9900K and 9900

[Wingfan]

If im not gonna OC, does the non K  performs very similar?

Sorry for the noob question.

[Stormseeker9]

9 minutes ago, Wingfan said:

If im not gonna OC, does the non K  performs very similar?

Sorry for the noob question.

If you are not going to overclock don’t get a K sku. Non K chips are just locked multiplier etc 

[Fasauceome]

Turbo is the same, the only difference would be potentially enabling multi core enhancement in the BIOS but you could save so much money with a cheaper motherboard with a non k

[jones177]

K chips are usually a bit faster but I have not seen any benches on these yet. The TDP is lower(65 vs 95) so it should be slower.

 

I would go for the KF version for $30 more. 

[LukeSavenije]

9 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

but you could save so much money with a cheaper motherboard with a non k

though i wouldn't aim lower than a low end z370/z390 like the pro4 and ud, or go for a b360/b365

[LukeSavenije]

Just now, jones177 said:

The TDP is lower

while both are a lie, as we know

 

it's lower because the base speed on the 9900 is lower, and this seems to be where intel measures

2 minutes ago, jones177 said:

would go for the KF version for $30 more.

and what if op has a good use for quick sync?

[Fasauceome]

1 minute ago, LukeSavenije said:

though i wouldn't aim lower than a low end z370/z390 like the pro4 and ud, or go for a b360/b365

Unless ram speed above 2666 is a priority

[Wingfan]

Guys this was a question i was asked,  from Intel guy and wants to replace his 6700K

So it doesnt HAVE to be on an Z board? He just games and a few small work programs.
And i thought Intel was lowering prices substantially? Havent seen that yet, but dont look everyday.

[Princess Luna]

49 minutes ago, Wingfan said:

If im not gonna OC, does the non K  performs very similar?

Sorry for the noob question.

Their turbo boost table are the same yes.

[jones177]

Just now, LukeSavenije said:

while both are a lie, as we know

 

it's lower because the base speed on the 9900 is lower, and this seems to be where intel measures

and what if op has a good use for quick sync?

I am going by the difference between the i7 8700 and i7 8700k.

 

If quick sync was so important why are people buying high core count Ryzen CPUs?  

To be honest I would only buy the i9 9900k since the difference in price is not an issue for me and the last video editing program I used was Premiere.

 

[SupaKomputa]

9 minutes ago, jones177 said:

If quick sync was so important why are people buying high core count Ryzen CPUs?  

Because it's not. Unlike Final cut pro that required quicksync to work. Apps on windows can simply work without it.

I edit in premiere, vegas and AE for since upgraded to ryzen 1600.

[LukeSavenije]

50 minutes ago, Wingfan said:

So it doesnt HAVE to be on an Z board

only when you get a k series, it's a similar story to that with b vs z

 

31 minutes ago, jones177 said:

quick sync was so important why are people buying high core count Ryzen CPUs?  

because not everything benefits from it

 

something like adobe with ring bus, quick sync and cuda performs great

[Princess Luna]

30 minutes ago, jones177 said:

I am going by the difference between the i7 8700 and i7 8700k.

What difference? a stock 8700K and a 8700 when you have no power or temperature restriction and max out turbo states they perform the same as both share the 4.3ghz all cores turbo.

 

31 minutes ago, jones177 said:

If quick sync was so important why are people buying high core count Ryzen CPUs?

Quicksync can be extremely useful and if your workload can benefit from it then it will outperform higher core count Ryzen processors.

 

It is a matter of buying the correct hardware for the correct software, no more no less:

[jones177]

5 minutes ago, Princess Luna said:

What difference? a stock 8700K and a 8700 when you have no power or temperature restriction and max out turbo states they perform the same as both share the 4.3ghz all cores turbo.

 

Quicksync can be extremely useful and if your workload can benefit from it then it will outperform higher core count Ryzen processors.

 

It is a matter of buying the correct hardware for the correct software, no more no less:

I thought the difference was in the boost clock. At the time I bought my i7 8700k I did compare it to the i7 8700 and at stock the K chip was only 1 to 2 fps quicker in games. I don't buy CPUs to run at stock so the i7 8700 was a non starter for me. 

 

The last time I used AMD CPUs for my business was way back in 2007 and I had to drop them because of software issues. It was costly so I am still shy when it comes to AMD. If I had to start making money with my computers again I would still go with Intel since I can not take the risk of missing a deadline the could lose a client. That is also why I use 2 computers and spare everything. 

[Wingfan]

This has to be the longest thread i ever started. Some very good info/reading . 

Hey @Stormseeker9 , how is that 2700X working for you? Im switching to AMD this Fall during the sales, probably 3700X. But it all comes down to price and X570' really need to price cut.

[Stormseeker9]

8 minutes ago, Wingfan said:

This has to be the longest thread i ever started. Some very good info/reading . 

Hey @Stormseeker9 , how is that 2700X working for you? Im switching to AMD this Fall during the sales, probably 3700X. But it all comes down to price and X570' really need to price cut.

Whatever I’ve thrown at it in the last 8 months or so, it works flawless.

 

can recommend the 2700x