epsilon84

https://www.techspot.com/review/1574-amd-ryzen-5-2400g-and-ryzen-3-2200g/page8.html
 
Memory scaling.
 
There is a big hit to 3D performance with slower memory, unfortunately. 

my theory is that the 9900k will be serviceable compared to any 7nm that comes out, so you should be good for 4-5 years. I personally do plan to upgrade to 7nm when needed.
 
For you, getting the 2700x now doesn't make sense because the zen 2 will blow it out of the water in 6 months, 9900k will hopefully match the new stuff.
 
So u can either buy a 2600, wait for zen 2, or get a 9900k

I have that CPU too for a few days and I can only say that I have no idea about any "higher temps"

I play games like PUBG on it with unlocked FPS and don't see any high temps at all

I mean you really don't need to consider temps
 
Just think about

is ~35-40% more fps in some games and like 20% in most games worth to pay ~150% of the AMD Ryzen price?
For me it was 9001% worth it.
 
For the other tasks the ryzen road would probably good enough but for gaming (considering you don't buy it for only 12 month of use but maybe for 24 or 36 months (or even more)) the i9-9900k should be the way to go.
 
well and get a 2070 or 2080 ^^!
 

First of all, you should be using quicksync or nvenc for streaming, so having 8 cores or 16 cores doesn't matter.
 
Second, both the 8700K and 9900K have much higher single thread performance than any of the AMD CPUs, which is important in gaming as well as video editing and most other programs.
 
Third, he can afford both of the intel CPUs. If he's looking for performance, and not price to performance, then the 9900K is the obvious choice.
It is literally the highest performing CPU that exists for gaming and almost every other task too (aside from rendering, which the CPUs with 20+ threads are better)

I've always thought that CAD modelling was more single thread intensive? Except for the rendering side of things, of course, which generally scales well with additional cores. According to Pugetsystems, Ryzen seems to be quite sluggish in the modelling side of things, which makes sense because AMD is behind in ST performance. I can somewhat understand your rationale of using Ryzen 7 as a placeholder, but we have no guarantees that next gen Ryzen will bridge the ~50% performance gap in ST performance:
 
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Revit-2018-Coffee-Lake-CPU-Comparison-1052/
 

 
 
 

I've always thought that CAD modelling was more single thread intensive? Except for the rendering side of things, of course, which generally scales well with additional cores. According to Pugetsystems, Ryzen seems to be quite sluggish in the modelling side of things, which makes sense because AMD is behind in ST performance. I can somewhat understand your rationale of using Ryzen 7 as a placeholder, but we have no guarantees that next gen Ryzen will bridge the ~50% performance gap in ST performance:
 
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Revit-2018-Coffee-Lake-CPU-Comparison-1052/
 

 
 
 

I've always thought that CAD modelling was more single thread intensive? Except for the rendering side of things, of course, which generally scales well with additional cores. According to Pugetsystems, Ryzen seems to be quite sluggish in the modelling side of things, which makes sense because AMD is behind in ST performance. I can somewhat understand your rationale of using Ryzen 7 as a placeholder, but we have no guarantees that next gen Ryzen will bridge the ~50% performance gap in ST performance:
 
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Revit-2018-Coffee-Lake-CPU-Comparison-1052/
 

 
 
 

https://www.pugetsystems.com/recommended/Recommended-Systems-for-Autodesk-Inventor-173
 
Q: Does having more CPU cores improve Inventor performance?
A: Designing and modeling in Inventor is not able to utilize more than a handful of cores. We have found that a CPU with the highest operating frequency will give you the best overall performance for general modeling tasks. Intel's mainstream Core i7 8700K currently offers the highest single-core clock speed, so that is our go-to recommendation. Rendering with the built-in engine, however, can see moderate to large performance gains with a higher core count CPU. For that reason we use Intel's Core X series i7 and i9 processors with eight to eighteen cores for our rendering-optimized Inventor workstation.
 
Seems like higher core count CPUs (like Threadripper) won't do much for modelling as its frequency/IPC dependant, but rendering will see sizeable gains.
 
On a 2000 euro budget, you can probably afford either a Skylake-X or Threadripper based PC. Another choice would be the 9900K, since that combines the fastest single core speeds along with good multi-threaded performance (8 cores).

https://www.pugetsystems.com/recommended/Recommended-Systems-for-Autodesk-Inventor-173
 
Q: Does having more CPU cores improve Inventor performance?
A: Designing and modeling in Inventor is not able to utilize more than a handful of cores. We have found that a CPU with the highest operating frequency will give you the best overall performance for general modeling tasks. Intel's mainstream Core i7 8700K currently offers the highest single-core clock speed, so that is our go-to recommendation. Rendering with the built-in engine, however, can see moderate to large performance gains with a higher core count CPU. For that reason we use Intel's Core X series i7 and i9 processors with eight to eighteen cores for our rendering-optimized Inventor workstation.
 
Seems like higher core count CPUs (like Threadripper) won't do much for modelling as its frequency/IPC dependant, but rendering will see sizeable gains.
 
On a 2000 euro budget, you can probably afford either a Skylake-X or Threadripper based PC. Another choice would be the 9900K, since that combines the fastest single core speeds along with good multi-threaded performance (8 cores).

https://www.pugetsystems.com/recommended/Recommended-Systems-for-Autodesk-Inventor-173
 
Q: Does having more CPU cores improve Inventor performance?
A: Designing and modeling in Inventor is not able to utilize more than a handful of cores. We have found that a CPU with the highest operating frequency will give you the best overall performance for general modeling tasks. Intel's mainstream Core i7 8700K currently offers the highest single-core clock speed, so that is our go-to recommendation. Rendering with the built-in engine, however, can see moderate to large performance gains with a higher core count CPU. For that reason we use Intel's Core X series i7 and i9 processors with eight to eighteen cores for our rendering-optimized Inventor workstation.
 
Seems like higher core count CPUs (like Threadripper) won't do much for modelling as its frequency/IPC dependant, but rendering will see sizeable gains.
 
On a 2000 euro budget, you can probably afford either a Skylake-X or Threadripper based PC. Another choice would be the 9900K, since that combines the fastest single core speeds along with good multi-threaded performance (8 cores).

Try OCing it if you're just trying to get better performance, assuming you haven't already, alot of new chips are about to launch so if you can OC and be fine on performance it may be worth waiting. If not new stuff always comes out so it's not a terrible choice to upgrade now, assuming it's still not performing at an acceptable level

i5 8400 or R5 1600

For the last time:
 
MORE CORES/THREADS =/= MORE PERFORMANCE 
 
If you're building an only gaming build, the i7 8700K is the best CPU. Period.

I personally think the difference will be negligible unless you care about what your FPS monitor is showing at all times. 
 
Same thing could be said about the 9900K vs the 8700K IMO. Unnoticeable unless you have OCD about FPS numbers.

The Z390 and 14nm CFL 8 core CPUs are coming later this year. It's the 10nm CPUs that are experiencing major delays.
 
Think of the CFL 8 core CPUs as Intel's 'backup plan' in case their 10nm rollout is delayed, which it is. We are getting plan B, but it would still be a pretty good plan B IMO.

I would say the ryzen. More cores are better for CPU 3D rendering.

Yeah, its a shame that we don't have true competition in the high end GPU market, AMD being more competitive there would be a huge boost for all gamers.
 
Agreed that high refresh 4K gaming is still a while away, the pixel count is just so high and the strain on the GPU so immense. Even a 1080Ti struggles to maintain 60fps in some games if you run at higher detail settings.
 
Perhaps if we are prepared to use medium settings then 4K high refresh might be a possibility, but I would prefer 1440P 144Hz at high/ultra details over 4K 144Hz at medium any day.

Yeah, its a shame that we don't have true competition in the high end GPU market, AMD being more competitive there would be a huge boost for all gamers.
 
Agreed that high refresh 4K gaming is still a while away, the pixel count is just so high and the strain on the GPU so immense. Even a 1080Ti struggles to maintain 60fps in some games if you run at higher detail settings.
 
Perhaps if we are prepared to use medium settings then 4K high refresh might be a possibility, but I would prefer 1440P 144Hz at high/ultra details over 4K 144Hz at medium any day.

i dont think that a single card will bring you up to high refreshrate gaming, but i also think SLI suxx big time. Thats why im saying 4k gaming isnt worth it for me personally. Heck the GTX1180 might get good for 1440p 144hz, where the 1080TI still lacks a bit of performance.
 
But i also dont think that a 1180TI will get you there. If you would want to really play 4k+high refreshrate you'll probably have to wait 10years+, because you'll need a GPU thats 3times faster than a GTX1080TI, if we now calculate 30% increase per gen and a TI release every two years, than it might take much longer and this only if they dont hit a performance wall. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 
 
But it also depends on how much Nvidia can milk us without any competition from AMD / INTEL. Im pretty sure they could make GPUs twice as fast already, its just milking the consumer.

Please go to 6:00 for the gaming IPC benchmarks and stop embarassing yourself further...

Uhhh... not true at all. I have my 8700K @ 5.0GHz on a Hyper 212, which costs $30. Temps are in the 60s max during gaming. 
 
I was being generous there and assumed $60 for a good HSF for the 8700K. Reality check: you don't need an AIO for 5GHz, not even 5.1 if you have a good chip that doesn't need a lot of volts.
 
Why do you keep making up BS to try to validate your views?
 
Gaming IPC is clearly superior for Intel, and I'll provide proof of that.

My preferred brand is whatever gives me the best performance for what I do, which is mostly gaming.
 
So historically, it's mostly been Intel, though I was onboard AMD for a bit during the Athlon XP and Athlon 64 days. But since Core 2 launched, it's been all Intel for me.
 
Funnily enough, I think I've owned more AMD (or ATI) graphics cards than nVidia over the years, even though nVidia has probably been on top longer than AMD/ATI have been. This may be due to AMD/ATI generally being the better value (not right now though, with the ridiculous mining craze driving AMD GPU prices way up) and I'm still on my Fury X because it performs very well still at 1080P on all the latest games, and I have a Freesync monitor so an AMD GPU makes more sense for me.

I don't give a FUCK about brands. So tired of this. My favorite is the fastest. 

So I am now running those timings "15-16-16-35 except there's and extra 16, my motherboard is saying there's an extra 16 in there. Speed is still 2666 at the moment as I didn't want to try and change both at once.
I've got memtest but it now says "Memory locking failed (may be reserved by other apps/kernals", it didn't say this when I tested with the old timings.
This change does appear to of made some difference.

2700X, comes with a better stock HSF and clocks boost a lot higher too out of the box.