9900k or 9900kf? And z390 motherboards..

[Billy_Wellington]

Hello, still not sure which side to go for. Ryzen 3600 is a great value for sure, but gaming performance is dissapointing on 3700x making AMD not good enough of an upgrade. Maybe someone could guide me with intel? 

The KF costs just a bit less, is there any downsides except not having integrated graphics? Maybe they pick worse silicon for KF than for standart K?

Also, would a motherboards within price bracket of msi z390 pro carbon or asrock extreme 4 be sufficient for overclocking? 5ghz would be nice if silicon can handle it. 

[GoldenLag]

6 minutes ago, Billy_Wellington said:

3700x making AMD not good enough of an upgrade

You know the 3900x is a thing..... And the 3800x......

 

So AMD is the go-to choice

[Billy_Wellington]

Just now, GoldenLag said:

You know the 3900x is a thing..... And the 3800x......

 

So AMD is the go-to choice

3800x is paying more for maybe 200 mhz, both 3700x and 3800x lose to 9700k in games

3900x costs as much as 9900k but loses in games to it. 

I dont do "productivity" and i dont stream, i only game on my pc. 

If i had something worse than 6700k and was on a budget i would go for ryzen 3600 fo sure. 

[Epimetheus]

10 minutes ago, Billy_Wellington said:

3800x is paying more for maybe 200 mhz, both 3700x and 3800x lose to 9700k in games

3900x costs as much as 9900k but loses in games to it. 

I dont do "productivity" and i dont stream, i only game on my pc. 

If i had something worse than 6700k and was on a budget i would go for ryzen 3600 fo sure. 

you know there's something called future proofing right, buying the processor that puts out maybe 10 fps more right now is pretty stupid since the 3900x has much more resources that aren't much utilised right now but are going to be in the future

[GoldenLag]

20 minutes ago, Billy_Wellington said:

dont do "productivity" and i dont stream, i only game on my pc. 

If i had something worse than 6700k and was on a budget i would go for ryzen 3600 fo sure. 

You do know you are essentially buying last years flagship when picking up the 9900k right?

 

An overall CPU worse CPU that is being passed by both parties. 12 and 16 core from AMD and upcomming 10 core from intel. 

 

 

3900x is the go to choice when spending ~500$ on a CPU

[Billy_Wellington]

5 minutes ago, Epimetheus said:

you know there's something called future proofing right, buying the processor that puts out maybe 10 fps more right now is pretty stupid since the 3900x has much more resources that aren't much utilised right now but are going to be in the future

My take on it is:

Looking at gamersnexus and hardware unboxed benchmarks - 9900k is well ahead, above "10fps" in many titles. It also have 8 cores and 16 threads just like ryzen.  How can it beat them 5 years later if right now it barely beats previous gen? 

If intel beats them now, clocks higher it will still beat them and will clock higher till next year and year after. This talks of future proofing are keep going from fx8350 days. It sucked back then and it still sucks. 

Why do you think my logic is wrong?

[xg32]

Not here to debate who's right or wrong, but i personally wouldn't buy the 3900x for gaming, i have doubts the scheduling issues on windoes will be fixed before next gen comes out, if you care about the difference between a 3700x and a 9900k then you probably wouldn't go for the 3600x to save 100bucks, if u absolutely wanna game on 144hz on most titles i'd go for the 9700k after pricedrops (alot of games are 2-3% faster than the 9900k), my personal pick this gen unless you are on an absolute budget is actually the 3700x.

[Billy_Wellington]

1 minute ago, xg32 said:

Not here to debate who's right or wrong, but i personally wouldn't buy the 3900x for gaming, i have doubts the scheduling issues on windoes will be fixed before next gen comes out, if you care about the difference between a 3700x and a 9900k then you probably wouldn't go for the 3600x to save 100bucks, if u absolutely wanna game on 144hz on most titles i'd go for the 9700k after pricedrops (alot of games are 2-3% faster than the 9900k), my personal pick this gen unless you are on an absolute budget is actually the 3700x.

Yes, i just happen to have 144hz display. It's 1440p though. 

[Epimetheus]

Because the Ryzen 9 3900x is not 8 cores/16 threads, but 12 cores/24 threads. That's a 50% increase. 

Now the 9900k is beating the 3900x not because it's faster. The games that are out now don't that many threads at all (and you can prove that by seeing how much difference there is between say, the 8700k and the i9 9900k. It's a small margin that proves that the extra cores aren't used that much) and because of that the cores which are singularly faster perform better, hence why the 9900k performs a little better.

 

And the counter argument with the fx 8350 is stupid if you ask me. It used a trash architecture, had shitty ipc (compared to Ryzen's and Core ix's which are the same now) and didn't truly have 8 cores, it's like an i7 2600k but that is half its speed due to the inferior ipc

[GoldenLag]

14 minutes ago, Billy_Wellington said:

How can it beat them 5 years later if right now it barely beats previous gen? 

You know how the 1600 was slower than the 7600k? And now its conplete reversal?

 

Thats how. 

 

 

That is not even mentioning the plattform

14 minutes ago, Billy_Wellington said:

 Why do you think my logic is wrong?

I dont think your logic is wrong. I just think you should be getting the better product. Or spending less abd get essentially the same product.(less hard to cool)

 

15 minutes ago, Billy_Wellington said:

This talks of future proofing are keep going from fx8350 days. It sucked back then and it still sucks. 

Actually the fx 8350 works pretty OK today. Roughly does what a 2500k does iirc. Those tests were done a year ago. 

 

Also, unlike those days. We are actually moving in terms of CPU design and performance and corecount.

 

 

Unlike from 2600k to 7700k where the CPU is more or less the same and overclocked to the limits the performance is the same. 

 

Stock is a slightly different story. 

[GoldenLag]

17 minutes ago, xg32 said:

if u absolutely wanna game on 144hz on most titles i'd go for the 9700k after pricedrops (alot of games are 2-3% faster than the 9900k)

Not a great idea considering it falls into the trap of non-ht.

 

Which the 4c/4t is suffering heavily from and 6c/6t is starting to suffer quite a bit. 

 

In todays market i would avoid non-ht CPUs like the plague. 

 

19 minutes ago, xg32 said:

but i personally wouldn't buy the 3900x for gaming

Neither would i, but rather that CPU than the 9900k. You are getting a whole lot more CPU for the money. While loosing a couple of frames in very high refresh titles. With the exceptiol of CS;GO which loves IPC for some reason. 

[Zberg]

In your scenario I would pick up a 9700k or 9900 KF on sale if you really don't do anything but game.  9900 will keep you up with gaming for some time to come (AAA titles will be optimized for 6-8 cores for at least another console generation).

 

If you are going to get into some streaming, editing your videos, or any kind of productivity the 3900 is a great buy.  If you aren't going to do any of that, the two intel top chips will suit you fine.  I would get the KF in that scenario personally, no one using that chip cares about integrated graphics anyways, you aren't using it in a system without a GPU in almost any scenario.

 

If I was buying a new rig (for me personally) I would get the 3900x since it is close enough for me for gaming, and I do video editing.  If I was using it as a gaming beast only, 9900 

[Mister Woof]

The term "future proofing" is a fickle topic.

 

I don't think games are suddenly going to need more than 8 cores and 16 threads in the next 5 years. They barely can saturate more than 8 right now, and then only in fringe cases.

 

It took the gaming industry over a decade to make use of more than 4 cores, when 4 cores were commonplace that entire period. And only now are they starting to sweat a 4/8.

 

So no, I don't think a 3900x is going to age significantly better than the 9900k. By the time you need more than 8/16, both CPUs will probably be too slow to be meaningful and you'll have probably upgraded by then anyway.

 

This doesn't change the fact the 3900x is just more capable because it's wider; if you plan on multitasking, productivity workload, or CPU streaming you will benefit from the additional resources.

 

But I feel using the i5-7600k vs Ryzen 5 1600 as a comparable analogy to the 9900k and 3900x is a bit of hyperbole.

 

The Ryzen 5 1600 not only has 50% more cores than the 7600k, but also has a critical advantage in efficiency technology with SMT-200% more threads.

 

The same isn't true between the 9900k and 3900x. If we were talking 9600k in this diacussion, then sure, I'd agree it will not age as well. But we aren't.

 

Another thing to consider: people are recommending the 3600, which is a 6/12, and ALMOST equal to the two year old 8700k in performance. The 9900k has much more resources than the 8700k....so, from that perspective, I do not believe there is any flaw in assuming a high frequency 8/16 will not be obsolete any time soon. I don't expect my 8700k to be obsolete for the next 5 years either.

 

That said, I wouldn't personally get the 9900k. The 3700x is "close enough" and you pay less and avoid Intel security issues and the long term performance impact that causes.

 

 

 

[alatron978]

The silicon quality on the 9900KF is slightly worse according to silicon lottery in all bins excluding the 4.9ghz bin. As for motherboards, my recommendation is what ever gigabyte board fits into your budget.

[GoldenLag]

15 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

But I feel using the i5-7600k vs Ryzen 5 1600 as a comparable analogy to the 9900k and 3900x is a bit of hyperbole.

Similarly priced CPUs and i had known benchmark data. 

 

And in the case of that set of CPUs its 2 years. And not 5. Though point very much taken. Tho the main point is that the 9900k is kinda pointless buy atm.

 

16 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

took the gaming industry over a decade to make use of more than 4 cores, when 4 cores were commonplace that entire period.

Tbf during that entire period there were only quadcores that could be used for Gaming (mainstream)

17 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

And only now are they starting to sweat a 4/8.

6c/6t is starting to hurt in the 1% low department (in like 2-3 new titles atm). Such isnt quite the case with 4c/8t atm. 

 

 

Tl;dr: dont get non-ht CPUs if you can. 

[Mister Woof]

3 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Similarly priced CPUs and i had known benchmark data. 

 

And in the case of that set of CPUs its 2 years. And not 5. Though point very much taken. Tho the main point is that the 9900k is kinda pointless buy atm.

 

Tbf during that entire period there were only quadcores that could be used for Gaming (mainstream)

6c/6t is starting to hurt in the 1% low department (in like 2-3 new titles atm). Such isnt quite the case with 4c/8t atm. 

 

 

Tl;dr: dont get non-ht CPUs if you can. 

I totally agree with you and I wouldn't recommend any of the Intel chips at this point, just don't feel a 12/24 has any real-world gaming future proofing over a powerful 8/16.

 

At least in terms of the next 5 years.

[GoldenLag]

20 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

 At least in terms of the next 5 years

I think 8 cores is gonna be fine for that ammount of time. Not the non-ht ones tho.

[Mister Woof]

1 minute ago, GoldenLag said:

I think 8 cores is gonna be fine for that ammount of time. Not the non-ht ones tho.

Hopefully Intel security patches dont ruin it all

[GoldenLag]

4 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

Hopefully Intel security patches dont ruin it all

That could be an annoying thing......

[Billy_Wellington]

Another thing that bugs me off that in both cases i am probably buyind a dead end system.

Intel will definitely go for new socket and chipset.

AMD will most likely make a refresh on AM4 with backward compability and then who knows if they still use AM4 or go for new socket as well or if they gonna support x470\b450 or not.

Also i cant find any comperhensive reviews on x570 boards and 3800x to see if there is actually a difference in binning for voltage and frequency. I still have time till august though.