Should I upgrade, or keep what I have?

[jerubedo]

4 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

Strongly disagree with that. It matters a lot if you're going to make an informed decision. That could lead to buying a 9900K for single thread performance, despite it being no different than an overclocked 9350k. 

 

For the record, I never recommended upgrading.

The 9350K isn't out yet. But even so it's boost clock only goes to 4.6GHz single core whereas the 9900K goes to 5.0GHz. Now if you can overclock the 9350K to 5.0GHz then yeah they'd be the same. But again, it's not even out yet, so we don't know how well they're generally binned and if they'll hit 5.0GHz on a single core. If they CAN'T then the 9900K is still the best buy for his load type (I'm NOT saying the best VALUE, but some people don't care about value, just the best possible performance).

[JoostinOnline]

1 minute ago, jerubedo said:

The 9350K isn't out yet. But even so it's boost clock only goes to 4.6GHz single core whereas the 9900K goes to 5.0GHz. Now if you can overclock the 9350K to 5.0GHz then yeah they'd be the same. But again, it's not even out yet, so we don't know how well they're generally binned and if they'll hit 5.0GHz on a single core. If they CAN'T then the 9900K is still the best buy for his load type (I'm NOT saying the best VALUE, but some people don't care about value, just the best possible performance).

Binning with Intel has to do with core and thread count more than frequency, and it would probably overclock higher because it has fewer cores. And even if we're only going with released products, the 9700k would perform better than the 9900k.

[jerubedo]

23 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

the 9700k would perform better than the 9900k.

yep, now that is indeed true. The performance would be relatively the same, but the lesser cooling needs for the 9700K would give it the edge. That chart unfortunately only goes off of stock, and the 9900K still boosts higher out of the box. Although some people do buy these processors just to plug them for the best possible boost clocks without worrying about overclocking.

[JesseStillwell]

7 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

The fact that you don't understand this is a problem though. The 4790k only wins in single thread performance because it can reach much higher clock speeds.

 

The i9 9900k is not a good CPU, and it's a horrible value if you are running single threaded. Clock for clock it's performance is the same as an i3-9350k, and you won't get the shitty cooling and power problems that come with trying to run 8 cores at 5GHz.

What are you claiming that I don't understand here? Clock speeds and single thread performance don't go hand in hand.

 

I can't find benchmarks for the latest CPUs, but here is something to look at.

 

i7 7350k @ 4.2ghz - Single Thread Rating: 2433

 

i7 7700k @ 4.2ghz - Single Thread Rating: 2583

 

I am fine with paying more for the i9 9900k and cooling it, because it will serve me well in single threaded use and multi-tasking, which I am constantly doing.

[jerubedo]

54 minutes ago, JesseStillwell said:

 

i7 7350k @ 4.2ghz - Single Thread Rating: 2433

 

i7 7700k @ 4.2ghz - Single Thread Rating: 2583

So it's POSSIBLE that the 7700K performs better in single thread (because of its extra cache), but more than likely they are actually the same. The thing with PCMark is that it's data collected from USERS, who have varying hardware, namely the RAM. RAM speed can give varying results, and the 7350K supports both DDR3 and DDR4 RAM which will particularly skew that model because of the users actually using DDR3. There's no way to know without digging further into professional results with apples to apples RAM.

 

It'll give you an excellent idea, but when numbers are that close you can functionally call them the same or at least similar.

 

With the more modern CPUs it's more apples to apples because it's all DDR4, although varying speeds within DDR4 will still skew results to some extent. That's unavoidable.

[JesseStillwell]

1 hour ago, JoostinOnline said:

Binning with Intel has to do with core and thread count more than frequency, and it would probably overclock higher because it has fewer cores. And even if we're only going with released products, the 9700k would perform better than the 9900k.

 

1 hour ago, jerubedo said:

So it's POSSIBLE that the 7700K performs better in single thread (because of its extra cache), but more than likely they are actually the same. The thing with PCMark is that it's data collected from USERS, who have varying hardware, namely the RAM. RAM speed can give varying results, and the 7350K supports both DDR3 and DDR4 RAM which will particularly skew that model because of the users actually using DDR3. There's no way to know without digging further into professional results with apples to apples RAM.

 

It'll give you an excellent idea, but when numbers are that close you can functionally call them the same or at least similar.

 

With the more modern CPUs it's more apples to apples because it's all DDR4, although varying speeds within DDR4 will still skew results to some extent. That's unavoidable.

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.

[jerubedo]

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.

[JesseStillwell]

1 hour ago, jerubedo said:

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.

Great advice. I think I will wait and see what happens in the coming months. I hope the new AMD processors turn out nothing short of amazing.

 

I appreciate all the advice and info you have provided in this thread.

 

Cheers.

[JoostinOnline]

13 hours ago, JesseStillwell said:

What are you claiming that I don't understand here? Clock speeds and single thread performance don't go hand in hand.

 

I can't find benchmarks for the latest CPUs, but here is something to look at.

 

i7 7350k @ 4.2ghz - Single Thread Rating: 2433

 

i7 7700k @ 4.2ghz - Single Thread Rating: 2583

 

I am fine with paying more for the i9 9900k and cooling it, because it will serve me well in single threaded use and multi-tasking, which I am constantly doing.

When the IPC is the same (basically the same architecture), they absolutely go hand in hand. The difference in scores has to do with an imperfect testing method, a different number of samples, and the silicon lottery.

 

Architecture hasn't changed much since Haswell, and you can already reach very high clock speeds with a 4790k. Trying to disregard me as an AMD fanboy when I haven't even recommended AMD doesn't make sense.