Who is the 9900K for?

[danrey84]

1 minute ago, Streetguru said:

Just a point for owners of that CPU

My point i made was that if people bought that cpu on launch which was around 4 years ago they as owners may have an upgrade cycle of every 3 to 5 years so if they were planning to upgrade the 9900k makes perfect sense as it probably will be the best cpu on the market within the mainstream segment if you don't take cost into account but that's a whole different ball game 

[danrey84]

2 minutes ago, dgsddfgdfhgs said:

3-5 years for an i5 user makes more sense, I7 shall be upgraded in 5-8 yrs 

My figure I was using was just a rough estimate as everyone is different but yes you could also be right 

[jones177]

There is a good chance I will replace my i7 8700k with a i9 9900k.

 

The reason is simple. I need the performance. If it has the performance I need. It may not.

 

I look at it this way. In one of my computers I used a i7 2600k from 2011 to 2018. There was no point in upgrading it until the i7 8700k came out. My other computer used a Q9550 from 2009 to 2016.  It was replaced with a i7 6700k when the motherboard died.  Before those chips I was upgrading CPUs about every 6 months. Technology was moving that fast back then. Now thanks to Ryzen technology is speeding up again.

 

The i7 6700k only lasted 20 months. The computer with the i7 8700k ran games so well that I didn't even want to turn on the computer with the i7 6700k. I replaced it with a i7 8086k. If I had not bought the i7 8700k I would have had no reason to think the i7 6700k was inadequate. Just like If I had not bought a 4k monitor I would not have thought 1080p was inadequate. 

 

Computing has been my hobby since 1984 so my perspective on things like price/performance is slightly different than "new" hobbyists.     

The computer I used to play Doom in 1994 cost about the same as the computer I use today. With inflation more.  It cost less than half as much as the computer it replaced.   

 

Fortunately in this day and age you don't need the latest & greatest hardware to play games. It makes sense since games are mainly designed for consoles. Back in the bad old days computer games were designed just for computers & upgrading hardware for the next major release was the thing to do.     

 

 

 

 

 

[Streetguru]

Just now, jones177 said:

 

Why would you need likely 5% more performance on average?

[jones177]

1 minute ago, Streetguru said:

Why would you need likely 5% more performance on average?

 

Right now my favorite modded game is losing performance as the saves get older. Both my i7 8086k & GTX 1080 ti are struggling.

This game is an IPC game. The way I have it configured now it is unplayable on my i7 6700k that has about the same IPC as a R2700X. 

 

For me to buy a i9 9900k I need to see a Cinebench R15 single core score around 250. If it's score is closer to the i7 8086k(219) there is no point in getting one. I don't need the cores.

 

I have said it before. In the modern vanilla games I play there is virtually no difference between my i7 8700k & my i7 8086k. In my modded games it is the difference between feeling the drops in the game & not. If I end up with the i9 I expect it will be the same.   

[WihGlah]

On ‎10‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 6:21 AM, jones177 said:

 

Right now my favorite modded game is losing performance as the saves get older. Both my i7 8086k & GTX 1080 ti are struggling.

This game is an IPC game. The way I have it configured now it is unplayable on my i7 6700k that has about the same IPC as a R2700X. 

 

For me to buy a i9 9900k I need to see a Cinebench R15 single core score around 250. If it's score is closer to the i7 8086k(219) there is no point in getting one. I don't need the cores.

 

I have said it before. In the modern vanilla games I play there is virtually no difference between my i7 8700k & my i7 8086k. In my modded games it is the difference between feeling the drops in the game & not. If I end up with the i9 I expect it will be the same.   

@5GHz on all cores.

[mxk]

Yeah I agree with the other people in this thread, Its just intel responding to AMD's good work with ryzen in a lazy fashion. Also people who have the mindset "the more expensive the better" and just burn their money.

[jones177]

3 hours ago, WihGlah said:

@5GHz on all cores.

The problem is my i7 8086k score about the same.

 

[17030644]

high refresh rate gaming and content creation

 

not all apps scale well with multiple cores and coffee lake has the lowest latency/IPC/single-core of all current cpu architectures

[TahoeDust]

The more I see, the more I think I am going to keep my 7820x, buy a different mobo (hate the Gigabyte Bios), and scrap the 9900k plan.

 

[Streetguru]

3 minutes ago, jones177 said:

 

Well ya I told you that earlier, 9th gen is just skylake again basically.

 

 

2 minutes ago, 17030644 said:

high refresh rate gaming and content creation

 

not all apps scale well with multiple cores and coffee lake has the lowest latency/IPC/single-core of all current cpu architectures

But you could just buy a $200 cheaper 8700K which will be fine for those tasks.

[17030644]

Just now, Streetguru said:

Well ya I told you that earlier, 9th gen is just skylake again basically.

 

 

But you could just buy a $200 cheaper 8700K which will be fine for those tasks.

depends

 

some applications do take advantage of 8 cores but not 10 or 12

 

if time is money the 9900K will be worth it in the long term

[17030644]

Put simply, if you want more cores than what an 8700K has to offer but don't want to give up gaming/single-core performance at all the 9900K is hands down the best for that.

[WihGlah]

9 minutes ago, jones177 said:

kThe problem is my i7 8086k score about the same.

 

From an 8086K it's a total waste of money. 

 

I retired a 4770K that was a poor overclocker, so for me it was worth it.

 

[jones177]

1 minute ago, Streetguru said:

Well ya I told you that earlier, 9th gen is just skylake again basically.

 I needed a Cinebench score of around 250 for it to be worthwhile. I would only get one if one of my computers blows up.

 

1 minute ago, WihGlah said:

 

From an 8086 it's a total waste of money. 

 

I retired a 4770K that was a poor overclocker, so for me it was worth it.

 

That is a good upgrade. 

 

10 minutes ago, 17030644 said:

high refresh rate gaming and content creation

 

not all apps scale well with multiple cores and coffee lake has the lowest latency/IPC/single-core of all current cpu architectures

Since 1993 I have been using multiple gaming PCs for content creation. If I needed more rendering power I would build more computers.  It is the reason I have 2 computers in my sig. I retired in Junes so I don't need the extra cores. I am on auto notify for a RTX 2080 ti instead.

[Streetguru]

3 minutes ago, jones177 said:

 

The 2080ti is only like 25% faster than the 1080ti on average, wait for massive price drops, or better yet the 30 series.

Also if AMD brings out anything remotely competitive it's likely to cause a price drop.

[17030644]

1 hour ago, jones177 said:

I retired in Junes so I don't need the extra cores. I am on auto notify for a RTX 2080 ti instead.

2

like you said I not everyone, that's your particular situation, not everyone's

[jones177]

3 hours ago, Streetguru said:

The 2080ti is only like 25% faster than the 1080ti on average, wait for massive price drops, or better yet the 30 series.

Also if AMD brings out anything remotely competitive it's likely to cause a price drop.

I have a hardware budget. If I don't spend it, it goes into savings & I already have a budget for that.

Next year starts a new budget.  

 

 

2 hours ago, 17030644 said:

like you said I not everyone, that's your particular situation, not everyone's

 That is true.

[TahoeDust]

27 minutes ago, jones177 said:

I have a hardware budget. If I don't spend it, it goes into savings & I already have a budget for that.

Next year starts a new budget.  

Well, that is weird af.

[D13H4RD]

The people who would buy it are those who want absolute performance in games even while streaming and have the means to afford it whilst also not caring about power consumption and thermals since they likely have a beast cooler setup already.

 

It's not good value, but it's there for those who can splurge.

[Phentos]

Was planning on getting a 9900K and a Maximus XI hero board, but that's stretching my finances for the rest of the year to the limit. Might have to settle for a 9700K tbqh... or even an 8700K, though I am extremely hesitant to go with a non-soldered CPU again after the nightmare that was delidding my old 7700K over a year ago.

 

Considering the above 3 CPUs because I use Premiere Pro a lot to do editing for 2 friends as they evidently can't be bothered to do their own and would rather pay me some extra cash to do it for them. The Quick Sync-accelerated rendering would be a godsend so I won't have as much downtime waiting for videos to render. The CUDA accelerated rendering has always been buggy for me so I use CPU only.

 

Also I plan on buying a high refresh rate monitor at some point this year, probably on Black Friday, so I'm gonna need the single-thread performance for that.

[Streetguru]

1 hour ago, jones177 said:

I have a hardware budget. If I don't spend it, it goes into savings & I already have a budget for that.

Next year starts a new budget.   

Well buy some AMD stock and you'll probably get at least a 30% return next year.

[Streetguru]

47 minutes ago, Phentos said:

 

The solder on the 9900K isn't even very impressive it seems, I'd stick to the 8700K, just pay silicon lottery $50 to delid it.

The 9700K is a joke.
 

 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

It's a gimped HEDT processor sold at HEDT prices.

Someone will buy it, but it's not a CPU meant to be sold. It's main purpose is to top charts (someone may argue "bad" charts, but everyone is making them, so kudos to Intel), to induce as many people as possible to look for an Intel (only) CPU that fits their budget.

It's been happening with GPUs for at least 10-15 years, and we've had similar cases with CPUs from time to time.

[Phentos]

37 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

The solder on the 9900K isn't even very impressive it seems, I'd stick to the 8700K, just pay silicon lottery $50 to delid it.

The 9700K is a joke.
 

 

WTF COME ON! The corner cutting is real. Sigh...

 

I was hoping the solder job would be as good as Ryzen CPUs. Guess not. I live in an area that get very hot during the summer, so the high temps in these CFL CPUs is unacceptable to me, especially since I always prefer to overclock. 

 

Shaving off the indium solder residue made me cringe so hard. Also no way in hell will I "grind down" the CPU die as in the video. Jesus Christ.

 

Probably just going to settle for the 8700K and eventually delid that with the actual tool this time... Or just wait for Zen 2 like my gut's telling me to.