Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Oh Intel, what are you doing?

 Share

The higher your prices are, the farther you fall, the longer you walk, the farther you crawl

 

Intel, step into the house that AMD built.

 

(Actual Discussion time now): AMD was the first one to the 8 core cpu market with their Bulldozer architecture. Were they that good? Probably not. But a few years later and some SERIOUS fine-tuning, the release of Ryzen undeniably shook the cpu market enough to make Intel not only bring a 6 core, but also an 8 core processor to their mainstream lineup for the first time in their history. The i9 9900k ACTUALLY released today and I was excited before but... not anymore. I'm not even a little bit optimistic about it. Why? Let me tell you.

 

Price of the Ryzen 7 2700X: $304

Price of the i9 9900k: $580 (plus a good cooler since it doesn't come with one and the thermals are HORRIBLE): $680

Percentage increase: about 224%

 

Ah, looking at these prices I can tell Intel is obviously a more premium product, right? I mean, look at the Z390 boards! Ooohh, very shiny and pretty... Lets watch some day one reviews and-.... oh... oh this isn't good.... This can't be...

 

After averaging out a few review channels tests, (such as Jayztwocents and Hardware Unboxed) the i9 9900k IN WORK SCENARIOS is about 20% faster on average with both the AMD and Intel cpus overclocked... Only 20%... But who cares about workloads am I right? I bet it's a super fast gaming processor! Oh.... Oh no again... At 1440p (I didn't look at 1080p because more and more people are investing into 1440p displays, and thats the best  resoluton to play at if you ask me. And it's quite obvious Intel dominates 1080p anyways although not by that much) you're looking at maybe 5-10 FPS which is WAY off the 50% increase they claimed a week ago lmao. 

 

After the bullshit they tried to pull over at principled technologies, I won't be supporting Intel anymore until they get their act together and become more realistic. 

 

But please, give me a GOOD reason to pay more than $300 for this processor over the Ryzen 7... I'll wait.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get their strategy too.
CPU, Mobo, RAM and a cooler would cost me more than a full amd build with gpu.

GUITAR BUILD LOG FROM SCRATCH OUT OF APPLEWOOD

 

- Ryzen Build -

R5 3600 | MSI X470 Gaming Plus MAX | 16GB CL16 3200MHz Corsair LPX | Dark Rock 4

MSI 2060 Super Gaming X

1TB Intel 660p | 250GB Kingston A2000 | 1TB Seagate Barracuda | 2TB WD Blue

be quiet! Silent Base 601 | be quiet! Straight Power 550W CM

2x Dell UP2516D

 

- First System (Retired) -

Intel Xeon 1231v3 | 16GB Crucial Ballistix Sport Dual Channel | Gigabyte H97 D3H | Gigabyte GTX 970 Gaming G1 | 525 GB Crucial MX 300 | 1 TB + 2 TB Seagate HDD
be quiet! 500W Straight Power E10 CM | be quiet! Silent Base 800 with stock fans | be quiet! Dark Rock Advanced C1 | 2x Dell UP2516D

Reviews: be quiet! Silent Base 800 | MSI GTX 950 OC

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't suport them anymore either. they've been so lazy the last few years. a 6th gen laptop like mine still feels very fast. even though it's now almost 2 years old. they've just not been innovating. only playing catch-up with AMD. 

She/Her

MacBook Pro 13" Early 2015 | i5 5257U | Intel Iris 6100 | 8GB Ram | 120GB SSD | macOS Monterey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprise. If you want the best performance, you have to pay for it.

I haven't looked at reviews of the 9700k, but if they're like the 8700k (which is still available), then it's a more comparable chip in both performance and price.

I won't buy an AMD system until they've nailed down their memory issues. I have no intention of sourcing specific memory modules made by certain vendors. They're getting better, granted, but it's still not enough to make me switch.

Plus, if gaming is your main goal, Intel still takes the cake.

CPU: Ryzen 9 5900 Cooler: EVGA CLC280 Motherboard: Gigabyte B550i Pro AX RAM: Kingston Hyper X 32GB 3200mhz

Storage: WD 750 SE 500GB, WD 730 SE 1TB GPU: AMD Radeon 6700XT 12GB PSU: Corsair SF600 Case: Streacom DA2

Monitor: LG 27GL83B Mouse: Razer Basilisk V2 Keyboard: G.Skill KM780 Cherry MX Red Speakers: Mackie CR5BT

 

MiniPC - Sold for $100 Profit

Spoiler

CPU: Intel i3 4160 Cooler: Integrated Motherboard: Integrated

RAM: G.Skill RipJaws 16GB DDR3 Storage: Transcend MSA370 128GB GPU: Intel 4400 Graphics

PSU: Integrated Case: Shuttle XPC Slim

Monitor: LG 29WK500 Mouse: G.Skill MX780 Keyboard: G.Skill KM780 Cherry MX Red

 

Budget Rig 1 - Sold For $750 Profit

Spoiler

CPU: Intel i5 7600k Cooler: CryOrig H7 Motherboard: MSI Z270 M5

RAM: Crucial LPX 16GB DDR4 Storage: Intel S3510 800GB GPU: Nvidia GTX 980

PSU: Corsair CX650M Case: EVGA DG73

Monitor: LG 29WK500 Mouse: G.Skill MX780 Keyboard: G.Skill KM780 Cherry MX Red

 

OG Gaming Rig - Gone

Spoiler

 

CPU: Intel i5 4690k Cooler: Corsair H100i V2 Motherboard: MSI Z97i AC ITX

RAM: Crucial Ballistix 16GB DDR3 Storage: Kingston Fury 240GB GPU: Asus Strix GTX 970

PSU: Thermaltake TR2 Case: Phanteks Enthoo Evolv ITX

Monitor: Dell P2214H x2 Mouse: Logitech MX Master Keyboard: G.Skill KM780 Cherry MX Red

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's no secret that Intel CPUs are overpriced in terms of price per performance compared to AMD, but the sh*t they've been doing lately is pushing me towards AMD. 

CPU: Intel Core i7-950 Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R CPU Cooler: NZXT HAVIK 140 RAM: Corsair Dominator DDR3-1600 (1x2GB), Crucial DDR3-1600 (2x4GB), Crucial Ballistix Sport DDR3-1600 (1x4GB) GPU: ASUS GeForce GTX 770 DirectCU II 2GB SSD: Samsung 860 EVO 2.5" 1TB HDDs: WD Green 3.5" 1TB, WD Blue 3.5" 1TB PSU: Corsair AX860i & CableMod ModFlex Cables Case: Fractal Design Meshify C TG (White) Fans: 2x Dynamic X2 GP-12 Monitors: LG 24GL600F, Samsung S24D390 Keyboard: Logitech G710+ Mouse: Logitech G502 Proteus Spectrum Mouse Pad: Steelseries QcK Audio: Bose SoundSport In-Ear Headphones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a shame Intel has become this, charging that much for a CPU that they cheated on benchmarks with. They've been slow in general since Skylake era. I still remain with Intel because that's the company I've grown up, all but one machine in my family is using Intel CPUs.

mechanical keyboard switches aficionado & hi-fi audio enthusiast

switch reviews  how i lube mx-style keyboard switches

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dizmo said:

Surprise. If you want the best performance, you have to pay for it.

I haven't looked at reviews of the 9700k, but if they're like the 8700k (which is still available), then it's a more comparable chip in both performance and price.

I won't buy an AMD system until they've nailed down their memory issues. I have no intention of sourcing specific memory modules made by certain vendors. They're getting better, granted, but it's still not enough to make me switch.

Plus, if gaming is your main goal, Intel still takes the cake.

AMD HAS fixed most memory issues, at least with the 3000-3200 MHz dimms on B450 and X470. Wait until Ryzen 2 and I assure you, memory won't be a problem.

 

Yeah of course you have to pay for it, but $300+ for a few frames? Intel is insane lmfaooo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, borntolose said:

 

The single reason that I can think of that'd push someone towards Intel is the higher single thread performance.

 

I don't understand who at Intel thinks that jacking up prices to around twice what the competitor's chip costs, and requiring a new motherboard for every single new generation, are good ideas. At least they're making it easy for AMD to take the low price market by storm.

Specs: CPU - Intel i7 8700K @ 5GHz | GPU - Gigabyte GTX 970 G1 Gaming | Motherboard - ASUS Strix Z370-G WIFI AC | RAM - XPG Gammix DDR4-3000MHz 32GB (2x16GB) | Main Drive - Samsung 850 Evo 500GB M.2 | Other Drives - 7TB/3 Drives | CPU Cooler - Corsair H100i Pro | Case - Fractal Design Define C Mini TG | Power Supply - EVGA G3 850W

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Surprise. If you want the best performance, you have to pay for it.

I haven't looked at reviews of the 9700k, but if they're like the 8700k (which is still available), then it's a more comparable chip in both performance and price.

I won't buy an AMD system until they've nailed down their memory issues. I have no intention of sourcing specific memory modules made by certain vendors. They're getting better, granted, but it's still not enough to make me switch.

Plus, if gaming is your main goal, Intel still takes the cake.

If gaming performance is your goal, Just buy a R7 and use the savings to go from a 1080 Ti to a 2080 Ti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, borntolose said:

AMD HAS fixed most memory issues, at least with the 3000-3200 MHz dimms on B450 and X470. Wait until Ryzen 2 and I assure you, memory won't be a problem.

 

Yeah of course you have to pay for it, but $300+ for a few frames? Intel is insane lmfaooo

That isn't now though, is it. Until it's the same across the board, and I can plug and play whatever I want into an AMD system and it'll work, it's IMO a shit option.

Intel can do it. It's unacceptable that AMD can't.

3 minutes ago, seoz said:

It's a shame Intel has become this, charging that much for a CPU that they cheated on benchmarks with. They've been slow in general since Skylake era. I still remain with Intel because that's the company I've grown up, all but one machine in my family is using Intel CPUs.

Did they actually cheat? Or was it the contracted company that had faulty test methods?

You can't really blame Intel for their testing results entirely. Sure, someone should have looked more into the results and how they were achieved, but the marketing team might not be as technical as a reviewer or engineer.

1 minute ago, TheKDub said:

The single reason that I can think of that'd push someone towards Intel is the higher single thread performance.

 

I don't understand who at Intel thinks that jacking up prices to around twice what the competitor's chip costs, and requiring a new motherboard for every single new generation, are good ideas. At least they're making it easy for AMD to take the low price market by storm.

Erm. These chips work on 300 series boards. So, they still have 2 generations working on the same chipset.

Not as good as AMD, but not as bad as that.

1 minute ago, borntolose said:

If gaming performance is your goal, Just buy a R7 and use the settings to go from a 1080 Ti to a 2080 Ti

If someone's going for the utmost performance, which you can assume with the purchase of something like the 9900k, then they'd already have enough money to attain that.

It doesn't change the fact that, for the highest level of performance, there's an associated cost.

Let's be real. Most gamers are just as well off with an 8600k as they are an 8700k; it even beats it in some games. Those who want bragging rights step up.

CPU: Ryzen 9 5900 Cooler: EVGA CLC280 Motherboard: Gigabyte B550i Pro AX RAM: Kingston Hyper X 32GB 3200mhz

Storage: WD 750 SE 500GB, WD 730 SE 1TB GPU: AMD Radeon 6700XT 12GB PSU: Corsair SF600 Case: Streacom DA2

Monitor: LG 27GL83B Mouse: Razer Basilisk V2 Keyboard: G.Skill KM780 Cherry MX Red Speakers: Mackie CR5BT

 

MiniPC - Sold for $100 Profit

Spoiler

CPU: Intel i3 4160 Cooler: Integrated Motherboard: Integrated

RAM: G.Skill RipJaws 16GB DDR3 Storage: Transcend MSA370 128GB GPU: Intel 4400 Graphics

PSU: Integrated Case: Shuttle XPC Slim

Monitor: LG 29WK500 Mouse: G.Skill MX780 Keyboard: G.Skill KM780 Cherry MX Red

 

Budget Rig 1 - Sold For $750 Profit

Spoiler

CPU: Intel i5 7600k Cooler: CryOrig H7 Motherboard: MSI Z270 M5

RAM: Crucial LPX 16GB DDR4 Storage: Intel S3510 800GB GPU: Nvidia GTX 980

PSU: Corsair CX650M Case: EVGA DG73

Monitor: LG 29WK500 Mouse: G.Skill MX780 Keyboard: G.Skill KM780 Cherry MX Red

 

OG Gaming Rig - Gone

Spoiler

 

CPU: Intel i5 4690k Cooler: Corsair H100i V2 Motherboard: MSI Z97i AC ITX

RAM: Crucial Ballistix 16GB DDR3 Storage: Kingston Fury 240GB GPU: Asus Strix GTX 970

PSU: Thermaltake TR2 Case: Phanteks Enthoo Evolv ITX

Monitor: Dell P2214H x2 Mouse: Logitech MX Master Keyboard: G.Skill KM780 Cherry MX Red

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because intel can put the prices up and still sell millions of units, that's why.

NEW PC build: Blank Heaven   minimalist white and black PC     Old S340 build log "White Heaven"        The "LIGHTCANON" flashlight build log        Project AntiRoll (prototype)        Custom speaker project

Spoiler

Ryzen 3950X | AMD Vega Frontier Edition | ASUS X570 Pro WS | Corsair Vengeance LPX 64GB | NZXT H500 | Seasonic Prime Fanless TX-700 | Custom loop | Coolermaster SK630 White | Logitech MX Master 2S | Samsung 980 Pro 1TB + 970 Pro 512GB | Samsung 58" 4k TV | Scarlett 2i4 | 2x AT2020

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dizmo said:

That isn't now though, is it. Until it's the same across the board, and I can plug and play whatever I want into an AMD system and it'll work, it's IMO a shit option.

Intel can do it. It's unacceptable that AMD can't.

Did they actually cheat? Or was it the contracted company that had faulty test methods?

You can't really blame Intel for their testing results entirely. Sure, someone should have looked more into the results and how they were achieved, but the marketing team might not be as technical as a reviewer or engineer.

Erm. These chips work on 300 series boards. So, they still have 2 generations working on the same chipset.

Not as good as AMD, but not as bad as that.

If someone's going for the utmost performance, which you can assume with the purchase of something like the 9900k, then they'd already have enough money to attain that.

It doesn't change the fact that, for the highest level of performance, there's an associated cost.

Let's be real. Most gamers are just as well off with an 8600k as they are an 8700k; it even beats it in some games. Those who want bragging rights step up.

Weellll, they might not have cheated, but they had the AUDACITY to come out, even after all the backlash, and say "Oh but the 9900k is still the best gaming processor!" I'm not saying it's not. I'm saying it's not worth it. Especially since they didn't defend themselves at all. That 50% performance boost they claimed they had over the 2700x? Dropped to less than 20%...

 

They PAID principled technologies to do this. But it's not the fact that the tests were misleading that makes me not want to support intel anymore, its the fact that they had principled technologies release these reviews A WEEK before the CPU's actually released, and reviewers on youtube were still under NDA and could not confirm nor bust those results, so anyone who saw those results were deceived. 

 

I will pay for overpriced drinks and food at a ball game before I ever pay that fucking much for a processor with limited benefits over their cheaper alternatives... Hell, at least the 9700k is somewhat valuable seeing as how its about $370.... and outperforms the 9900k in games.

 

Is the 9900k the BEST for gaming? Hell yeah, of course it is, I won't even deny it. Is it the best CHOICE? Hell no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, borntolose said:

I will pay for overpriced drinks and food at a ball game before I ever pay that fucking much for a processor with limited benefits over their cheaper alternatives... Hell, at least the 9700k is somewhat valuable seeing as how its about $370.... and outperforms the 9900k in games.

  

Is the 9900k the BEST for gaming? Hell yeah, of course it is, I won't even deny it. Is it the best CHOICE? Hell no

No one's saying you should buy a 9900k... Really it's only if you're getting a balls the wall pc. Any reasonable person would probably at maximum recommend a 9700k for a gaming pc unless the budget is like over $3000

 

Also just saying but first you said the 9700k outperforms the 9900k and then said the 9900k is the best for gaming...

Make sure to quote me or tag me when responding to me, or I might not know you replied! Examples:

 

Do this:

Quote

And make sure you do it by hitting the quote button at the bottom left of my post, and not the one inside the editor!

Or this:

@DocSwag

 

Buy whatever product is best for you, not what product is "best" for the market.

 

Interested in computer architecture? Still in middle or high school? P.M. me!

 

I love computer hardware and feel free to ask me anything about that (or phones). I especially like SSDs. But please do not ask me anything about Networking, programming, command line stuff, or any relatively hard software stuff. I know next to nothing about that.

 

Compooters:

Spoiler

Desktop:

Spoiler

CPU: i7 6700k, CPU Cooler: be quiet! Dark Rock Pro 3, Motherboard: MSI Z170a KRAIT GAMING, RAM: G.Skill Ripjaws 4 Series 4x4gb DDR4-2666 MHz, Storage: SanDisk SSD Plus 240gb + OCZ Vertex 180 480 GB + Western Digital Caviar Blue 1 TB 7200 RPM, Video Card: EVGA GTX 970 SSC, Case: Fractal Design Define S, Power Supply: Seasonic Focus+ Gold 650w Yay, Keyboard: Logitech G710+, Mouse: Logitech G502 Proteus Spectrum, Headphones: B&O H9i, Monitor: LG 29um67 (2560x1080 75hz freesync)

Home Server:

Spoiler

CPU: Pentium G4400, CPU Cooler: Stock, Motherboard: MSI h110l Pro Mini AC, RAM: Hyper X Fury DDR4 1x8gb 2133 MHz, Storage: PNY CS1311 120gb SSD + two Segate 4tb HDDs in RAID 1, Video Card: Does Intel Integrated Graphics count?, Case: Fractal Design Node 304, Power Supply: Seasonic 360w 80+ Gold, Keyboard+Mouse+Monitor: Does it matter?

Laptop (I use it for school):

Spoiler

Surface book 2 13" with an i7 8650u, 8gb RAM, 256 GB storage, and a GTX 1050

And if you're curious (or a stalker) I have a Just Black Pixel 2 XL 64gb

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

No one's saying you should buy a 9900k... Really it's only if you're getting a balls the wall pc. Any reasonable person would probably at maximum recommend a 9700k for a gaming pc unless the budget is like over $3000

 

Also just saying but first you said the 9700k outperforms the 9900k and then said the 9900k is the best for gaming...

That is true. I mean... If you're budget is over $3000, the Z390 boards DO look nicer, and why invest in cheaper products when you can have... U N L I M I T E D   P O W E R... and RGB of course

 

And yeah, probably should have thought that sentence out just a bit more. What I meant, is that the 9700K performs VERY similarly and in some titles there are literally NO performance gains t be had, or if there is, it's maybe 1 to 2 fps. And thats probably just margin of error. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, borntolose said:

AMD HAS fixed most memory issues, at least with the 3000-3200 MHz dimms on B450 and X470. Wait until Ryzen 2 and I assure you, memory won't be a problem.

 

Yeah of course you have to pay for it, but $300+ for a few frames? Intel is insane lmfaooo

I wouldn't claim victory until the number of memory issue related threads on the forum regarding Ryzen dies down. 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a side note:

Surprise surprise, where I work, all the systems we deploy are Intel based. Intel is still at the forefront for enterprise and it shows as Ryzen is still having a hard time breaking into this valuable market. There are only a select number of models that feature Ryzen and no one is buying them. 

AMD FX™ 6300 @ 4.51 GHz | ASUS M5A97 R2.0 | Sapphire Radeon HD 7850 2GB OC | 24GB Kingston DDR3 | Samsung 850 EVO 250GB WD Green 1.5TB | ASUS Xonar DG | Windows 10 Pro

Sony MDR-V250 | GNT-500 | Logitech G610 Orion Brown | Logitech G402 | Samsung C27JG5  | ASUS ProArt PA238QR

Intel Core™ i7-7600U | Seagate 500GB HDD | 16GB DDR4 | Windows 10 Enterprise | HP EliteBook 850 G4

Intel Core™ i5-8520U | WD Blue M.2 250GB | 1TB Seagate FireCuda | 8GB DDR4 | Windows 11 Home | ASUS Vivobook 15 

Intel Core™ i7-3520M | GT 630M | 16 GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 | Samsung 850 EVO 250GB | macOS Catalina  Lenovo IdeaPad P580

iPhone 12 Mini (iOS 15.4.1) | iPhone XR (iOS 15.4.1) |  iPad Mini (iOS 9.3.5) | KZ AZ09 Pro x KZ ZSN Pro X

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, borntolose said:

Weellll, they might not have cheated, but they had the AUDACITY to come out, even after all the backlash, and say "Oh but the 9900k is still the best gaming processor!" I'm not saying it's not. I'm saying it's not worth it. Especially since they didn't defend themselves at all. That 50% performance boost they claimed they had over the 2700x? Dropped to less than 20%...

 

They PAID principled technologies to do this. But it's not the fact that the tests were misleading that makes me not want to support intel anymore, its the fact that they had principled technologies release these reviews A WEEK before the CPU's actually released, and reviewers on youtube were still under NDA and could not confirm nor bust those results, so anyone who saw those results were deceived. 

 

I will pay for overpriced drinks and food at a ball game before I ever pay that fucking much for a processor with limited benefits over their cheaper alternatives... Hell, at least the 9700k is somewhat valuable seeing as how its about $370.... and outperforms the 9900k in games.

 

Is the 9900k the BEST for gaming? Hell yeah, of course it is, I won't even deny it. Is it the best CHOICE? Hell no.

1) The 9900k is still the best processor regardless. "worth" is subjective. If you think it's not worth it then that's your opinion only.

 

2) Just like AMD has done in the past. As linus said, people like you should have just ignored the benchmarks and waited for real reviews, instead of making a huge deal of something that happens regularly.

 

3) People spend millions of dollars on hypercar because it is just slightly faster than a normal cheap car. Just because you're not willing to pay for the best, doesn't mean other people aren't.

 

4) Maybe for you it's not the best choice. This is a subjective matter, not an objective one. If someone has more money than you and wants the best of the best, then the 9900K is the best choice.

NEW PC build: Blank Heaven   minimalist white and black PC     Old S340 build log "White Heaven"        The "LIGHTCANON" flashlight build log        Project AntiRoll (prototype)        Custom speaker project

Spoiler

Ryzen 3950X | AMD Vega Frontier Edition | ASUS X570 Pro WS | Corsair Vengeance LPX 64GB | NZXT H500 | Seasonic Prime Fanless TX-700 | Custom loop | Coolermaster SK630 White | Logitech MX Master 2S | Samsung 980 Pro 1TB + 970 Pro 512GB | Samsung 58" 4k TV | Scarlett 2i4 | 2x AT2020

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Enderman said:

1) The 9900k is still the best processor regardless. "worth" is subjective. If you think it's not worth it then that's your opinion only.

 

2) Just like AMD has done in the past. As linus said, people like you should have just ignored the benchmarks and waited for real reviews, instead of making a huge deal of something that happens regularly.

 

3) People spend millions of dollars on hypercar because it is just slightly faster than a normal cheap car. Just because you're not willing to pay for the best, doesn't mean other people aren't.

 

4) Maybe for you it's not the best choice. This is a subjective matter, not an objective one. If someone has more money than you and wants the best of the best, then the 9900K is the best choice.

1. Never said it wasn't the best. It's Intel, of course it's the best... for now

 

2. It's the fact that Intel paid them and how they handled it, not the benchmarks themselves. Very poorly handled. Shame on Intel.

 

3. Ah yes, the 1% do, but for the rest of us, spending money on something you will be using for a LONG time requires actual thought and consideration of all the specs, prices, etc. before making that final decision. Although, everyone wants a super car, not everyone can have one. Just like I would LOVE to have a 9900k but imo with all options considered, it's not the best value. Again, just my opinion.

 

4. The only way I could personally see it as someone elses "best" choice is if money really isn't a problem. If thats the case, go for it!

 

But in reality, if you want better workload performance and not gaming performance, you shouldn't be looking at the 9900k OR R7 series anyways. If you want  the best gaming performance, hands down, no restraints, its your choice between the 9700k and the 9900k.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, borntolose said:

2. It's the fact that Intel paid them and how they handled it, not the benchmarks themselves. Very poorly handled. Shame on Intel.

AMD has released BS benchmarks themselves before, not even by a third party, so we just ignored them. Why can't you do the same?

 

5 minutes ago, borntolose said:

3. Ah yes, the 1% do, but for the rest of us, spending money on something you will be using for a LONG time requires actual thought and consideration of all the specs, prices, etc. before making that final decision. Although, everyone wants a super car, not everyone can have one. Just like I would LOVE to have a 9900k but imo with all options considered, it's not the best value. Again, just my opinion.

Then let that 1% buy the CPU they want, and you buy a cheaper ryzen or whatever, and everyone's happy.

 

5 minutes ago, borntolose said:

4. The only way I could personally see it as someone elses "best" choice is if money really isn't a problem. If thats the case, go for it!

 

But in reality, if you want better workload performance and not gaming performance, you shouldn't be looking at the 9900k OR R7 series anyways. If you want  the best gaming performance, hands down, no restraints, its your choice between the 9700k and the 9900k.

Ok great so you're basically admitting that this is another case of "I can't afford it so I'm going to complain" ?

 

1 hour ago, borntolose said:

But please, give me a GOOD reason to pay more than $300 for this processor over the Ryzen 7... I'll wait.

Clearly you're not in the financial position to buy one if you're making an entire thread dedicated to complaining about the price, so how about you DON'T buy one, and avoid the need to rant.

NEW PC build: Blank Heaven   minimalist white and black PC     Old S340 build log "White Heaven"        The "LIGHTCANON" flashlight build log        Project AntiRoll (prototype)        Custom speaker project

Spoiler

Ryzen 3950X | AMD Vega Frontier Edition | ASUS X570 Pro WS | Corsair Vengeance LPX 64GB | NZXT H500 | Seasonic Prime Fanless TX-700 | Custom loop | Coolermaster SK630 White | Logitech MX Master 2S | Samsung 980 Pro 1TB + 970 Pro 512GB | Samsung 58" 4k TV | Scarlett 2i4 | 2x AT2020

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is literally the same rant from people who complained the titan V was $3000, that the 7980XE was $2000, etc etc etc

 

Seriously, if you can't afford it just don't buy it and quit complaining.

 

The top performing of anything in this world always costs a premium, even if the performance improvements are marginal.

Sometimes even with no performance improvement one object can cost more than another simply due to branding or marketing or many other reasons.

That's how the world works.

 

Companies adjust their prices based on sales numbers, not the amount of internet forum posts ranting about the price. So making posts like this is not useful at all.

NEW PC build: Blank Heaven   minimalist white and black PC     Old S340 build log "White Heaven"        The "LIGHTCANON" flashlight build log        Project AntiRoll (prototype)        Custom speaker project

Spoiler

Ryzen 3950X | AMD Vega Frontier Edition | ASUS X570 Pro WS | Corsair Vengeance LPX 64GB | NZXT H500 | Seasonic Prime Fanless TX-700 | Custom loop | Coolermaster SK630 White | Logitech MX Master 2S | Samsung 980 Pro 1TB + 970 Pro 512GB | Samsung 58" 4k TV | Scarlett 2i4 | 2x AT2020

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Enderman said:

AMD has released BS benchmarks themselves before, not even by a third party, so we just ignored them. Why can't you do the same?

 

Then let that 1% buy the CPU they want, and you buy a cheaper ryzen or whatever, and everyone's happy.

 

Ok great so you're basically admitting that this is another case of "I can't afford it so I'm going to complain" ?

 

Clearly you're not in the financial position to buy one if you're making an entire thread dedicated to complaining about the price, so how about you DON'T buy one, and avoid the need to rant.

First of all, that 1% can buy whatever they want. I even stated that even I wanted it but obviously its out of my range, so I have to put thought into it, just like most other customers out there

 

Secondly, I'm not complaining because I can't afford it... which is true... but even if I had the money, the 9900k offers poor value in comparison to other chips not even from AMD, from intel themselves. The performance increase even over older generations doesn't justify the absurd price. But if money isn't a problem, or if you can actually use the performance for stremaing, your job, or whatever else  (or just want it for gaming, workloads, or bragging rights) then the 9900k is in fact the best option. For folks on a budget, money saved on not buying a 9900k and buying say a 9700k instead will allow them to spend it on a better gpu or something else towards their systems performance, because its not just about the CPU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, borntolose said:

Secondly, I'm not complaining because I can't afford it... which is true... but even if I had the money, the 9900k offers poor value in comparison to other chips not even from AMD, from intel themselves. The performance increase even over older generations doesn't justify the absurd price.

Welcome to the real world where the price does not scale linearly with performance.

Surprised you haven't realized that until now.

 

8 minutes ago, borntolose said:

But if money isn't a problem, or if you can actually use the performance for stremaing, your job, or whatever else  (or just want it for gaming, workloads, or bragging rights) then the 9900k is in fact the best option. For folks on a budget, money saved on not buying a 9900k and buying say a 9700k instead will allow them to spend it on a better gpu or something else towards their systems performance, because its not just about the CPU.

Thanks for stating the obvious, I think everyone is aware of this already.

Your OP seems more of a complaint than a more objective and correct statement like this one ^^

NEW PC build: Blank Heaven   minimalist white and black PC     Old S340 build log "White Heaven"        The "LIGHTCANON" flashlight build log        Project AntiRoll (prototype)        Custom speaker project

Spoiler

Ryzen 3950X | AMD Vega Frontier Edition | ASUS X570 Pro WS | Corsair Vengeance LPX 64GB | NZXT H500 | Seasonic Prime Fanless TX-700 | Custom loop | Coolermaster SK630 White | Logitech MX Master 2S | Samsung 980 Pro 1TB + 970 Pro 512GB | Samsung 58" 4k TV | Scarlett 2i4 | 2x AT2020

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 19_blackie_73 said:

I don't get their strategy too.
CPU, Mobo, RAM and a cooler would cost me more than a full amd build with gpu.

i'm not disagreeing with OP, but as long as the 9900k sells out, i understand what intel's doing, and it's not providing value to consumers (nor should they as long as they have the fastest cpu). Apple does the same thing, and more recently, nvidia.

 

Unless someone is investing heavily into 144hz gaming, the 2700x is likely the better choice, and for the value guys, the 2600 is an amazing deal. 

 

Yet the 9900k will sell out, as many as intel can make. With a 144hz monitor, ryzen's not an option (yet)

5950x 1.33v 5.05 4.5 88C 195w ll R20 12k ll drp4 ll x570 dark hero ll gskill 4x8gb 3666 14-14-14-32-320-24-2T (zen trfc)  1.45v 45C 1.15v soc ll evga non-3090 tie ftw3 1905 0.8v 65C 270w (double fps of 1080ti) ll samsung 970 500gb nvme os ll sandisk 4tb ssd ll all nf12/14 fans ll tt gt10 case ll evga g2 1300w ll w10 pro ll 34GN850B ll x27 ll PA272w

 

9900k 1.36v 5.1avx 4.9ring 85C 195w (daily) 1.02v 4.3ghz 80w 50C R20 temps score=5500 ll D15 ll Z390 taichi ult 1.60 bios ll gskill 4x8gb 14-14-14-30-280-20 ddr3666  bdie 1.45v 45C 1.22sa/1.18 io  ll EVGA non-30 tie XC 1830//7600 0.85v 210w ll  8x nf12/14 fans 2x samsung 860 evo 500gb raid 0 ll 500gb nvme 970 evo ll Corsair graphite 780T ll EVGA P2 1200w ll Windows 10 Pro ll NEC PA242w (movie, work mon dying) 1080p 60hzll Predator X27 4k144 hdr (using at 4:4:4 98 fan is dying)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×