When will Intel's 10th gen i9 be available for purchase?

[Zando_]

45 minutes ago, OlympicAssEater said:

If you oc your 5960x then obviously you will beating 2700x because it is no longer stock on stock comparison. If we compare stock on stock then 2700x is not far behind than 5960x rather neck to neck with 5960x. In addition, 2700x is more future upgradable on AM4 than 5960x and 2700x is a good deal for budget productivity. $190 for a year old 8c/16t cpu. 

 

Intel 14nm is no exciting anymore than AMD 7nm on Zen 2. Intel is struggling to go away 14nm while AMD done 12nm to 7nm in a year so what give Intel? 8700k vs 9700k is not huge performance different to justify the price for upgrade. Unlike AMD, 2700x vs 3700x is a huge different in productivity.

 

I use to be Intel gamer but now I am AMD because 3700x vs 9900k is neck to neck on stock. $330 able to hold its ground against over $475.

As I said, with the rise of Zen 2, X99 has lost a lot of the price/performance advantages it has. Fact still is that an OCed 5960X will beat an OCed 2700X in performance (it’s hotter and now that Zen 2 is out, more expensive, but that only effects price/perf, not perf alone) though.  

 

2700X is the best of it’s gen, on X99 you can upgrade from the 5960X to the 6950X. Would admittedly be slower than the 3900X and definitely far behind the 3950X, but performance wise there is room to move. AM4 also has far less PCIe lanes and no quad channel RAM and probs some other stuff the X99 HEDT platform does. 
 

Also you complain about Intel 14nm, but AMD had to move to 7nm to even compete on a core to core basis. Their 12nm Zen and Zen+ were only slightly better than Intel’s 22nm Haswell/Haswell-E chips. Intel may have been stuck on 14nm for a good while now, but they’ve also tuned it pretty finely. 

 

Is AMD therefore bad? No, they’re offering killer price/performance, have since Ryzen launch and it’s only gotten better. Intel isn’t bad either, they still win out on single core due to OC headroom, and if you’re in the niche section of gamers running HEDT because they like the platform (like me), AMD still can’t compete because Threadripper gaming performance is pretty eh. 

And like Damascus pointed out earlier, if your workload can’t scale to all the cores a Threadripper has (heck even windows itself has issues with the 32 core IIRC), you’ll get better performance out of a lower core but higher clock Intel chip. 

Yet again, neither side is shit and there’s plenty of valid reasons to like Intel same as there are AMD. A personal preference shouldn’t get in the way of helping someone out. OP legit just asked if there was a solid release date for some hardware they’re hyped about, not “hey guys should I go Ryzen instead?”. 

Basically what I’m saying is quit slamming people with AMD unless it actually fits their wants first, and then needs. If you can convince them they want AMD then heck yeah, it’ll be a great platform. OP was just pretty darn clear they wanted Intel. 

[BecauseICanTBH]

1 hour ago, Deli said:

If money isn't an issue. You should get the Xeon W-3175X and Asus Dominus Extreme. Why get the 10980XE like a peasant? A $1000 CPU is for poor people only.

If I did, wouldn't you desperately try to sway me into getting the TR 3990X instead?

[BecauseICanTBH]

1 hour ago, Damascus said:

@BecauseICanTBH what workload do you do, specifically?  You might be better served by a much faster 10-14c chip over the 18c equivalent.  The majority of HCC tasks cap out well before 10c/20t, let alone 18c/36t but you'll lose up to .5ghz or more in the clockspeed arena 

Video editing. But since I don't use shitty Premiere like everyone else, I can render with my GPU, which is already super fast. So I'm mainly looking for better timeline/scrubbing performance. I can't say for sure, but I think I'd benefit from more cores instead of the extra .5 ghz in clock speed.

[Deli]

1 minute ago, BecauseICanTBH said:

If I did, wouldn't you desperately try to sway me into getting the TR 3990X instead?

Get both, why not?

[Flying Sausages]

9 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

As I said, with the rise of Zen 2, X99 has lost a lot of the advantages it has. Fact is that an OCed 5960X will beat an OCed 2700X in performance (it’s hotter and now that Zen 2 is out, more expensive, but that only effects price/perf, not perf alone). 

 

2700X is the best of it’s gen, on X99 you can upgrade from the 5960X to the 6950X. Would admittedly be slower than the 3900X and definitely far behind the 3950X, but performance wise there is room to move. AM4 also has far less PCIe lanes and no quad channel RAM and probs some other stuff the X99 HEDT platform does. 
 

Also you complain about Intel 14nm, but AMD had to move to 7nm to even compete on a core to core basis. Their 12nm Zen and Zen+ were only slightly better than Intel’s 22nm Haswell/Haswell-E chips. Intel may have been stuck on 14nm for a good while now, but they’ve also tuned it pretty finely. 

 

Is AMD therefore bad? No, they’re offering killer price/performance, have since Ryzen launch and it’s only gotten better. Intel isn’t bad either, they still win out on single core due to OC headroom, and if you’re in the niche section of gamers running HEDT because they like the platform (like me), AMD still can’t compete because Threadripper gaming performance is pretty eh. 

And like Damascus pointed out earlier, if your workload can’t scale to all the cores a Threadripper has (heck even windows itself has issues with the 32 core IIRC), you’ll get better performance out of a lower core but higher clock Intel chip. 

Yet again, neither side is shit and there’s plenty of valid reasons to like Intel same as there are AMD. A personal preference shouldn’t get in the way of helping someone out. OP legit just asked if there was a solid release date for some hardware they’re hyped about, not “hey guys should I go Ryzen instead?”. 

Basically what I’m saying is quit slamming people with AMD unless it actually fits their wants first, and then needs. If you can convince them they want AMD then heck yeah, it’ll be a great platform. OP was just pretty darn clear they wanted Intel. 

OP reason for not going with AMD is bs. AMD is for people who can't afford Intel and broke people and his past AMD cpu died therefore he refused to go with AMD only Intel. Intel needs to move away 14nm because 8700k, 9700k, and 9900k are on max Intel cursed 14nm that is hot asf. Performance jump on 14nm last gen and this gen is not a lot like 8700k and 9700k. Intel 14nm is pretty laughable.

 

If OP wants to go with Intel then go ahead because it is his $$ not mine. I am along others here offer AMD for better option.

 

 

 

[BecauseICanTBH]

1 minute ago, Deli said:

Get both, why not?

Anything to get me to buy something from AMD, right? LMAO

[Zando_]

1 minute ago, OlympicAssEater said:

OP reason for not going with AMD is bs. AMD is for people who can't afford Intel and broke people and his past AMD cpu died therefore he refused to go with AMD only Intel. Intel needs to move away 14nm because 8700k, 9700k, and 9900k are on max Intel cursed 14nm that is hot asf.

 

 

OK so your whole argument so far is 14nm bad even though AMD’s 7nm can barely compete with ringbus chips on single core due to noticeably lower clock headroom? Given the OP doesn’t care about budget, I’m pretty sure they can manage to scrape together enough hardware to cool the chip too. 
 

1 minute ago, BecauseICanTBH said:

Anything to get me to buy something from AMD, right? LMAO

Go Intel, dewit. I double dog dare you to.

[Flying Sausages]

10 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

OK so your whole argument so far is 14nm bad even though AMD’s 7nm can barely compete with ringbus chips on single core due to noticeably lower clock headroom?

Intel has better single core performance because it has higher clock than 3700x. 9900k can easily clock 5ghz on all core while 3700x can't oc pass its boost speed without dumping 1.5v+ into the cpu. If 3700x can oc to 5ghz than it will going to shake the market against 9900k very quick. In multi core, 3700x is not really far behind against $479 i9 9900k on stock. 9900k is a hot chip due to 14nm max out and Intel goose tim use on the die. Whether money is a problem or not, you can't just ignore competitor that is rival the tough dawg at a good price/performance.

 

I use to be Intel boy but now AMD boy because I just can't ignore the $330 can hold its ground against $479 9900k.

 

[Deli]

14 minutes ago, BecauseICanTBH said:

Anything to get me to buy something from AMD, right? LMAO

It's not my money. I don't care.

[Zando_]

1 minute ago, OlympicAssEater said:

Intel has better single core performance because it has higher clock than 3700x. 9900k can easily clock 5ghz on all core while 3700x can't oc pass its boost speed without dumping 1.5v+ into the cpu. If 3700x can oc to 5ghz than it will going to shake the market against 9900k very quick. In multi core, 3700x is not really far behind against $479 i9 9900k on stock. 9900k is a hot chip due to 14nm max out and Intel goose tim use on the die. Whether money is a problem or not, you can't just ignore competitor that is rival the tough dawg at a good price/performance.
-snip-

I mean you can. OP made it clear they don’t care about price/perf and they’d pay 3 times more for Intel because they’ve had a better experience with them. Hell the name @BecauseICanTBH should tip you off lmao. 

Hell I moved from a 2700X to an OCed X5675 that could barely compete with a stock R5 1600 because it was more fun. There’s plenty of reasons why someone can ignore price/performance. Your arguments would only make any sense if the OP was on a budget and wanted a cool running chip. They’ve made it clear that they do not care at all about that. 

[Damascus]

22 minutes ago, BecauseICanTBH said:

Video editing. But since I don't use shitty Premiere like everyone else, I can render with my GPU, which is already super fast. So I'm mainly looking for better timeline/scrubbing performance. I can't say for sure, but I think I'd benefit from more cores instead of the extra .5 ghz in clock speed.

Let me just reiterate:

1 hour ago, Damascus said:

what workload do you do, specifically? 

"Not shitty premiere" does exactly nothing to allow anyone to help you

[BecauseICanTBH]

8 minutes ago, Damascus said:

Let me just reiterate:

"Not shitty premiere" does exactly nothing to allow anyone to help you

I edit with Vegas Pro 16, which supports GPU rendering. What I'm saying is that by upgrading my CPU, I'm not looking for faster render times, because they're already very fast. I'm looking for better performance during the editing process. 

 

For example, when I scrub through 4k footage now, all 12 threads on my 8700k are at around 95%, none peaking at 100%. My interpretation of that is that the program would benefit from more cores rather than a higher clock speed.

 

EDIT: To add to that, the GPU usage only reaches about 70% while scrubbing through footage on the timeline.

[Damascus]

2 hours ago, BecauseICanTBH said:

I edit with Vegas Pro 16, which supports GPU rendering. What I'm saying is that by upgrading my CPU, I'm not looking for faster render times, because they're already very fast. I'm looking for better performance during the editing process. 

 

For example, when I scrub through 4k footage now, all 12 threads on my 8700k are at around 95%, none peaking at 100%. My interpretation of that is that the program would benefit from more cores rather than a higher clock speed.

 

EDIT: To add to that, the GPU usage only reaches about 70% while scrubbing through footage on the timeline.

Whelp, looked around and nobody benchmarks vegas, or even scrubbing performance.  May as well huck a 10980xe at it, and now the important part is planning how to cool it lol

[BecauseICanTBH]

4 hours ago, Damascus said:

Whelp, looked around and nobody benchmarks vegas, or even scrubbing performance.  May as well huck a 10980xe at it, and now the important part is planning how to cool it lol

Well I'm buying a Cerberus X case to move my build to since I'm getting a new motherboard. I currently have a Thermaltake Core X5 and it's an absolute monster to move, so I want something super compact this time.

 

That being said, I'm limited to 142mm cooler height and I'm not water cooling because it's a hassle.

 

My plan is to cool it with a Noctua NH-D9L, which may or may not actually keep it from thermal throttling for long tasks like rendering, but will probably do just fine for the short spikes of the editing process.

 

 

[ImAyaanKhan]

On 11/11/2019 at 11:58 AM, BecauseICanTBH said:

For some people, believe it or not, money isn't an issue. So it's a choice of brand. The only argument I've ever heard in AMD's favor is for people who can't afford Intel and need every bit of performance for every penny they spend.

 

I personally don't give a shit, Intel has always proven reliable to me, whether or not AMD has for others. So I choose Intel. I'd pay triple for their products.

That is some dangerously retarded fanboyism right there

And please be more believable next time you attempt to troll on this forum

[ImAyaanKhan]

19 hours ago, BecauseICanTBH said:

Video editing. But since I don't use shitty Premiere like everyone else, I can render with my GPU, which is already super fast. So I'm mainly looking for better timeline/scrubbing performance. I can't say for sure, but I think I'd benefit from more cores instead of the extra .5 ghz in clock speed.

At this point, the forum should leave you alone. You are nothing but a hopeless case and an entitled brat wasting people's time on here.

Plus, judging by the way you talk, your not even that "rich" cocky boy. My parents make around 700k a year and yet I chose to do budget builds because I don't want to be seen as entitled or anything like that. 

Plus, budget builds are fun, especially when it comes to grabbing the best performance for your money.

Bottom line, be real here, or gtfo

[BecauseICanTBH]

7 minutes ago, ImAyaanKhan said:

At this point, the forum should leave you alone. You are nothing but a hopeless case and an entitled brat wasting people's time on here.

Plus, judging by the way you talk, your not even that "rich" cocky boy. My parents make around 700k a year and yet I chose to do budget builds because I don't want to be seen as entitled or anything like that. 

Plus, budget builds are fun, especially when it comes to grabbing the best performance for your money.

Bottom line, be real here, or gtfo

lol u mad

[ImAyaanKhan]

11 hours ago, BecauseICanTBH said:

lol u mad

And you're a troll

[Damascus]

6 hours ago, BecauseICanTBH said:

Well I'm buying a Cerberus X case to move my build to since I'm getting a new motherboard. I currently have a Thermaltake Core X5 and it's an absolute monster to move, so I want something super compact this time.

 

That being said, I'm limited to 142mm cooler height and I'm not water cooling because it's a hassle.

 

My plan is to cool it with a Noctua NH-D9L, which may or may not actually keep it from thermal throttling for long tasks like rendering, but will probably do just fine for the short spikes of the editing process.

 

 

Aish, from my personal experience a u12xdi4 (u12 equivalent) was barely enough to keep a 7820x happy, you might want to look into alternatives.  Maybe a DR top flow or an NH-C14S, even aios

[BecauseICanTBH]

4 hours ago, Damascus said:

Aish, from my personal experience a u12xdi4 (u12 equivalent) was barely enough to keep a 7820x happy, you might want to look into alternatives.  Maybe a DR top flow or an NH-C14S, even aios

 

Happy during what? Gaming?

 

I don't really care if my CPU throttles during prolonged heavy loads. I mainly want it to be able to handle brief spikes of performance.

 

I'm not the biggest fan of the heat sink designs that hang out off the motherboard like the C14S. I like to be able to move my case around without worrying about packing it with padding. The design of the D9L just seems generally more grounded to the motherboard and stable. 

 

Does this design

 

 

actually provide superior cooling to this one?

 

 

I'm no physicist, but I think the D9L would be better, especially with vertically oriented fins blowing the air straight up through my case, in alignment with the case airflow. 

 

I'm hesitant to look to anyone but Noctua for cooling, because (you guessed it): reliability.

[Damascus]

16 minutes ago, BecauseICanTBH said:

 

Happy during what? Gaming?

 

I don't really care if my CPU throttles during prolonged heavy loads. I mainly want it to be able to handle brief spikes of performance.

 

I'm not the biggest fan of the heat sink designs that hang out off the motherboard like the C14S. I like to be able to move my case around without worrying about packing it with padding. The design of the D9L just seems generally more grounded to the motherboard and stable. 

 

Does this design

 

 

actually provide superior cooling to this one?

 

 

I'm no physicist, but I think the D9L would be better, especially with vertically oriented fins blowing the air straight up through my case, in alignment with the case airflow. 

 

I'm hesitant to look to anyone but Noctua for cooling, because (you guessed it): reliability.

Yep, the C14 is definitely superior to the U9s, let alone it's slightly inferior cousin, the D9L.  You get fans that are more than twice the surface area and a massively larger heatsink to boot.  Your comments on airflow (especially in a cerb) are valid though, so a U9s with extra fans might be the better pick all around.  Even the D9L would be fine, especially if you put 3 fans on it.

 

I should note though, all of the above coolers will easily go to 75c on a 7900x, so you're at least going to see serious throttling, and potentially massive throttling

[BecauseICanTBH]

7 minutes ago, Damascus said:

Yep, the C14 is definitely superior to the U9s, let alone it's slightly inferior cousin, the D9L.  You get fans that are more than twice the surface area and a massively larger heatsink to boot.  Your comments on airflow (especially in a cerb) are valid though, so a U9s with extra fans might be the better pick all around.  Even the D9L would be fine, especially if you put 3 fans on it.

 

I should note though, all of the above coolers will easily go to 75c on a 7900x, so you're at least going to see serious throttling, and potentially massive throttling

I'll certainly consider a U9S. I'll have to consider RAM and GPU compatibility with my board, especially if I were to add extra fans to either that or the D9L. Making things more challenging is the fact that the TJ on the 10980XE is only 86C.

 

I appreciate the insight.

[Harry Voyager]

20 hours ago, OlympicAssEater said:

Intel has better single core performance because it has higher clock than 3700x. 9900k can easily clock 5ghz on all core while 3700x can't oc pass its boost speed without dumping 1.5v+ into the cpu. If 3700x can oc to 5ghz than it will going to shake the market against 9900k very quick. In multi core, 3700x is not really far behind against $479 i9 9900k on stock. 9900k is a hot chip due to 14nm max out and Intel goose tim use on the die. Whether money is a problem or not, you can't just ignore competitor that is rival the tough dawg at a good price/performance.

 

I use to be Intel boy but now AMD boy because I just can't ignore the $330 can hold its ground against $479 9900k.

 

 

It's very close at this point and depends heavily on whether or not the application has optimizations for Intel. My application was looking for single thread performance, and what I found was I was able to get better single thread performance from the 3800X on an AIO before enabling PBO than I was likely to get from the I9-9900KS. With PBO enabled, I'm getting around the single thread performance of a 5.1-5.2Ghz I9, provided the scheduler uses the best core. 

 

I'll have to check the numbers, but I believe my best single thread number was 3150, compatible to a 5.2 I9 of 3190.

 

Further, in multi thread, I was able to get a ~24,000 compared to the typical i

i9-9900K of about 20,000. Note, this is an 8 core CPU, same as the I9-9900K.

 

I have not pushed it further as I doubt I'm going to get much more out of OCing the Ram, as in VR, I'm running into significant GPU bottlenecks that probably won't be solvable for another generation of so of hardware, but overall, this is equal or better than I would have gotten from the best available Intel CPU, and has at least one more CPU generation in it, unlike the 9th gen Intel parts. 

 

There are trades you need to make. 

[BecauseICanTBH]

You AMD people may have been victorious after all. I'm considering the 3960X.

[GamerDude]

On 11/12/2019 at 2:58 AM, BecauseICanTBH said:

For some people, believe it or not, money isn't an issue. So it's a choice of brand. The only argument I've ever heard in AMD's favor is for people who can't afford Intel and need every bit of performance for every penny they spend.

 

I personally don't give a shit, Intel has always proven reliable to me, whether or not AMD has for others. So I choose Intel. I'd pay triple for their products.

LOL! Serious? I built a new Ryzen 3900X rig, and let me tell you it wasn't cheap as I went for high end gear and a 2TB + 4TB SSD's with high end PSU to boot. I could easily have bought a high end Intel, perhaps pay for an overpriced Intel HEDT CPU, but why would I do that? I'm an unabashed AMD fanboy, but of their GPU, also have two other rigs that are Intel.....so, I can't be said to be AMD biased on the CPU front. Not trying to talk you outta making your own choice by going Intel, your money, your choice. But don't be sprouting nonsense like peeps buy AMD because they can't afford Intel, that's complete and utter rubbish parroted by Intel fanboys.