10th gen Intel or i9-9900k?

[clayboi parti]

As Intel has alyways been releasing their top tier CPUs at the end or the beginning of the year I assume they gonna do it 2020 with CES. I'm planning to build a new rig for a bit of after effects, photoshop, encoding and mostly gaming. Due to gaming being the highest priority the higher benefits in workloads from AMD cpu's don't appeal to me. Now I'm curious if I should wait for the 10th gen or just go for the 9900k.

[Fasauceome]

Intel price drops are likely to appear before the new CPUs launch, lots of allusion to some reduced MSRPs. keep following price info for the 9900K and if you're patient then 10th gen might be worth getting.

[SpookyCitrus]

The gaming performance difference between Ryzen 3000 and 9th gen intel is negligible. The 9900k is end of life for Z390 meaning 10th gen will have an all new platform. Honestly you can wait for 10th gen to release and then decide as we don't know what to expect from it yet, but you should definitely look at some benchmarks or comparisons between the 3900x and 9900k before ruling AMD out completely

[clayboi parti]

57 minutes ago, SpookyCitrus said:

The gaming performance difference between Ryzen 3000 and 9th gen intel is negligible.

Im going to be playing 1440p 165hz just so that you know what I want to achieve. These links compare the cpu's directly paired with a 2080 super (in addition of 2080ti to see if there are any bottlenecks.) https://www.gpucheck.com/compare/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-super-vs-nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-ti/intel-core-i9-9900k-3-60ghz-vs-intel-core-i9-9900k-3-60ghz/high https://www.gpucheck.com/compare/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-ti-vs-nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-super/amd-ryzen-9-3900x-vs-amd-ryzen-9-3900x/high Both are at stock so when the i9 gets manually overclocked there could be even more performance gains. The Ryzen however is even more expensive in my region and as I said I can't really take advantage of the higher core count. 

 

1 hour ago, SpookyCitrus said:

The 9900k is end of life for Z390 meaning 10th gen will have an all new platform.

Can also be interpreted in a way that the Z370/Z390 platform is really near perfection.

 

 

[MadmanRB]

5 hours ago, clayboi parti said:

As Intel has alyways been releasing their top tier CPUs at the end or the beginning of the year I assume they gonna do it 2020 with CES. I'm planning to build a new rig for a bit of after effects, photoshop, encoding and mostly gaming. Due to gaming being the highest priority the higher benefits in workloads from AMD cpu's don't appeal to me. Now I'm curious if I should wait for the 10th gen or just go for the 9900k.

Eh in gaming the 9900K isnt too much better then the Ryzen 3700X, the numbers are not there to justify the 9900K IMHO.

Sure yes the intel is still better at gaming but it doesnt justify the price point of the 9900K

Spending $150 more for a mere 5-10% frame rate is just plain stupid plus we know that there is going to be a major microcode update for the Ryzen 3000 series here soon.

Since you dont plan on doing anything until next year lets see how AMD fares after the upcomming microcode update for zen 2, I am not saying that the microcode will make the zen2 processors "beat" intel but its already fairly close in the performance of a 9900K vs 3700X.

Zen2 still may have a few tricks up its sleeve and its already packing loads of performance per dollar right now.

 

[cried22]

1 hour ago, MadmanRB said:

Eh in gaming the 9900K isnt too much better then the Ryzen 3700X, the numbers are not there to justify the 9900K IMHO.

Sure yes the intel is still better at gaming but it doesnt justify the price point of the 9900K

Spending $150 more for a mere 5-10% frame rate is just plain stupid plus we know that there is going to be a major microcode update for the Ryzen 3000 series here soon.

Since you dont plan on doing anything until next year lets see how AMD fares after the upcomming microcode update for zen 2, I am not saying that the microcode will make the zen2 processors "beat" intel but its already fairly close in the performance of a 9900K vs 3700X.

Zen2 still may have a few tricks up its sleeve and its already packing loads of performance per dollar right now.

 

It's 10 to 15% improvement after overclocking, since the AMD chip can't overclock nearly as much. That is a huge improvement.

[MadmanRB]

Its still not enough to justify the $150 price difference plus cooler.

 

Now if the 9900K was 20% to 30% faster yes but the advantage that the 9900K has over the 3700X is not enough to justify its cost.

The margins in most frame rates in games is just too small to notice anyhow.

I mean ooh wow another 10 to 20FPS that sure justifies the cost boy howdy

 

Plus its not like the 9900K doesnt have its share of issues, it has been known for heat issues when overclocked (and you know its bad when AMD does better on temps) plus intel still has spectre/meltdown

[clayboi parti]

17 hours ago, SpookyCitrus said:

but you should definitely look at some benchmarks or comparisons between the 3900x and 9900k before ruling AMD out completely

I gotta admit I have already looked at some benchmarks before this but I just said AMD doesn’t appeal to get only Intel-related comments because I want to know, as mentioned in the beginning, whether the wait for 10th gen is worth or not. 

10 hours ago, MadmanRB said:

 

Plus its not like the 9900K doesnt have its share of issues, it has been known for heat issues when overclocked

I‘ve read for example that 8c16t gets relatively hot so 10c20t (I assume the i7 8c16t of 10th gen is viable too at this point) would be getting even hotter while still having the same architecture. That’s where I wanted to get the thread going tbh. 

[Windows7ge]

My own opinion is there's no point in waiting. Chip manufacturers are always announcing their next chip releases. It's a perpetual cycle of waiting. Not long after the 10th gen releases you'll start hearing rumors and then an official statement about 11th gen. You end up in a vicious cycle of waiting for the next chip just to hear about THE NEXT CHIP.

 

Personally I don't try to keep up with the latest & greatest. I lag 1 gen behind. It's cheaper. I always know what's coming next & most of the bugs are worked out before I get there. It's the best of everything.

[Jon Jon]

2 hours ago, clayboi parti said:

I gotta admit I have already looked at some benchmarks before this but I just said AMD doesn’t appeal to get only Intel-related comments because I want to know, as mentioned in the beginning, whether the wait for 10th gen is worth or not. 

I‘ve read for example that 8c16t gets relatively hot so 10c20t (I assume the i7 8c16t of 10th gen is viable too at this point) would be getting even hotter while still having the same architecture. That’s where I wanted to get the thread going tbh. 

For gaming only, I see no point in waiting for the 10c.

 

If you want the i9-9900K, just get it. Just be sure to get a good cooler to stabilize the 5ghz OC to max out your performance.

 

TBH, IDK why people are saying that the prices will go down when the next chips are released. Intel CPUs never drop in price.

[clayboi parti]

6 hours ago, Windows7ge said:

I always know what's coming next & most of the bugs are worked out before I get there

Yeah thats one thing that the z370/z390 boards can benefit from. But could it also be that the new said socket that 10th gen is going to use be more efficient in some way. Don't really know how the socket is affecting the overall performance, temps and everything. 

 

5 hours ago, Jon Jon said:

Just be sure to get a good cooler to stabilize the 5ghz OC to max out your performance.

Definitely gonna use the NH-D15.

 

6 hours ago, Windows7ge said:

My own opinion is there's no point in waiting

I get your point but imagine being back in summer and thinking about getting Zen+ or waiting a bit for Zen2. That's what I mean when I talk about 10th gen Intel. 

[Windows7ge]

6 minutes ago, clayboi parti said:

Yeah thats one thing that the z370/z390 boards can benefit from. But could it also be that the new said socket that 10th gen is going to use be more efficient in some way. Don't really know how the socket is affecting the overall performance, temps and everything. 

 

Unfortunately I'm not the right person to ask those questions. I can't give you an accurate answer, just an opinion.

 

7 minutes ago, clayboi parti said:

I get your point but imagine being back in summer and thinking about getting Zen+ or waiting a bit for Zen2. That's what I mean when I talk about 10th gen Intel. 

Well at the end of the day it's entirely up to you. I've just pitched in my two cents.

[spartaman64]

18 hours ago, cried22 said:

It's 10 to 15% improvement after overclocking, since the AMD chip can't overclock nearly as much. That is a huge improvement.

imo amd overclocking is just a bit different. instead of overclocking the clockspeed you overclock the infinity fabric

[Zberg]

21 hours ago, MadmanRB said:

Eh in gaming the 9900K isnt too much better then the Ryzen 3700X, the numbers are not there to justify the 9900K IMHO.

Sure yes the intel is still better at gaming but it doesnt justify the price point of the 9900K

Spending $150 more for a mere 5-10% frame rate is just plain stupid plus we know that there is going to be a major microcode update for the Ryzen 3000 series here soon.

Since you dont plan on doing anything until next year lets see how AMD fares after the upcomming microcode update for zen 2, I am not saying that the microcode will make the zen2 processors "beat" intel but its already fairly close in the performance of a 9900K vs 3700X.

Zen2 still may have a few tricks up its sleeve and its already packing loads of performance per dollar right now.

 

Ya it all depends.

 

I know guys who will spend 10,000+ dollars for a few more horsepower, smoother shifting, etc (car world).  If I told them their car could get 10% more performance for x dollars, they almost always take it, regardless of price.  Some people want the best, and those people will always be out there (and there are a lot of them).

 

3700x is an amazing value deal, no argument.  It hangs with the 9900k at base.  You cant OC a 3700x and if you do it barely does anything.  I have a 9900k at 5.1 on a D15, easy install, no maintenance , lots of people have it at 5.2 on custom loops.  The 3700x cant hang in those scenarios.  Countless threads are asking for "what would be BEST for gaming, etc" and its painful to see, invariably, everyone come out and say "but with AMD you save 100 dollars!!!!!! why would you build anything else?!?!?! but the price/CORES!!!!!!"

 

For the set it and forget it crowd, there is no better value than a 3600 or 3700x.  If you want to OC and push things hard (not liq nitrogen, which is just stupid), and get the highest frame rates possible, thats the 9900k right now.  

 

As an aside, I clearly buy and own AMD products, they are wonderful and will get intel to drop prices with their awesome SKUs recently released.  They are good and perform well.  But the answer to photoshop and gaming (from the OP), is high single thread performance.  The 9900k would suit them well.  

[Triboal]

Sure, you could wait but from what rumors are saying (pinch of salt as always) next gen (10th gen) Intel desktop is going to be 14nm+++++ so I wouldn't expect any big jumps with regards to performance. I think it's only 11th gen desktop that might see 10nm. Who knows I guess but it also depends what your situation is. If you're in need of a computer then just get the 9900K/KF/KS and be done with it. The 9900K is still an incredible CPU all things considered. Whilst if you have a system that works and can handle its jobs well for a few more months then wait for 10th gen and then make your decision.

[clayboi parti]

7 hours ago, Zberg said:

will get intel to drop prices

That should be in everyone’s favour. 

 

6 hours ago, GeLi said:

depends what your situation is. If you're in need of a computer then just get the 9900K/KF/KS and be done with it.

Definitely yes because I’m rocking an i3-4150 with a 750ti right now. Think I’m just gonna get the 9900KS with a NH-D15. 

 

Just don’t know which Z390 mainboard yet.

[Triboal]

5 hours ago, clayboi parti said:

Definitely yes because I’m rocking an i3-4150 with a 750ti right now. Think I’m just gonna get the 9900KS with a NH-D15. 

 

Just don’t know which Z390 mainboard yet.

Sounds like a good time to upgrade haha. 

 

The Gigabyte Z390 range is very good, including the Aorus Elite, Pro (WiFi), Ultra and Master. AsRock Taichi is also another solid choice - depends on price range as well to be honest. 

 

Use this for Z390 motherboard choice:

Then of the motherboards that suite your budget and have good power delivery for your 9900KS, pick the one that has the feature set you want and the aesthetics you like. 

 

Good luck!

[clayboi parti]

So this would be the rig then. Of course with the KS-edition when it comes out and I still need a case but for the rest I should be quite sure. 

 

PCPartPicker Part List

Type	Item	Price
CPU	Intel Core i9-9900K 3.6 GHz 8-Core Processor	€509.00 @ Caseking
CPU Cooler	Noctua NH-D15 82.5 CFM CPU Cooler	€87.79 @ Aquatuning
Motherboard	MSI MEG Z390 ACE ATX LGA1151 Motherboard	€282.26 @ Mindfactory
Memory	G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3200 Memory	€136.16 @ Mindfactory
Storage	Crucial P1 500 GB M.2-2280 NVME Solid State Drive	€69.90 @ Amazon Deutschland
Storage	Crucial P1 1 TB M.2-2280 NVME Solid State Drive	€99.00 @ Amazon Deutschland
Storage	Seagate Barracuda 2 TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive	€68.50 @ Amazon Deutschland
Video Card	MSI GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER 8 GB GAMING X TRIO Video Card	€819.20 @ Amazon Deutschland
Power Supply	Corsair RM (2019) 750 W 80+ Gold Certified Fully Modular ATX Power Supply	€102.56 @ Mindfactory
Monitor	AOC AG241QG 23.8" 2560x1440 165 Hz Monitor	€445.99 @ Amazon Deutschland
	Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts
	Total	€2620.36
	Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-10-16 23:37 CEST+0200

 

[MadmanRB]

why the 2 NVME drives?

Even for video rendering that seems a bit silly, you can just get the 1TB NVME as both a file storage and boot drive and save the rest for another traditional hard drive.

Remember that SSD's dont give you more FPS they only make games load faster and for video rendering you only need 1 NVME drive to get something workable.

[Zando_]

11 minutes ago, MadmanRB said:

why the 2 NVME drives?

Even for video rendering that seems a bit silly, you can just get the 1TB NVME as both a file storage and boot drive and save the rest for another traditional hard drive.

Remember that SSD's dont give you more FPS they only make games load faster and for video rendering you only need 1 NVME drive to get something workable.

NVMe drives are often cheaper than SATA SSDs now (at least in USD on the US PCPartPicker), and often within $3-10 so why not get an NVMe one? 

[MadmanRB]

5 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

NVMe drives are often cheaper than SATA SSDs now (at least in USD on the US PCPartPicker), and often within $3-10 so why not get an NVMe one? 

True but my question want about that.

I was asking why have two NVME drives, seems redundant as that extra cash can go into 1 or maybe 2 traditional hard drives which are still better in price for mass storage.

[Kilrah]

On 10/15/2019 at 6:22 AM, MadmanRB said:

Its still not enough to justify the $150 price difference plus cooler.

To you. 

 

For my build I needed an iGPU - can't have that with Ryzen 7. Makes up for the difference for me, even if on all other counts an R7 would have been more appropriate. $150 is also not much compared to total system cost.

 

On 10/15/2019 at 6:22 AM, MadmanRB said:

plus intel still has spectre/meltdown

The 9th gen K CPUs have hardware fixes for those. And AMD has "teething issues"...

[Zando_]

5 minutes ago, MadmanRB said:

True but my question want about that.

I was asking why have two NVME drives, seems redundant as that extra cash can go into 1 or maybe 2 traditional hard drives which are still better in price for mass storage.

If you have a decent budget, go all SSD, that's my opinion. SSDs are just snappier overall and make everything easier and faster, aka they're more convenient. I have some HDDs for mass storage, but not in my main rig (watercooling hardware blocks all the 3.5" HDD mount points), I plan to move those to a NAS at some point. 

Also if you're loading games on them, depending on the game you do actually get a very noticeable decrease in loading times. If you're copying files they're much, much faster (though lower end NVMe drives can start fast then slow down to lower than HDD speeds AFAIK so get quality ones) as well. Take up less space too. 

[MadmanRB]

1 minute ago, Zando Bob said:

If you have a decent budget, go all SSD, that's my opinion. SSDs are just snappier overall and make everything easier and faster, aka they're more convenient. I have some HDDs for mass storage, but not in my main rig (watercooling hardware blocks all the 3.5" HDD mount points), I plan to move those to a NAS at some point. 

Also if you're loading games on them, depending on the game you do actually get a very noticeable decrease in loading times. If you're copying files they're much, much faster (though lower end NVMe drives can start fast then slow down to lower than HDD speeds AFAIK so get quality ones) as well. Take up less space too. 

 

I just think too many modern builders forget about the need for mass storage and sure standard hard drives are not as compact or fast as SSD's but still have the leg up in cost factor.

If large capacity SSD's were more affordable I would recommend them

[Zando_]

1 minute ago, MadmanRB said:

 

I just think too many modern builders forget about the need for mass storage and sure standard hard drives are not as compact or fast as SSD's but still have the leg up in cost factor.

If large capacity SSD's were more affordable I would recommend them

True, though if you're just playing games then 2TB of SSD storage is what I'd recommend (if you can afford it). My 1TB 970 Evo keeps getting too full, but then I do record some gameplay and have a bunch of mods and stuff too, as well as my main games being rather large (such as Destiny 2, it's 80GB or so). 

Though you can always go for a standard 1TB SSD now and add HDDs later on pretty easily if you run out of space.