Get 9900k now or wait for next gen?

[Flaggin]

Hello folks,

 

So as mentioned over at Here I am curious about my investment into a 9900k, I can actively afford to purchase it now, however i'm curious if it might be better to just wait for next gen intel release, as such i'm kinda curious of people's thoughts on the rumour mill at the moment.

 

^{_{Yes asking people what is happenning via rumour mill may cause some insanity and a massive war but hey ho lets get on with it civilly...kinda}}

 

So, what are people's thoughts, dig into a 9900k now or wait for (what is the rumour?) date of next release?

 

Reason for the 9900k is as I stream it'd be useful, however the games I play favour intel so much more over ryzen or threadripper that it is a little mad.

[Quadriplegic]

Wait for Zen 2/Intel 10nm

[Princess Luna]

This is a matter of whether or not you want to wait.

 

Zen 2 is a few months away, Intel Ice Lake 10nm will only come by November if it comes this year at all.

[Flaggin]

1 minute ago, Princess Cadence said:

snip

 

In terms of waiting, I can wait a while as long as there is some sort of information coming out, I could wait 4/5 months for an announcement, update or "Kinda confirmed leak but still rumour"-thing, as that would encourage me to go the extra few months after knowing its around the corner.

 

Obviously we're just playing a game of guessing here trying to know when it'll released but trying to make somewhat of an educated guess based on information.

[Princess Luna]

1 minute ago, Flaggin said:

.

What I can tell you is that the i9 9900K would be sufficient for what you need... this is more of a "make more with same budget" scenario.

 

Zen 2 might bring 12 cores mainstream processors capable of similar single threaded performance of Intel, specially if they change how Infinity Fabric works, nowadays Intel's Ring Bus is what mostly keeps it on top for gaming.

 

Intel 10nm is personally to me the better product to look forward to because even streaming and video editing etc 8 cores is sufficient, so more performance would still come from individual stronger single cores.

 

Problem is that Intel's 10th gen really is considerable farther away than Zen 2.

[GoldenLag]

15 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

Intel Ice Lake 10nm will only come by November if it comes this year at all.

Isnt it 10 core 14nm for desktop mid-late 2019 and mobile 10nm in late 2019/early 2020?

 

OP: if you can wait, id suggest waiting. 

[Princess Luna]

2 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

mobile 10nm in late 2019/early 2020?

Intel has already started Mobile 10nm 'prototype' production with the 10nm i3-8121U Canon Lake, which was an underwhelming architecture.

 

Ice Lake will be a 10nm+ already if you will, now it should come for both Mobile and Desktop, Whilst Mobile is said to come first that's a possibility and yes that would push Desktop chips even farther away to probably only 2020.

 

15 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

snt it 10 core 14nm for desktop mid-late 2019

Now 10 cores with Ring Bus on 14nm++? I doubt it personally, Ring Bus on 14nm++ is already at it's limit with 8 cores configuration, Intel is already ditching it's own TDP ratings to keep Turbo Boost table, the die also would increase past what LGA 1151 was designed to hold.

 

Why do you think the i7 6950X was so expensive and required such beefy motherboards? 14nm and Ring Bus with 10 cores / 20 threads is a beast way hard to tame, silicon also needs to be top of the line to keep it altogether.

 

Also why the i7 8700K is significantly better than the i7 7800X Mesh, the i9 9900K vs i7 7820X Mesh? The performance improvement of Ring Bus while real and noteworthy they also come at a great cost of efficiency going down the toilet the more cores you add to it and 10 really is the limit.

 

Intel would be better not releasing anything before having something real to release, then again they refreshed Skylake-X with the sole difference being soldered IHS and called it '9th gen' for the lolz... so all is possible.

[GoldenLag]

16 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

Now 10 cores with Ring Bus on 14nm++? I doubt it personally, Ring Bus on 14nm++ is already at it's limit with 8 cores configuration, Intel is already ditching it's own TDP ratings to keep Turbo Boost table, the die also would increase past what LGA 1151 was designed to hold.

afaik that is what they are doing as a stop gap measure to attempt being relevant with Zen 2 at the higher corecount levels.

[Mister Woof]

What are you using now?

[Flaggin]

3 hours ago, Princess Cadence said:

Intel 10nm is personally to me the better product to look forward to because even streaming and video editing etc 8 cores is sufficient, so more performance would still come from individual stronger single cores.

 

That's what I personally see, especially with what I play, I know average benchmarks they aren't that hugely differentiated, however i've found that in live environments the difference seems noticeable gaming wise. What I play an OC'd 2700 OC'd for some reason still falls signifcantly behind an 8700k, by a comparable 30-50 fps, in a game where fps isn't great due to already abysmal optimisation.

 

3 hours ago, GoldenLag said:

OP: if you can wait, id suggest waiting. 

 

Right now i'm still plit down the middle as both sides have good points - I'd have enough performance with a 9900k for what i'd need, but at the same time even more would be available come next gen which (Theoretically) isn't far off.

 

2 hours ago, Princess Cadence said:

Snip

 

A bit of mention to the 8700k here. The jump from 7790k (Isn't it?) to the 8700k was fairly significant and more than what I was expecting. I'm just curious (Obviously nothing but rumour to confirm at this point), if next gen intel would have that jump again from 9900k to [Insert some unpredictable probably non-linear number]-k.

 

13 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

What are you using now?

 

Right now i'm using a 6700k and boy is it starting to chug a bit. Current 6700k sitting on 4.7 air with stable temps.

[GoldenLag]

2 minutes ago, Flaggin said:

Right now i'm using a 6700k and boy is it starting to chug a bit. Current 6700k sitting on 4.7 air with stable temps.

you should be able to hold on with that CPU for a bit longer. 

[Mister Woof]

3 minutes ago, Flaggin said:

 

That's what I personally see, especially with what I play, I know average benchmarks they aren't that hugely differentiated, however i've found that in live environments the difference seems noticeable gaming wise. What I play an OC'd 2700 OC'd for some reason still falls signifcantly behind an 8700k, by a comparable 30-50 fps, in a game where fps isn't great due to already abysmal optimisation.

 

 

Right now i'm still plit down the middle as both sides have good points - I'd have enough performance with a 9900k for what i'd need, but at the same time even more would be available come next gen which (Theoretically) isn't far off.

 

 

A bit of mention to the 8700k here. The jump from 7790k (Isn't it?) to the 8700k was fairly significant and more than what I was expecting. I'm just curious (Obviously nothing but rumour to confirm at this point), if next gen intel would have that jump again from 9900k to [Insert some unpredictable probably non-linear number]-k.

 

 

Right now i'm using a 6700k and boy is it starting to chug a bit. Current 6700k sitting on 4.7 air with stable temps.

What is it struggling with? Gaming it's still very strong.

 

If it's streaming, have you tried iGPU acceleration?

[Flaggin]

6 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

snip

 

For general games it's actually good and has no issues (Paired with my gtx 1080).

 

However when it comes to my main game - Planetside 2, it struggles hard, but I should mention that game chugs resources like there's no tomorow. Mostly because of how demanding the scale of the game is (200 v 200 all human player fights, infantry, tanks, air, etc).

 

Lots of stuff to render entities, tracers, explosions etc.

 

For streaming I use NVenc, there is no way in heck that 6700k could handle any others right now when streaming this game. Even at 720 60, it chugs streaming on 720 60 with nvenc due to the insane cpu useage of that game.

 

But it is my main game per say with 3k+ hours

[Princess Luna]

4 minutes ago, Flaggin said:

For streaming I use NVenc, there is no way in heck that 6700k could handle any others right now when streaming this game. Even at 720 60, it chugs streaming on 720 60 with nvenc due to the insane cpu useage of that game.

QuickSync was a no go?

[Flaggin]

2 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

QuickSync was a no go?

Unfortunately not, it just can't put anymore on the CPU, it's capped 100% causing stuttering when on quicksync

[Princess Luna]

Just now, Flaggin said:

Unfortunately not, it just can't put anymore on the CPU, it's capped 100% causing stuttering when on quicksync

It's rather odd because the iGPU while inside the CPU package it's a different processing unit altogether, what's your memory configuration like?

[Flaggin]

Just now, Princess Cadence said:

It's rather odd because the iGPU while inside the CPU package it's a different processing unit altogether, what's your memory configuration like?

In terms of memory speed or other BIOS specifics? Memory is 2777 I believe, can't clock it any higher without it not starting up, from 2333 I believe (Don't quote those numbers but they are very close i'm fairly certain), in terms of amount, 16GB.

 

Ussually memory useage during streams is fine as well, always 3-5gb of headroom.

[xg32]

4 hours ago, Flaggin said:

.

if you can wait, then wait, if not, nothing wrong with the 9900k.

 

Though as a 9900k owner, i'm VERY interested in the 16core zen 2 that's rumored, not looking toward intel's next gen at all.

[Flaggin]

Just now, xg32 said:

if you can wait, then wait, if not, nothing wrong with the 9900k.

 

Though as a 9900k, i'm VERY interested in the 16core zen 2 that's rumored, not looking toward intel's next gen at all.

 

I'll not lie, if the next zen2 16core has single core performance equivallent to 9900k in gaming, i'd jump on it happilly.

[GoldenLag]

33 minutes ago, Flaggin said:

I'll not lie, if the next zen2 16core has single core performance equivallent to 9900k in gaming, i'd jump on it happilly.

all i can say is early siliscon during CES they displayed a 8 core 16 thread part tieing the 9900k. 

[Berfs1]

3 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

all i can say is early siliscon during CES they displayed a 8 core 16 thread part tieing the 9900k. 

Tying? or do you mean beating the 9900K, with much less power consumption as well?  We have a new king here! Oh not to mention, Intel chips got hit with ANOTHER vulnerability lol.

[TahoeDust]

There is always something faster "Coming Soon".

[GoldenLag]

32 minutes ago, Berfs1 said:

Tying? or do you mean beating the 9900K,

it tied. run to run variance. 

33 minutes ago, Berfs1 said:

with much less power consumption as well?

yes, but noone actually cares about powerconsumption. 

33 minutes ago, Berfs1 said:

We have a new king here! Oh not to mention, Intel chips got hit with ANOTHER vulnerability lol.

yep, that kind of sucks. hopefully vulnerabilities get fixed in the comming years in hardware.

[GoldenLag]

Just now, TahoeDust said:

There is always something faster "Coming Soon".

the differense is that we are actually getting something interesting for once and not a refresh. 

 

there is a release cycle, it isnt exactly allways "soon"

[TahoeDust]

10 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

the differense is that we are actually getting something interesting for once and not a refresh. 

 

there is a release cycle, it isnt exactly allways "soon"

Almost every thread considering a CPU on this forum for the last few years has had someone saying "Why don't you wait for xyz?"...

 

People on this forum just like to argue for argument's sake.