ryzen 4900x/4950x vs 11900k

[ForFour]

Hi guys, 

I know nobody can see ahead in the future but I've only done a pc build once before 5 years ago therefore i haven't really been following trends and this might be a bit long so please bear with me on this. 

 

I'm currently using a 4770k and unfortunately my memory is starting to fail. I planned to keep the 4770k for another 1 or 2  but since ddr3 prices atm are very similar to ddr4 and mixing and matching being what it is, i decided i might as well upgrade now. 

My plan is to buy a mid level z490/x570 board like a tomahawk that can handle overclocks but settle for a low end cpu like the i5 10400 or r5 3600 respectively. Then once zen 4 and 11th gen intel cpus come out (i think 11th gen might only be rumored to support lga1200 but not yet confirmed so) i'll buy the best cpu for gaming that is available. This might not even be reasonable but it makes sense to me but i am open to suggestions. 

 

Now to the actual question: I am hoping that people who upgrade more frequently or just in general follow trends more closely can do some educated guesses on whether the 4900x/4950x could beat the 11900k. The rig will be used for gaming exclusively so as it stands the 10900k would be the optimal cpu. 

 

One last thing, is there any chance 11th gen intels might draw less power than 10th gen because the 10900k overclocked does need a lot of it.

[GDRRiley]

the ryzens will be faster at a lower power than intel

[Shimejii]

Why the fuck would you buy a 4900x/4950x if you are just gaming? Just buy a 10600k as it peforms within 5% of a 10900k for nearly half the price.

[gloop]

With the rumors that I’ve seen, I’m pretty much convinced that Ryzen 4000 will at the very least match Intel in gaming performance. 

[ForFour]

Just now, Shimejii said:

Why the fuck would you buy a 4900x/4950x if you are just gaming? Just buy a 10600k as it peforms within 5% of a 10900k for nearly half the price.

because i can and want to, why do you care? Legit don't get why people get upset about other peoples choices.

 

on a more serious note, mostly because i plan to keep it until it or the ram sticks die and replacing the part on the platform is not worth it over buying an entiren new system.

[Sorenson]

Personally, I think the 10600k looks like a great chip if you're looking to game at high refresh rates and do normal productivity work. However, it is very expensive and the 3700x performs pretty close to it once you get to 1440p/4k. With that said, I would only look at Intel if purchasing that CPU wouldn't cause you to sacrifice on your GPU budget. What I mean by that is, if the extra $50-100 was the difference between a future Nvidia 3060 and a 3070 (or what ever the names turn out to be) then 100% chose AMD.  

[Jurrunio]

5 minutes ago, ForFour said:

because i can and want to, why do you care? Legit don't get why people get upset about other peoples choices.

 

on a more serious note, mostly because i plan to keep it until it or the ram sticks die and replacing the part on the platform is not worth it over buying an entiren new system.

Cuz more budget to graphics card beats fast CPU if you dont get the best card.

 

Also DDR5 will.be on the next socket, if replacing DDR3 gets your current system going then I would do so

 

As for performance,neither side promised anything. 11th gen for Intel will be on LGA1200 tho otherwise PCIe 4 support on those boards will be forever useless

[Shimejii]

Just now, ForFour said:

because i can and want to, why do you care? Legit don't get why people get upset about other peoples choices.

 

on a more serious note, mostly because i plan to keep it until it or the ram sticks die and replacing the part on the platform is not worth it over buying an entiren new system.

Because i find it very Idiotic to waste money on things you dont actually need or use. You shouldn't just spend 750$ on a cpu because you can, thats wasteful and money mismanagement that could be much better spent elsewhere. You can spend 250-300$ on a cpu that gets you the exact same gaming performance (within 2-5% is not going to be noticeable) and you can then get a better gpu, or WAY more storage, or just save that money and save it for something down the line.

 

You dont need a 10-16 core system if you arent going to actually use it for more then just gaming

[Light-Yagami]

@ForFour

Next gen Ryzen will be around 15% faster IPC wise, and probably clock a few hundred mhz higher. Maybe 4.4ghz allcore? Mostly though, it'll be the IPC. That will bridge the gap Intel now has in terms of gaming. Oh, and Ryzen will do it at half the power.

 

I would get the 10900k if I had to choose. It's very well behaved in terms of cooling due to die thickness reduction. Next gen Ryzen won't beat it in games, maybe 5% which - whatever man.. Literally nobody cares

 

That is if you're gaming only and want those extra 10%. If you're doing anything else, then AMD is just.. it's just ahead man. No two ways about it.

[AnnoyedShelf]

1 minute ago, Jurrunio said:

Cuz more budget to graphics card beats fast CPU if you dont get the best card.

 

Also DDR5 will.be on the next socket, if replacing DDR3 gets your current system going then I would do so

 

As for performance,neither side promised anything. 11th gen for Intel will be on LGA1200 tho otherwise PCIe 4 support on those boards will be forever useless

The other thing is the 4800X is likely to be faster in games than the 4900x or 4950x.  Games don't benefit from that many cores, at least not yet, and likely won't until 12 and 16 core processors are 3-500 dollars.

 

Source: Have 3900X that I use for work and games.  My friend's 3800X nets him more FPS in games despite having the same GPU.

[ForFour]

3 minutes ago, Shimejii said:

Because i find it very Idiotic to waste money on things you dont actually need or use. You shouldn't just spend 750$ on a cpu because you can, thats wasteful and money mismanagement that could be much better spent elsewhere. You can spend 250-300$ on a cpu that gets you the exact same gaming performance (within 2-5% is not going to be noticeable) and you can then get a better gpu, or WAY more storage, or just save that money and save it for something down the line.

 

You dont need a 10-16 core system if you arent going to actually use it for more then just gaming

Yes, now it might give me 2-5%. But in 5+ years its going to be 30%, see GN video on 4690k vs 4790k. 500$ every 5 years is just as much as 200-300 every 2-3 but with less hassle of changing platforms.

[PlayStation 2]

threads like this are why I internally judge people

None of us can read time. None of us have the knowledge or sources to know where the next release of CPUs will stand. Wait until they drop so we can understand how each CPU performs.

[Shimejii]

1 minute ago, ForFour said:

Yes, now it might give me 2-5%. But in 5+ years its going to be 30%, see GN video on 4690k vs 4790k. 500$ every 5 years is just as much as 200-300 every 2-3 but with less hassle of changing platforms.

Thats just not true at all nor how things work lol. 2-5% now is NOT going to be 30% ever in gaming in 5 years for these current cpus. 

 

Changing platforms can be a hassle, but with how things are nowadays its pretty simple as companies have streamlined it. 

[ForFour]

7 minutes ago, AnnoyedShelf said:

The other thing is the 4800X is likely to be faster in games than the 4900x or 4950x.  Games don't benefit from that many cores, at least not yet, and likely won't until 12 and 16 core processors are 3-500 dollars.

 

Source: Have 3900X that I use for work and games.  My friend's 3800X nets him more FPS in games despite having the same GPU.

Sure, when the time comes i will do research on what specific cpu will the best at the time, 4900x/4950x were ment more as placeholder names for the amd side. 

I was try to get some insight in whether AMD might catch up or even surpass intel in terms of performance by next gen.  With that information i would have an easier time deciding whether to buy z490 or x570 now, as i don't really want to deal with buying now and reselling in a year

[Light-Yagami]

1 minute ago, handymanshandle said:

threads like this are why I internally judge people

None of us can read time. None of us have the knowledge or sources to know where the next release of CPUs will stand. Wait until they drop so we can understand how each CPU performs.

I merely stated what AdoredTV leaked in his recent video. I would never say anything at the top of my head, it's not worth it. And I agree with you.

[ForFour]

2 minutes ago, Shimejii said:

Thats just not true at all nor how things work lol. 2-5% now is NOT going to be 30% ever in gaming in 5 years for these current cpus. 

 

Changing platforms can be a hassle, but with how things are nowadays its pretty simple as companies have streamlined it. 

Well then go tell steve at gamers nexus his results are fake.

[Light-Yagami]

7 minutes ago, ForFour said:

Yes, now it might give me 2-5%. But in 5+ years its going to be 30%, see GN video on 4690k vs 4790k. 500$ every 5 years is just as much as 200-300 every 2-3 but with less hassle of changing platforms.

Listen - my mindset was always "buy the best thing available and keep it for a long time". Maybe that's how you think as well.. At the end of the day, it's your money and your choice. Most of these people here are veterans and know what they're talking about. If you think you need more than what's currently necessary, then by all means - go ahead and buy. At least now you're able to make an informed choice 

[ForFour]

5 minutes ago, handymanshandle said:

threads like this are why I internally judge people

None of us can read time. None of us have the knowledge or sources to know where the next release of CPUs will stand. Wait until they drop so we can understand how each CPU performs.

It's true no one can read time and i don't expect anyone to, but looking at past data surely if you actually compile and spend some time analyzing all of it you can make decent guesses based on the results. 

[xg32]

55 minutes ago, ForFour said:

It's true no one can read time and i don't expect anyone to, but looking at past data surely if you actually compile and spend some time analyzing all of it you can make decent guesses based on the results. 

I'm doing a zen 3/3080 ti build either way for a friend. I thought doing a 2nd build for myself, i'm well aware of the limitations of 8 cores/16gb ram even right now, and AMD imho has been overhyped in gaming. They need to beat intel in single core with zen 3, and i'm hopeful for a 16core gaming build with little compromises. 

[dizmo]

4 hours ago, ForFour said:

because i can and want to, why do you care? Legit don't get why people get upset about other peoples choices.

 

on a more serious note, mostly because i plan to keep it until it or the ram sticks die and replacing the part on the platform is not worth it over buying an entiren new system.

You ask a question like that, and then get mad at the answers you get? Real mature.

Why are people questioning your choice? Because that's the question you raised.

 

You're asking about things that no one can possibly have any insight on. How are we supposed to know how an Intel chip from a year away is supposed to perform?

 

Why are you worried about power draw when you're spending that much on a system?

 

4 hours ago, Light-Yagami said:

Language 

Oh please...

4 hours ago, Light-Yagami said:

@ForFour

Next gen Ryzen will be around 15% faster IPC wise, and probably clock a few hundred mhz higher. Maybe 4.4ghz allcore? Mostly though, it'll be the IPC. That will bridge the gap Intel now has in terms of gaming. Oh, and Ryzen will do it at half the power.

 

I would get the 10900k if I had to choose. It's very well behaved in terms of cooling due to die thickness reduction. Next gen Ryzen won't beat it in games, maybe 5% which - whatever man.. Literally nobody cares

 

That is if you're gaming only and want those extra 10%. If you're doing anything else, then AMD is just.. it's just ahead man. No two ways about it.

He's not looking at the 10900k...

 

4 hours ago, handymanshandle said:

threads like this are why I internally judge people

None of us can read time. None of us have the knowledge or sources to know where the next release of CPUs will stand. Wait until they drop so we can understand how each CPU performs.

Totally agree. Then they'll say "oh but x person gave me a suggestion, he's right and you're wrong, he's helpful!"
Yeah. Sure. I can pull a bunch of random numbers out of my ass too. That doesn't mean they're helpful.

 

4 hours ago, Light-Yagami said:

<snip>

You have no right to decide if the way they spend their money is a waste or not, just like you can't decide if it's worth it or not.

Those are both subjective things, which you have no right to decide.

4 hours ago, ForFour said:

Sure, when the time comes i will do research on what specific cpu will the best at the time, 4900x/4950x were ment more as placeholder names for the amd side. 

I was try to get some insight in whether AMD might catch up or even surpass intel in terms of performance by next gen.  With that information i would have an easier time deciding whether to buy z490 or x570 now, as i don't really want to deal with buying now and reselling in a year

You're comparing different generations of product. The 4900x is going to be a year old by the time the 11900k arrives.

Why would you have to resell in a year? That also makes no sense.

Edited July 20, 2020 by Spotty
Removed deleted quotes

[Mister Woof]

Did 4th gen Ryzen and Intel 11th gen launch already without me knowing?

[Spotty]

- Thread Cleaned -

Stay on topic. Do not backseat moderate. If you're not willing to contribute to the discussion just move on.

• Ensure a friendly atmosphere to our visitors and forum members.
• Encourage the freedom of expression and exchange of information in a mature and responsible manner.
• "Don't be a dick" - Wil Wheaton.
• "Be excellent to each other" - Bill and Ted.
• Remember your audience; both present and future.

[ForFour]

6 hours ago, dizmo said:

You ask a question like that, and then get mad at the answers you get? Real mature.

Why are people questioning your choice? Because that's the question you raised.

 

You're asking about things that no one can possibly have any insight on. How are we supposed to know how an Intel chip from a year away is supposed to perform?

 

Why are you worried about power draw when you're spending that much on a system?

 

Oh please...

He's not looking at the 10900k...

 

Totally agree. Then they'll say "oh but x person gave me a suggestion, he's right and you're wrong, he's helpful!"
Yeah. Sure. I can pull a bunch of random numbers out of my ass too. That doesn't mean they're helpful.

 

You have no right to decide if the way they spend their money is a waste or not, just like you can't decide if it's worth it or not.

Those are both subjective things, which you have no right to decide.

You're comparing different generations of product. The 4900x is going to be a year old by the time the 11900k arrives.

Why would you have to resell in a year? That also makes no sense.

I feel like I explained myself badly so I'll try to explain myself a bit better. Like I did with the i7 4770k which at the time was bad in terms of just gaming, I want to buy whatever will last me the longest, hopefully until the thing physically dies. With the 4000 series that was the 4770k and even though gaming is the only thing it was used for, seeing the gamers nexus benchmark comparisons between the 4690k and 4790k I would say I made the right choice. 

6 hours ago, dizmo said:

You're comparing different generations of product. The 4900x is going to be a year old by the time the 11900k arrives.

Why would you have to resell in a year? That also makes no sense.

For that goal I figured the best path for me to upgrade would be to get a current gen motherboard with a cheap stopgap CPU. Then once the last generation that the motherboard supports releases, I'd buy whatever is going to give me the best performace 4-5+ years down the line. 

 

6 hours ago, dizmo said:

Why are you worried about power draw when you're spending that much on a system?

Performance being equal, power draw will be the deciding factor because the summer season unfortunately does exist.

6 hours ago, dizmo said:

You're asking about things that no one can possibly have any insight on. How are we supposed to know how an Intel chip from a year away is supposed to perform?

[...]

Totally agree. Then they'll say "oh but x person gave me a suggestion, he's right and you're wrong, he's helpful!"

Yeah. Sure. I can pull a bunch of random numbers out of my ass too. That doesn't mean they're helpful.

 

4 hours ago, Mister Woof said:

Did 4th gen Ryzen and Intel 11th gen launch already without me knowing?

Ok, here's the thing, I never asked you to, nor do I expect anyone to look into the future to tell me exact benchmarks or whatever. 

What I really was hoping to get out of this, was that someone has compiled and done some analysis on past release data from which that person could then make educated predictions as to what was going to happen. For example something like "11th gen will still be on 14nm, from looking at past data, since this is a generational improvement without architectural change you can generally expect a _-_% increase in performance with the most it's ever been in the last _ years has been _%" . 

Basically, I am lazy and was hoping someone did this so I wouldn't have to.

6 hours ago, dizmo said:

You ask a question like that, and then get mad at the answers you get? Real mature.

Why are people questioning your choice? Because that's the question you raised.

Why do you think I was getting mad? I am always legitimately always curious about stuff like that.

Secondly, that was not at all the question I asked and while I am open to actual arguments as to why something might be better, that was not what he did

Edited July 20, 2020 by ForFour
forgot the last bit

[dizmo]

50 minutes ago, ForFour said:

I feel like I explained myself badly so I'll try to explain myself a bit better. Like I did with the i7 4770k which at the time was bad in terms of just gaming, I want to buy whatever will last me the longest, hopefully until the thing physically dies. With the 4000 series that was the 4770k and even though gaming is the only thing it was used for, seeing the gamers nexus benchmark comparisons between the 4690k and 4790k I would say I made the right choice. 

 

For that goal I figured the best path for me to upgrade would be to get a current gen motherboard with a cheap stopgap CPU. Then once the last generation that the motherboard supports releases, I'd buy whatever is going to give me the best performace 4-5+ years down the line. 

 

Performance being equal, power draw will be the deciding factor because the summer season unfortunately does exist.

 

Ok, here's the thing, I never asked you to, nor do I expect anyone to look into the future to tell me exact benchmarks or whatever. 

What I really was hoping to get out of this, was that someone has compiled and done some analysis on past release data from which that person could then make educated predictions as to what was going to happen. For example something like "11th gen will still be on 14nm, from looking at past data, since this is a generational improvement without architectural change you can generally expect a _-_% increase in performance with the most it's ever been in the last _ years has been _%" . 

Basically, I am lazy and was hoping someone did this so I wouldn't have to.

 

Why do you think I was getting mad? I am always legitimately always curious about stuff like that.

Secondly, that was not at all the question I asked and while I am open to actual arguments as to why something might be better, that was not what he did

The chances your CPU will ever just die are pretty slim. If you're going into it with that expectation, you're going to have an outdated system for a decade or more.

 

I don't think any path that has you spending twice is smart. The difference between one CPU generation is very rarely ever worth shelling out more money for.

If you only game, just grab a 10600k and be happy with it. Or, the AMD equivalent (though currently it's weaker). However you did fail to give us any kind of system information, like what resolution you play at, frame rate, etc. Those all play into a proper recommendation.

 

I'd be shocked if you actually noticed any difference between the two if you're talking about heat output. It'll be overpowered by whatever heat the GPU is pumping out.

 

That's exactly what you asked. You asked which is better, out of chips that aren't released. How did you figure they'd know that?

 

The way you responded. It's gone now, so I can't look back at it.

 

[xg32]

2 hours ago, ForFour said:

I feel like I explained myself badly so I'll try to explain myself a bit better. Like I did with the i7 4770k which at the time was bad in terms of just gaming, I want to buy whatever will last me the longest, hopefully until the thing physically dies. With the 4000 series that was the 4770k and even though gaming is the only thing it was used for, seeing the gamers nexus benchmark comparisons between the 4690k and 4790k I would say I made the right choice. 

For that goal I figured the best path for me to upgrade would be to get a current gen motherboard with a cheap stopgap CPU. Then once the last generation that the motherboard supports releases, I'd buy whatever is going to give me the best performace 4-5+ years down the line. 

 

Performance being equal, power draw will be the deciding factor because the summer season unfortunately does exist.

 

Ok, here's the thing, I never asked you to, nor do I expect anyone to look into the future to tell me exact benchmarks or whatever. 

What I really was hoping to get out of this, was that someone has compiled and done some analysis on past release data from which that person could then make educated predictions as to what was going to happen. For example something like "11th gen will still be on 14nm, from looking at past data, since this is a generational improvement without architectural change you can generally expect a _-_% increase in performance with the most it's ever been in the last _ years has been _%" . 

Basically, I am lazy and was hoping someone did this so I wouldn't have to.

Why do you think I was getting mad? I am always legitimately always curious about stuff like that.

Secondly, that was not at all the question I asked and while I am open to actual arguments as to why something might be better, that was not what he did

we've plateaued on single thread performance and the next big jump will only be possible with some really big generational jump, that wait will could be years. any further 14nm release from intel isn't gonna change the game. If you need to upgrade then a 10600k is a pretty good bet, my best guess is at least 2 years before the next big leap, if we see one at all. I can't recommend waiting at all. However i acknowledge we are moderately cpu bound at lower resolutions and that's unlikely to change and will only get alot worse with next gen of gpus.

 

As for the budget, as long as you are getting improvements out of it, then it's fine. Someone recently put a 360 aio on a 3600 on a build with a 2070S and i almost said something...i did ask if they bought the parts yet first