Wait for 3950X or go with the I9?

[Matteoking4]

Hi Guys, 

 

I game mostly on my system with some casual editing/dev/system work. I want to upgrade my i7-6800K to a new beast. I want a cpu that works best at lower resolution gaming. Now should I go with the I9 ? Or wait for the 3950x to launch?

 

What are you guys expecting from the 3950x :)?

 

Greetings,

 

 

Mat

[Zando_]

Wait for the 3950X, or get the 3900X now if you can't wait. Even the 3700X is on par with the i9 9900K (I assume that's the i9 you're referring to), so it's not really a good option for most use cases. 

[Matteoking4]

1 minute ago, Zando Bob said:

Wait for the 3950X, or get the 3900X now if you can't wait. Even the 3700X is on par with the i9 9900K (I assume that's the i9 you're referring to), so it's not really a good option for most use cases. 

Yeah but at 1080p, Intel is still king most of the times ;). You think things will turn with the 3950X?

[vanished]

Unless something radically changes between now and then, we can be reasonably confident that the 3950X will be a tremendous performer, both for workstation tasks obviously, but also for gaming, and all at a good price, which is quite contrary to Intel's high end offerings that tend to trade in gaming performance for workstation power (more cores but slower), and all at an obscene price compared to AMD.

 

3 minutes ago, Matteoking4 said:

Yeah but at 1080p, Intel is still king most of the times ;). You think things will turn with the 3950X?

This is true only to the extent that in some very fringe cases it manages to get up to 10% ahead, but in some games, it's actually losing to the 3900X, and that's to say nothing of the fact the 3900X brings so much more workstation performance for the same price, all at a lower TDP to boot.

[5x5]

4 minutes ago, Matteoking4 said:

Yeah but at 1080p, Intel is still king most of the times ;). You think things will turn with the 3950X?

You mean barely 4-5% ahead and only when overclocked with the CPU using 200W by itself? Yeah, sure is killing the space heater industry...

 

EDIT: The 3700X is already better value than the 9900K - the 3900X is basically a death sentence to any argument in favour of the 9900K

[Zando_]

6 minutes ago, Matteoking4 said:

Yeah but at 1080p, Intel is still king most of the times ;). You think things will turn with the 3950X?

It's consistently behind by 10-11 fps, a difference you won't even notice because it's pulling over 120fps most of the time anyways: https://www.techspot.com/article/1876-4ghz-ryzen-3rd-gen-vs-core-i9/

This is with a 2080 Ti at 1080p too, a totally overkill card and currently the worst case scenario for any gaming CPU/single GPU setup. All locked to 4GHz as well, stock both CPUs boost to similar clocks. 

[Matteoking4]

You guys convinced me, guess I'll just wait a bit longer for some benchmarks to show up. (Just to be sure :))

I would really like to jump on the 7nm wagon, think it would make a nice all red build with my vega64. 

[Faresr]

Anyone have any indication of the release date (other than "september") ? I've been waiting for this since march and seeing everyone with their r3000 saddens me  .

[brob]

4 hours ago, Zando Bob said:

Even the 3700X is on par with the i9 9900K

 

This is not true. At 1080, the 3700X is close to the i9-9900K in some titles, even marginally better in some. But in most the i9-9900K is more than marginally better. In fact so is the i7-9700K.

 

What is true is that the 3700X is about US$30 less expensive than the i7-9700K. If one puts it in a B450 motherboard it becomes a good choice for a gaming system.

 

[Do you really wanna know]

Am really curious about the question...

 

" I want a cpu that works best at lower resolution gaming" - But you have an i7 6800K? That's already way way beyond lower resolution gaming.

 

A 3950X is a top 'o the range home/semi-pro video encoding CPU, so you're way way above your desired spec.

 

There is a lot of pants and nonsense talked about the 3950x. That CPU is many things, but what it most definitely isn't, is a low res gaming CPU. Ignore anyone that say differently, and just watch the reviews of the 3900X...

 

There are far too many 'gamers' that just don't understand what CPUs do, or what they are designed for. To meet your needs as you describe, a 3600 would be more than adequate, as would your existing set-up!

 

Maybe if you say whats wrong with your existing set-up, it would be easier to decide, but for low res gaming and light encoding, you're already way way over spec as I said...

[vanished]

5 hours ago, Do you really wanna know said:

[...]There is a lot of pants and nonsense talked about the 3950x. That CPU is many things, but what it most definitely isn't, is a low res gaming CPU. [...]

Certainly it wasn't designed with low res gaming in mind, and certainly it's more than you need for a good experience, and certainly it can do so much more than just that, but with all that said, I don't think you can deny that it would be a fantastic CPU for this purpose.  What we've seen from the AMD lineup so far is that as you step up the product stack to get more cores, they also increase the clockspeed, so it's better across the board.  This is different than what we've seen in the past from Intel's high end stuff where the best gaming chip is typically the top "consumer" CPU, and to go above that and get more cores means to give up some clockspeed.  If we assume they'll continue this trend for the 3950X, which imo there is every reason to expect that they will, we should see it match or out perform the 3900X in gaming.  Again, yes of course it's overkill for just gaming, but that doesn't mean it won't also be the best for it, and I assume OP is doing something else too or they wouldn't have the 6800k to begin with, as you mentioned.

[Matteoking4]

11 hours ago, Do you really wanna know said:

Am really curious about the question...

 

" I want a cpu that works best at lower resolution gaming" - But you have an i7 6800K? That's already way way beyond lower resolution gaming.

 

A 3950X is a top 'o the range home/semi-pro video encoding CPU, so you're way way above your desired spec.

 

There is a lot of pants and nonsense talked about the 3950x. That CPU is many things, but what it most definitely isn't, is a low res gaming CPU. Ignore anyone that say differently, and just watch the reviews of the 3900X...

 

There are far too many 'gamers' that just don't understand what CPUs do, or what they are designed for. To meet your needs as you describe, a 3600 would be more than adequate, as would your existing set-up!

 

Maybe if you say whats wrong with your existing set-up, it would be easier to decide, but for low res gaming and light encoding, you're already way way over spec as I said...

Hi,

 

Yeah I am just not hitting the 144fps, which is something I would like to hit so my monitor is working as hard as it can :). I was unlucky with the Silicon lottery and can't get the CPU stable above 4 ghz. With a new top of the line CPU, I am expecting  20 fps increase.

 

Is this a reasonable expectation  ?

 

 

[Matteoking4]

6 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Certainly it wasn't designed with low res gaming in mind, and certainly it's more than you need for a good experience, and certainly it can do so much more than just that, but with all that said, I don't think you can deny that it would be a fantastic CPU for this purpose.  What we've seen from the AMD lineup so far is that as you step up the product stack to get more cores, they also increase the clockspeed, so it's better across the board.  This is different than what we've seen in the past from Intel's high end stuff where the best gaming chip is typically the top "consumer" CPU, and to go above that and get more cores means to give up some clockspeed.  If we assume they'll continue this trend for the 3950X, which imo there is every reason to expect that they will, we should see it match or out perform the 3900X in gaming.  Again, yes of course it's overkill for just gaming, but that doesn't mean it won't also be the best for it, and I assume OP is doing something else too or they wouldn't have the 6800k to begin with, as you mentioned.

When building my previous system I opted for the 6800K cause at that time I was going through College as a IT student.

So needed that power and the threads for various things but mostly virtualized labs. Now that I finished my education I don't really use it that much for that, but it will certainly come in handy soon.

[vanished]

Just now, Matteoking4 said:

When building my previous system I opted for the 6800K cause at that time I was going through College as a IT student.

So needed that power and the threads for various things but mostly virtualized labs. Now that I finished my education I don't really use it that much for that, but it will certainly come in handy soon.

Well whatever you're doing, if it is something that can actually use the extra cores of the 3900x or 3950x, then they are the obvious choice.  As mentioned, the gaming performance differences between the 3900x and 9900k are not game changing, but the multi-threaded lead of the 3900x certainly is, if you're going to use it.

[brob]

6 hours ago, Matteoking4 said:

Hi,

 

Yeah I am just not hitting the 144fps, which is something I would like to hit so my monitor is working as hard as it can :). I was unlucky with the Silicon lottery and can't get the CPU stable above 4 ghz. With a new top of the line CPU, I am expecting  20 fps increase.

 

Is this a reasonable expectation  ?

 

 

 

GPU has much more to do with fps than cpu. Simply upgrading the cpu is unlikely to garner a 20 fps increase on the same gpu. 

[vanished]

9 hours ago, brob said:

GPU has much more to do with fps than cpu. Simply upgrading the cpu is unlikely to garner a 20 fps increase on the same gpu. 

Unless you've already got a powerful GPU and the CPU was old enough to hold it back that significantly, but an 6800k is no slouch.  I'm going to try and find benchmarks actually now because I'm curious.

 

Edit: actually that didn't take long and it's more meaningful here than I would have guessed:

Here's a 3900x vs a lot of other things, including a Ryzen 2600.  I mention that chip because when both it and the 6800k are at stock, they're functionally the same from what I can tell by looking at other benchmarks.  It would appear that there is indeed enough of a gap to gain ~20 fps in many titles at 1080p, but aAn overclock on the 6800k would close the gap by about half though in theory.