9700k outpreforms 3900x

[HardStroke]

Checked a couple of benches of users online and i saw that in most cases the 9700k got a higher score in gaming and as a workstation with a strong motherboard.

Does it make sense?

Maybe its worth it to buy a 9700k instead of a 3900x for editing and gaming?

I really dont know anymore

[Chabax]

for gaming definetly better 9700k,  but for workload 3900x

[GDRRiley]

11 minutes ago, HardStroke said:

Checked a couple of benches of users online and i saw that in most cases the 9700k got a higher score in gaming and as a workstation with a strong motherboard.

Does it make sense?

Maybe its worth it to buy a 9700k instead of a 3900x for editing and gaming?

I really dont know anymore

that sounds like a bad test what site are you using?

the 9700k is way slower in editing  and often loses in gaming without a strong OC

get a 3900x or if you want to save a few get a 3700x

[Chabax]

Just now, GDRRiley said:

that sounds like a bad test what site are you using?

the 9700k is way slower in editing  and often loses in gaming without a strong OC

get a 3900x or if you want to save a few get a 3700x

9700k often loses in gaming? what drugs are u using bro? theres not single game in existence that performs better on 3900x

[GDRRiley]

3 minutes ago, Chabax said:

9700k often loses in gaming? what drugs are u using bro? theres not single game in existence that performs better on 3900x

R6

here is vs a 9900k it is almost within margin of error a 9900k wins in most games 2-3% is usually the run to run change

This assumes 1080p gaming, 1440p you become GPU bottlenecked

[Chabax]

5 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

R6

here is vs a 9900k it is almost within margin of error a 9900k wins in most games 2-3% is usually the run to run change

This assumes 1080p gaming, 1440p you become GPU bottlenecked

 pay attention to 0.1% and 1% fps lows, average fps doesnt matter if ur 1% and 0.1% are low, whic gives stutter, on intel the numbers are much higher

 

[PrinnyExplodes]

14 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

that sounds like a bad test what site are you using?

the 9700k is way slower in editing  and often loses in gaming without a strong OC

get a 3900x or if you want to save a few get a 3700x

Quick look at gamersnexus and hardware unboxed. The 9700k actually wins in gaming at stock. The difference is like 4-5%.

 

I see it like this. 3900x is pretty much on par with a stock  9700k in games and almost double to triple its performance in workloads.

 

As a 9700k owner, I bought this processor back when the 2700x came out and was disappointed by its Adobe premiere performance and gaming performance. And despite what people said about streaming performance, the 9700k still pulled out ahead just because of the pure fps churn. A year later when the 3900x came out, I was shocked. Not only did AMD finally fixed its issues in premiere but this thing destroyed in every aspect. If I had a choice today, I would choose the 3900x. I would gladly give up 4-5% gaming performance for 200% encoding and editting performance

[GDRRiley]

6 minutes ago, Chabax said:

 pay attention to 0.1% and 1% fps lows, average fps doesnt matter if ur 1% and 0.1% are low, whic gives stutter, on intel the numbers are much higher

is that why the 2nd video shows at least 3 tests that the 3900x is better in that regard. many older games just don't handle lots of threads well.

 

3 minutes ago, PrinnyExplodes said:

Quick look at gamersnexus and hardware unboxed. The 9700k actually wins in gaming at stock. The difference is like 4-5%.

 

I see it like this. 3900x is pretty much on par with a stock  9700k in games and almost double to triple its performance in workloads.

. If I had a choice today, I would choose the 3900x. I would gladly give up 4-5% gaming performance for 200% encoding and editting performance

my point was that is likely within margin of error despite how hard they both try to control it.

[HardStroke]

3 minutes ago, PrinnyExplodes said:

Quick look at gamersnexus and hardware unboxed. The 9700k actually wins in gaming at stock. The difference is like 4-5%.

 

I see it like this. 3900x is pretty much on par with a stock  9700k in games and almost double to triple its performance in workloads.

 

As a 9700k owner, I bought this processor back when the 2700x came out and was disappointed by its Adobe premiere performance and gaming performance. And despite what people said about streaming performance, the 9700k still pulled out ahead just because of the pure fps churn. A year later when the 3900x came out, I was shocked. Not only did AMD finally fixed its issues in premiere but this thing destroyed in every aspect. If I had a choice today, I would choose the 3900x. I would gladly give up 4-5% gaming performance for 200% encoding and editting performance

What if im going to bottleneck the 3900x with a 1660 super?

Is it still worth the extra 50 bucks even im im bottlenecking it?

[HardStroke]

And i mainly game - ALOT

Editing is a second priority (i know editing is mainly on the cpu)

[firedrop]

imagine playing video games in 1080p in 2020

[GDRRiley]

11 minutes ago, HardStroke said:

And i mainly game - ALOT

Editing is a second priority (i know editing is mainly on the cpu)

then get a 3600x or a 3700x with a better GPU.

[Letgomyleghoe]

2 minutes ago, firedrop said:

imagine playing video games in 1080p in 2020

Imagine going out of your way to be an asshole.

 

11 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

is that why the 2nd video shows at least 3 tests that the 3900x is better in that regard. many older games just don't handle lots of threads well.

 

my point was that is likely within margin of error despite how hard they both try to control it.

Exactly, if your playing older games, sure the clock speed will be a good advantage, if your playing newer games they will make use of the threads, if things keep going as they are games will start using 8-12 threads easily, there is no reason not to get the 3900x. 

[GDRRiley]

8 minutes ago, firedrop said:

imagine playing video games in 1080p in 2020

weird unless you need 300hz 1440p or 1440p ultra wide look way better

[HardStroke]

5 hours ago, GDRRiley said:

that sounds like a bad test what site are you using?

the 9700k is way slower in editing  and often loses in gaming without a strong OC

get a 3900x or if you want to save a few get a 3700x

Saw some benchmarks in userbenchmarks.com

[Dravinian]

5 hours ago, PrinnyExplodes said:

I see it like this. 3900x is pretty much on par with a stock  9700k in games and almost double to triple its performance in workloads.

This is really only accurate for workloads that utilise the cores.

 

I have a 3900x, but some applications simply don't utilise all the cores to their full potential.  That is not the CPUs fault, and I suspect it will change as CPU design has changed, but blanket statements can be misleading.

39 minutes ago, HardStroke said:

Saw some benchmarks in userbenchmarks.com

That's your problem right there.

 

Don't go to userbenchmarks.

[GDRRiley]

41 minutes ago, HardStroke said:

Saw some benchmarks in userbenchmarks.com

that is the problem. userbenchmark to say the least has issues.

[gloop]

1 hour ago, HardStroke said:

Saw some benchmarks in userbenchmarks.com

please don’t use userbenchmark. 

[Boyohan]

6 hours ago, HardStroke said:

And i mainly game - ALOT

Editing is a second priority (i know editing is mainly on the cpu)

 

What if im going to bottleneck the 3900x with a 1660 super?

 

If you mainly game then you should prioritize your GPU more than your CPU. 

Why choose a budget GPU with a top tier CPU ? 

I would suggest 3700x with RTX2060/2070

[HardStroke]

2 hours ago, gloop said:

please don’t use userbenchmark. 

Why not?

 

[HardStroke]

1 hour ago, Boyohan said:

If you mainly game then you should prioritize your GPU more than your CPU. 

Why choose a budget GPU with a top tier CPU ? 

I would suggest 3700x with RTX2060/2070

Idk maybe ill wait for a 10th gen and 4000 series to come out and make the 9th gen and 3000 series go down in price and ill upgrade the 1660 super to a 2080 or 2070 super

Or maybe even a used 1080 ti

[ShadowChaser]

the current no frills all gaming cpu of choice appears to be a R5 3600 or i5-9400(f) for around the same price in the US of ~$170, while also giving you enough editing performance that you should be able to treat it as a side gig/hobby (hence why I didn't choose the 3300X, if you're just gaming that will likely be the best choice until intel comes up with something to combat it with 10th gen). The money saved from a 3900X or 9700K could easily bump your graphics up a tier or two, and you could even save more by going with a budget motherboard offering for either. You could easily save enough to get an extra $250 needed to go from a 1660S to a 2070S

 

edit: this is assuming you buy now

[gloop]

1 hour ago, HardStroke said:

Why not?

 

They claim a 9100f beats a 2700x. Just don't use them.

 

If you want proof:

 

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/66768/userbenchmark-adjusting-cpu-rankings-pandering-intel/index.html

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/userbenchmark-benchmark-change-criticism-amd-intel,40032.html

[HardStroke]

2 hours ago, ShadowChaser said:

the current no frills all gaming cpu of choice appears to be a R5 3600 or i5-9400(f) for around the same price in the US of ~$170, while also giving you enough editing performance that you should be able to treat it as a side gig/hobby (hence why I didn't choose the 3300X, if you're just gaming that will likely be the best choice until intel comes up with something to combat it with 10th gen). The money saved from a 3900X or 9700K could easily bump your graphics up a tier or two, and you could even save more by going with a budget motherboard offering for either. You could easily save enough to get an extra $250 needed to go from a 1660S to a 2070S

 

edit: this is assuming you buy now

planning on buying next month

my budget is around 1,100 - 1,200 dollars excluding storage, psu, case and cooling - so basically its cpu, motherboard, ram  and a gpu.

planning on keeping this pc for a while and i want this pc to be "future upgradable" if you know what i mean so this is why im thinking about witing on the new 10th gen and 4000 series sockets/

BUT since i live in israel 1,200 dollars is really not that much.

i edit with a lot of effects and mostly in 1080p 60fps or 1440p 60fps and i was the edit to be fluent and smooth becuase now with my i3 3550 when i edit in 60 fps it ends up being really laggy and unwatchable even when i overclokc it

[ShadowChaser]

3 hours ago, HardStroke said:

planning on buying next month

my budget is around 1,100 - 1,200 dollars excluding storage, psu, case and cooling - so basically its cpu, motherboard, ram  and a gpu.

planning on keeping this pc for a while and i want this pc to be "future upgradable" if you know what i mean so this is why im thinking about witing on the new 10th gen and 4000 series sockets/

BUT since i live in israel 1,200 dollars is really not that much.

i edit with a lot of effects and mostly in 1080p 60fps or 1440p 60fps and i was the edit to be fluent and smooth becuase now with my i3 3550 when i edit in 60 fps it ends up being really laggy and unwatchable even when i overclokc it

Trust me when I say that even a hexacore will go a long way - my main gaming/workstation pc has 6c/12t and so does my mobile workstation. I would have sprung for 8 cores if it made sense back then or existed at all to the capacity they are now. Ryzen is simply the best choice for gaming and working on the same system.