Is the 3900X worth waiting for or should i just get the 9900k?

[tsunoda]

So, i was going to be purchacing a 3900X as my system is having stability issues (god knows whats wrong with it)

This was going to be a full upgrade replacing everything but the gpu and some of my hard drives.

With the current stock issues ive not been able to find a single 3900X from any retailer speaking to people no one can give me a date as to when they will be available for purchace (if you have that information that would be awsome)

so naturally im looking at the 9900K, is it worth waiting for the 3900X? what are the common issues with the 9900K?

ive been out of keeping up to date with every thing for a while now, roughly 2 ish years (news and such) so is there anything i should know about either cpu that could be a deal breaker?

Thanks

[berberries]

wait for the 3950x which is coming or just wait for the 3900x to come back in stock.

[5x5]

What do you need the system for? Of it's work, the 3900X no contest. If for gaming only, the 3700X makes more sense. The 9900K is mostly for very high refresh gaming.

[tsunoda]

3 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

What do you need the system for? Of it's work, the 3900X no contest. If for gaming only, the 3700X makes more sense. The 9900K is mostly for very high refresh gaming.

both gaming and work, I use Maya and Cinema 4d though the render is using octaine so the core count isnt exactly a huge deal.

high refresh is something ive been wanting to get into

[5x5]

Just now, tsunoda said:

both gaming and work, I use Maya and Cinema 4d though the render is using octaine so the core count isnt exactly a huge deal.

high refresh is something ive been wanting to get into

Then the 9900K makes absolutely no sense

 The 3900X is 50% more powerful for the same money while also being more efficient

[Suika]

12 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

Then the 9900K makes absolutely no sense

No, it does, it just depends more on what OP wants to prioritize. If OP would rather a no compromises gaming system that's also excellent in workloads like Maya and Cinema 4D, then the 9900K is the system to go with. If OP would rather focus on productivity, then the R9 3900X is the best option that also happens to make a great gaming CPU.

 

Although, if OP mentioned that CPU rendering isn't a concern, then the 3900X makes less sense. You'd be throwing threads at a workload that might not ever utilize it.

[5x5]

In gaming the 3900X is only 4-5% behind the 9900K. In productivity and rendering the i9 is 50% behind the 3900X. One thing is not like the other

[Mister Woof]

In some games that are historically Intel dominated for high refresh like CSGO, AMD 3000 chips are performing better iirc

 

 

[Suika]

16 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

In gaming the 3900X is only 4-5% behind the 9900K. In productivity and rendering the i9 is 50% behind the 3900X. One thing is not like the other

I believe you've missed the point.

 

If the OP isn't going to rely on CPU rendering, then most of those rendering benchmarks showing the 50% jump in performance aren't going to be applicable to the discussion. Actual design and animation in Cinema 4D uses far less threads than during render (presumably also applicable to Maya), so the 9900K will win in regular usage and gaming, while the 3900X would win in CPU rendering if the OP needed CPU rendering.

[5x5]

1 minute ago, Suika said:

I believe you've missed the point.

 

If the OP isn't going to rely on CPU rendering, then most of those rendering benchmarks showing the 50% jump in performance aren't going to be applicable to the discussion. Actual design and animation in Cinema 4D are more single threaded bound (presumably also applicable to Maya), so the 9900K will win in regular usage and gaming, while the 3900X would win in CPU rendering if the OP needed CPU rendering.

Depends on whether the application prefers IPC or ckockspeed. Our in-house software is oddly IPC bound. Similar to what you see with CSGO on the gaming end.