Stephanie Peterson said:
Nope i am afraid i dont concede that, they are very important metrics when looking at a processor.
Heat of course directly relates to how much you have to spend on cooling the dam thing, the 9900k is saddled with a big heat problem - although the 3900 is likely going to be a hot bugger as well but then it does have 24 threads.
Power usage, well i dont care too much for that to be honest but having an old platform with no upgrade path, no pcie4 ect ect is much more of an issue.
As for security, well i dont want my cpu getting slower one day because someone found a vuln that means god knows what needs to be plugged.

All these things are not critical to most folk yet are still important things to think of, imho much more important than 3% - 5% of FPS. This is what i am wondering, most seem to look right at the top of the table and thats that.

I am struggling to justify upgrading my 5820k, its been solid (well solid since it got all the early day bugs out of the bios's on X99) and gaming results of the new processors dont really have a huge difference.
But when i look at the big picture i can see my little ol 6 core is ancient and needing pushed on.

Well thats what i keep telling myself. :p
Click to expand...

OK we were just having different approaches! I wouldn't suggest the 9700k to anyone else. But for me is a clear cut decision: if I want to experience hitman 2 in the best possible way, what can I do today? 9700k.

I never think about "tomorrow".

If we actually had 3800x reviews and it turned out to be the best gaming cpu, I would happily return the 9700k.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom