Because you won't see the same performance delta at 1080p and above, you know? real gaming scenarios, I thought the reason to get intel was gaming not benchmarks
But you are losing cores to fit this apples to oranges comparison...
Because anyone can look at the reviews of the 6, 8 and 12 core Ryzen CPUs and easily come to the conclusion that that the 3950x doesn't have a realistic shot at beating the 9900K or even the ~$400 cheaper 9700KF in gaming.
Yikes thats even worse
NO.Because you won't see the same performance delta at 1080p and above, you know? real gaming scenarios, I thought the reason to get intel was gaming not benchmarks
A few extra frames over 200fps at 720p its a worthless advantage
That's the stupidity of it all, $300+ CPUs offer more than enough performance for current gen games, if your plan is to future proof your CPU for next gen, extra cores/threads is the way to go
You see the chicken/egg problem here, right? Mainstream hardware has been limited to 4 cores until Ryzen 1XXX and the 8700k appeared, in mid/early 2017 and late 2017 respectively. Hardware cycles take time.
I feel you on the Adobe side, but if it is any consolation, we're finally hitting the point where multicore workloads have to happen or there will be a hard performance wall. Moore's law can't continue much longer with the same approach shrinks are getting more difficult and more expensive.
I dont base it on anybodies words but the tech itself
In my experience, you have it backwards. If you are spending more than $300 on a CPU you want it to last more than a year or even a couple years. I have always spent more while looking forward, while there is no reliable way to future-proof anything in tech, having a level head and thinking past bar charts in current games helps a lot.
In my experience, you have it backwards. If you are spending more than $300 on a CPU you want it to last more than a year or even a couple years. I have always spent more while looking forward, while there is no reliable way to future-proof anything in tech, having a level head and thinking past bar charts in current games helps a lot.
When other people were buying Core 2 Duo and/or Quad and overclocking it to the sky, I bought into Nehalem at a higher price and locked in what ended up being more than 5 years on Core i7-950. After that, while other people were buying 6700K Skylakes and pushing close to 5.0 ghz already then, I bought into HEDT and have now spent almost 4 years on a 5820K running at 4.3. In both cases, I took a lower core clock and less per-thread performance in order to ensure I had more cores than was mainstream at the time. And in both cases, having more cores at a lower clock ended up being more future-proof than having fewer cores at a higher clock.
Those people who thought they were being smart buying i5-4590K instead of i7-4790K? They got fucked because it turned out games ended up getting multi-threaded a lot more quickly than anyone expected and 4c/4t without HT was like running the race with only 1 leg. The people on 4790K's today are starting to go through the same thing, as 4c/8t is starting to reach it's limits and most people buying into a gaming ecosystem are thinking of what's next, not what's now.
So let's use our galaxy brains and think about this a moment.
Now you look at this and you think to yourself, OH MY GOD AMD GETS KILLED BY INTEL STILL IN GAMES I'D BETTER BUY A 9900K RIGHT NOW
But then you realize that you haven't played a game at 1080p on your fire-breathing LED light show Master Race God Machine in like 8 years now. And then well...
Well...that seems a bit more realistic. Yeah. And then if you realize that you haven't been a resolutionlet for the past 4 years and you're gaming in 4K like I am, this is what you see:
Hexus.net are the only people crazy enough to "benchmark" CPU's at 4K resolution, so don't blame me for this. I didn't think of using a 100% GPU-bound situation to prove a point, but it's proven nonetheless.
What I'm saying is that in any real-world situation, more likely than not you are GPU-bound to some extent and the tests in 1080p where the 9900K kills the 3900X are only relevant if you are one of those CSGO players who swears you need to be at 400 fps or you can't win. Because it's literally irrelevant to everyone else who is a PC gamer.
But then you add in doing actual other stuff while gaming, and then the picture looks more muddled.
So let's look at gaming while streaming, an example making the CPU do more than just run the game.
Wow, huh. The 9900K's entire lead against the 3900X just evaporates when you make it stream your gameplay at the same time you are playing the game. That's a big hmmm. (Of course, if you are truly a galaxy brain, you are using the NVENC encoder on Shadowplay or OBS for your streaming in which case your result is that bar at the top. But I'm just demonstrating what happens when 12c/24t takes on 8c/16t and doing more than just playing the game.)
Also, for people who think they are smart by buying a 9700K instead of a 9900K or 3900X, well....you're making the same mistake those people who thought they were smart buying an i5-4590K instead of an i7-4790K back in the day.
Here we can see the 8c/8t 9700K turning into a stuttery mess when trying to play a game and stream it at the same time. The 8c/16t 9900K and the 12c/24t 3900X are casual as fuck doing this. Don't be a brainlet and buy the 9700K instead of the 3700X, 3900X, or 9900K and think you're future-proof because you're not.
So in summary, what have we learned?
(1) More cores + more threads at a lower clock speed is more future-proof than fewer cores + fewer threads at higher clock speed
(2) Real-world gaming consists of way more than looking at bar charts
(3) Smart people always think about the future 1-2 year down the road, not right this second when investing in a new gaming machine
If we take these lessons into consideration, it's fairly clear who is more future-proof here despite losing at bar charts in 1080p.
You’re comparing a brand new AMD chip to an intel chip from 2018. I suspect Intel will exceed the performance of the new Ryzen lineup even at 14nm. 7nm is all AMD has to give them their boost in performance. Once Intel and nVidia get there, AMD will most likely need to move to 6nm or 5nm to stay ahead. They’re just not as efficient.
You're wrongly assuming that AMD will just stand pat at 7nm and not tweak and refine. With each generation the core will continue to get more and more optimized. See Skylake to Comet Lake for instance. Now, I don't expect AMD to stay on 7nm as long as Intel has at 14nm.
I understand, but intel and nVidia are much more efficient with power than AMD as AMD is just barely beating both intel high end and nVidia mid range at 7nm. Now their performance/dollar is great. But they won’t hold this crown for long.
That is literally the plan on the CPU side. By the time Intel get their 10nm (basically equivalent to TSMC 7nm) to decent yields, AMD/TSMC will be on 7nm+. When Intel get to their 7nm node AMD/TSMC are hoping to be on 5nm.
Can anyone answer this?
The correct answer is that neither Intel nor AMD actually hit their rated TDP's when all cores are loaded. So how they rate TDP is almost irrelevant when a 95W rated 9900K is pushing 160W loaded and a 105W rated 3900K is pushing 140W loaded. TDP is like the Pirate's Code at this point, they are just suggestions.
At 720p
Holy shit! Imagine that 165W CPU! 300W??
web.archive.org
Hey stop bullying our pal Leonidas.Shill sites already putting in work:
Leak suggests Intel 10-core Comet Lake CPU could beat AMD Ryzen 9 3900X
Comet Lake to blaze past Ryzen 3000 family?
TDP matters a lot more for servers and corporations take rated TDP a lot more seriously because they stuff these CPU's into rackmounts by the hundreds. AFAIK the rated TDP's for Intel's server-class CPU's are accurate even at full load. Funnily enough, core clocks are much lower on Skylake-X than on any of the consumer lines. I can't imagine why that would be. The inflation of core clocks but publishing essentially imaginary made-up TDP's at the consumer level is a by-product of this core count war that Intel has gotten themselves into with AMD and right now AMD has a process advantage.Holy shit! Imagine that 165W CPU! 300W??
Depends of target resolution, I could only recommend the 9900k to people with 1080p high refresh rate monitors
In my experience, you have it backwards. If you are spending more than $300 on a CPU you want it to last more than a year or even a couple years. I have always spent more while looking forward, while there is no reliable way to future-proof anything in tech, having a level head and thinking past bar charts in current games helps a lot.
When other people were buying Core 2 Duo and/or Quad and overclocking it to the sky, I bought into Nehalem at a higher price and locked in what ended up being more than 5 years on Core i7-950. After that, while other people were buying 6700K Skylakes and pushing close to 5.0 ghz already then, I bought into HEDT and have now spent almost 4 years on a 5820K running at 4.3. In both cases, I took a lower core clock and less per-thread performance in order to ensure I had more cores than was mainstream at the time. And in both cases, having more cores at a lower clock ended up being more future-proof than having fewer cores at a higher clock.
Those people who thought they were being smart buying i5-4590K instead of i7-4790K? They got fucked because it turned out games ended up getting multi-threaded a lot more quickly than anyone expected and 4c/4t without HT was like running the race with only 1 leg. The people on 4790K's today are starting to go through the same thing, as 4c/8t is starting to reach it's limits and most people buying into a gaming ecosystem are thinking of what's next, not what's now.
So let's use our galaxy brains and think about this a moment.
Now you look at this and you think to yourself, OH MY GOD AMD GETS KILLED BY INTEL STILL IN GAMES I'D BETTER BUY A 9900K RIGHT NOW
But then you realize that you haven't played a game at 1080p on your fire-breathing LED light show Master Race God Machine in like 8 years now. And then well...
Well...that seems a bit more realistic. Yeah. And then if you realize that you haven't been a resolutionlet for the past 4 years and you're gaming in 4K like I am, this is what you see:
Hexus.net are the only people crazy enough to "benchmark" CPU's at 4K resolution, so don't blame me for this. I didn't think of using a 100% GPU-bound situation to prove a point, but it's proven nonetheless.
What I'm saying is that in any real-world situation, more likely than not you are GPU-bound to some extent and the tests in 1080p where the 9900K kills the 3900X are only relevant if you are one of those CSGO players who swears you need to be at 400 fps or you can't win. Because it's literally irrelevant to everyone else who is a PC gamer.
But then you add in doing actual other stuff while gaming, and then the picture looks more muddled.
So let's look at gaming while streaming, an example making the CPU do more than just run the game.
Wow, huh. The 9900K's entire lead against the 3900X just evaporates when you make it stream your gameplay at the same time you are playing the game. That's a big hmmm. (Of course, if you are truly a galaxy brain, you are using the NVENC encoder on Shadowplay or OBS for your streaming in which case your result is that bar at the top. But I'm just demonstrating what happens when 12c/24t takes on 8c/16t and doing more than just playing the game.)
Also, for people who think they are smart by buying a 9700K instead of a 9900K or 3900X, well....you're making the same mistake those people who thought they were smart buying an i5-4590K instead of an i7-4790K back in the day.
Here we can see the 8c/8t 9700K turning into a stuttery mess when trying to play a game and stream it at the same time. The 8c/16t 9900K and the 12c/24t 3900X are casual as fuck doing this. Don't be a brainlet and buy the 9700K instead of the 3700X, 3900X, or 9900K and think you're future-proof because you're not.
So in summary, what have we learned?
(1) More cores + more threads at a lower clock speed is more future-proof than fewer cores + fewer threads at higher clock speed
(2) Real-world gaming consists of way more than looking at bar charts
(3) Smart people always think about the future 1-2 year down the road, not right this second when investing in a new gaming machine
If we take these lessons into consideration, it's fairly clear who is more future-proof here despite losing at bar charts in 1080p.
A 9900k will become obsolete long before we ever see a GPU leap so big it makes 1440p/4k as fast as 1080p with a 2080Ti
butwhy.gif?
www.pugetsystems.com
TPU does that too.
Dude, 9900k consumes nearly twice the power of 3700x, to beat it at those couple %. in certain tasks.
actually the 9900k is more expensive since you have to buy a cooler
