AMD Zen 2 vs 9900k More Cores = faster CPU ?

[Turtle Rig]

I liove cores and threads.  9900k right now is consumer most powerful CPU.  Problem is its 8 core 16 threads.  The Zen 2 38xx will be 16 cores and 32 threads for the same price of a 9900k.  That coupled with new fab and technology will dethrone the consumer parts buying market and give AMD the lead in the dual channel consumer situation.  Then you have 18 core HEDT from Intel,  when AMD has ThreadRipper coming in August 32c 64t.  A beast like this doesnt need a upgrade for minimum 10 years.  Unless they make computers that make you hang on and fly with it its soo fast.

[Turtle Rig]

1 minute ago, Turtle Rig said:

I liove cores and threads.  9900k right now is consumer most powerful CPU.  Problem is its 8 core 16 threads.  The Zen 2 38xx will be 16 cores and 32 threads for the same price of a 9900k.  That coupled with new fab and technology will dethrone the consumer parts buying market and give AMD the lead in the dual channel consumer situation.  Then you have 18 core HEDT from Intel,  when AMD has ThreadRipper coming in August 32c 64t.  A beast like this doesnt need a upgrade for minimum 10 years.  Unless they make computers that make you hang on and fly with it its soo fast.

I make this thread cuz I think my rig is falling apart.. I get no signals and other sh*T and I cant be productive.  I love my RIg it does the job, Im gonna wait until it gives some big problems then upgrade mobo ram and CPU.  I would get the 9900k but I need a HEDT 64GB Quad Channel.

[RobFRaschke]

I don't actually see a question there anywhere Turtle. But it depends entirely on workload. So... Things aren't really changing much. Except that AMD will have higher core parts up to the same desktop price-point as Intel has.

[Turtle Rig]

Just now, RobFRaschke said:

I don't actually see a question there anywhere Turtle. But it depends entirely on workload. So... Things aren't really changing much. Except that AMD will have higher core parts up to the same desktop price-point as Intel has.

Which is a good thing RobFRaschke.  I saw the 16 core part will be 500 dollars.  Same price as 9900k.  Normal workloud 9900k is more then enough.  I mean your CPU will never choke on a project, and be amazing in gaming.  Great CPU, but Im weaning towards the HEDT department to get as I said my 64GB as quad channel.  Right now Im gonna wait to see if PC crashes if it does then I have no choice but to wait 2 months and get a 16 core or 32core HEDT better yet.  And sorry it wasn't a question.  My bad!

[Fasauceome]

It's not long until we know what's available, just gotta have patience

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, fasauceome said:

It's not long until we know what's available, just gotta have patience

But like... it's more cores.

[Daniel Z.]

Is this Turtle’s 70th post on Zen 2? Someone should start a counter.

[Turtle Rig]

4 minutes ago, Daniel Z. said:

Is this Turtle’s 70th post on Zen 2? Someone should start a counter.

HAHAHHAHA Good one Danil Z. my friend!!!

[flibberdipper]

I see you being serious as a heart attack about not making another Zen post until July went really well, as expected.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Daniel Z. said:

Is this Turtle’s 70th post on Zen 2? Someone should start a counter.

*71st

[Crunchy Dragon]

-Moved to CPUs, Motherboards, and Memory-

[TheSLSAMG]

3 minutes ago, flibberdipper said:

I see you being serious as a heart attack about not making another Zen post until July went really well, as expected.

I am in favor of the mod team procuring the infinity gauntlet and committing a thicc thanos s n a p

 

The leaks at this point have been so tiring, but it's almost time. Just leave it.

[Turtle Rig]

14 minutes ago, flibberdipper said:

I see you being serious as a heart attack about not making another Zen post until July went really well, as expected.

This was more of a 9900k with blended Zen 2 ...... Not rumors about zen 2 or other garbage.  This is a test of 8 core vs 16 zen 2 cores.  Since 9900k is soo fast single core would it come out on top or will 32 threads dethrone the 9900k ?

[ch3w2oy]

16 minutes ago, Turtle Rig said:

This was more of a 9900k with blended Zen 2 ...... Not rumors about zen 2 or other garbage.  This is a test of 8 core vs 16 zen 2 cores.  Since 9900k is soo fast single core would it come out on top or will 32 threads dethrone the 9900k ?

No one knows.. The sad truth is that people will still buy Intel..

 

 

I'm sure if AMD can at least come close to matching Intels IPC and frequency, we'll have a better processor on our hands.. 

[Turtle Rig]

3 minutes ago, ch3w2oy said:

No one knows.. The sad truth is that people will still buy Intel..

 

 

I'm sure if AMD can at least come close to matching Intels IPC and frequency, we'll have a better processor on our hands.. 

Yes I agree, better and much more powerful then their flagship consumer 9900k.  Double the core, double the performance no and if it can do 5Ghz then we have a new king in town that blows away all Intel Consumer chips and gives a great fight with the 9980XE.

[ch3w2oy]

Just now, Turtle Rig said:

Yes I agree, better and much more powerful then their flagship consumer 9900k.  Double the core, double the performance no ?

IF AMD can match Intel IPC for IPC and frequency for frequency, then yes, I'm sure it's possible that it can be "double" the speed/power in certain workloads.

 

No one knows how the 16 core counterpart will work so lets just wait and see.. I'm not sure how more cores operate but I would think at a slower speed than less cores..

 

I wouldn't count on it being double the performance.. But I think it'll offer better performance, yes.

[Mister Woof]

More cores is only better if your software can use those extra cores.

 

They're more than useless otherwise.

 

 

[Turtle Rig]

2 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

More cores is only better if your software can use those extra cores.

 

They're more than useless otherwise.

 

 

Ya I run a daw,  Cakewalk.. and it will recognize all threads.  Other then that 6 core is more then enough.  Let alone 8 core @ 5Ghz

[ch3w2oy]

4 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

More cores is only better if your software can use those extra cores.

 

They're more than useless otherwise.

 

 

OORRRR using lots of software, right? RIGHT?

 

1 minute ago, Turtle Rig said:

Ya I run a daw,  Cakewalk.. and it will recognize all threads.  Other then that 6 core is more then enough.  Let alone 8 core @ 5Ghz

You're confusing.

 

Quote

I would get the 9900k but I need a HEDT 64GB Quad Channel.

 

[Mister Woof]

8 minutes ago, ch3w2oy said:

OORRRR using lots of software, right? RIGHT?

 

You're confusing.

 

 

That would fall under "your software can use it" I feel :shrug:

[ch3w2oy]

1 minute ago, Plutosaurus said:

That would fall under "your software can use it" I feel :shrug:

Whatever you say..

[Fasauceome]

1 minute ago, ReggieGRS said:

where do i download that patience thing you speak of?

Same place you download more ram

[Turtle Rig]

3 minutes ago, ch3w2oy said:

Whatever you say..

In Cakewalk by BandLab on the bar it has all 12 of my threads.  If gaming is not the case,  I would just definitely do 16 core and I would never bottleneck and set CPU to 100 percent load all 32 cores ,  shure CPU usage in most intense project with 75 tracks, VSTi's are Ive managed to use 48 GB RAM so my vow to get HEDT is there, as I would get quad channel 64GB kit no RGB lol

[Kurupt]

I honestly didn't even think of AMD when I built my PC, I had a 3770k and wanted to upgrade to the next level of that so I chose the 9700k. 

 

Looking back now had I looked on reddit and here more, and saw the great value that the AMD side was offering I would have hands down went with the 2700x.  But at the time I didn't know the FPS difference at 1080p @ 144FPS which is what I use.  I don't play shooters alot, mostly single player RPGS action adventure types.  I still wanted the high FPS though with max settings on everything so I guess looking back now I made the right choice.  I OC'd my chip to 5.0 and I literally saw a FPS difference in Witcher 3 from about 100-110 to about 120-130.

[ch3w2oy]

2 minutes ago, lbmoney33 said:

I honestly didn't even think of AMD when I built my PC, I had a 3770k and wanted to upgrade to the next level of that so I chose the 9700k. 

 

Looking back now had I looked on reddit and here more, and saw the great value that the AMD side was offering I would have hands down went with the 2700x.  But at the time I didn't know the FPS difference at 1080p @ 144FPS which is what I use.  I don't play shooters alot, mostly single player RPGS action adventure types.  I still wanted the high FPS though with max settings on everything so I guess looking back now I made the right choice.  I OC'd my chip to 5.0 and I literally saw a FPS difference in Witcher 3 from about 100-110 to about 120-130.

1080p is where you'll see the biggest difference when it comes to gaming.. The better/faster the processor, the better FPS you will see.. If all you do is game, then you made the right choice. Intel right now, is still the best CPUs for gaming at 1080p.