20 minutes ago, JesseStillwell said:
I agree completely with you. I do believe the extra cache makes a small impact.
I think I need to clarify a few things for people:
1. I am not trashing on AMD at all. I think they have a great product and if they weren't around Intel could be shafting all of us with unreasonable prices. I really do hope that they can compete better with Intel, we would all benefit from that.
2. Yes, I need single thread performance for my software, but I also want a CPU that is going to do well at multi-tasking and multi threaded application when the need arises. If I was on a tight budget and had one sole purpose for the PC, then yes I would agree that the i9 would be a poor choice.
3. I just asked given my same situation would you personally wait, or upgrade the mobo and throw in the free 1060? Also, with the possible thought that this PC could serve a second purpose after I purchase a new one. I wouldn't reuse any of the parts, because I would like to keep it as a working PC. You never know when it may come in handy.
Again, I appreciate you guys taking the time to read and discuss this topic with me.
1) Yep, I personally didn't think you were. There are a lot of die hard AMD people on this sub-forum though.
2) Then yes, the 9900K is the best of both worlds and is the best you can get if the budget allows.
3) I'd personally wait and see if Ryzen 3000 is a game changer since it's only a few months out. It COULD have better single thread performance for the first time in ages, but we won't really know until review day. Even if it doesn't, though, Intel is GOING to release a response, and that one might be your best bet as well. It's all very soon. And even if we weren't taking into consideration upcoming hardware, I'd still say wait so that you could do your 9900K build. That's what I'd do at least.