Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I did not post anything except wanting proof of what you are saying. You are confusing me with the other guy.Uh, YOU posted your false nonsense first with no facts. Where’s your proof HPE is “dropping” XEONs? You got called out on that twice and still haven’t provided any proof. We’re all waiting for this great industry insight you have.
On both! Always nice to backup your claims with at least 1 link.I think it's on this guy.
When having proper RAM timings with 2 sticks installed, Ryzen will be closer than 10% to 9900K. Not worth to get the latter for almost double the money. Especially when Ryzen platform is future proof with Zen 2 cpus incoming in 2019 that will get very close or even above Intel offerings in all workloads.
It is hard to believe at this point someone could still be so ignorant about hyper-threading in video games. The difference is night and day with hyper threading on a quad CPU in most modern games. A 2600 k is a hell of a lot more relevant today than the 2500 k and anyone that has a clue about modern gaming knows that.I am still (somewhat) proudly running a 2500k. Never bought into the HT fad when it comes to low latency applications which is what games are, so I got that instead of paying good money for a 2600k.
I thought my sarcasm was as obvious as the other guy's but apparently it is not.
Exactly why I was hoping to get a combination of 2700x and 8700k in one CPU. The fact is for some programs like Photoshop or even Premiere (when using the 8700k IGPU), even the 8700k outperforms the 2700x and that is not taking into consideration that ones normally OCes max to about 4.2 and the other to 5Ghz. If the 9900k can OC to 5Ghz (all cores of course) then it will be my perfect CPU for a long time.Gamers, as this CPU is obviously aimed at gamers since the test results are all games. Obviously a 9900K is good for productivity as well.
When having proper RAM timings with 2 sticks installed, Ryzen will be closer than 10% to 9900K. Not worth to get the latter for almost double the money. Especially when Ryzen platform is future proof with Zen 2 cpus incoming in 2019 that will get very close or even above Intel offerings in all workloads.
At least for most ofthe programs I will be using,like Photoshopt and Premiere, the advantage of the 9900k should be even higher considering the 8700k was already performing better in some areas.Yes, but that is only 12% in gaming performance, I would bet it isn't 12% better in other non gaming tasks.
It is hard to believe at this point someone could still be so ignorant about hyper-threading in video games. The difference is night and day with hyper threading on a quad CPU in most modern games. A 2600 k is a hell of a lot more relevant today than the 2500 k and anyone that has a clue about modern gaming knows that.
Given the diminishing returns of cores beyond 4, the 9700K with 8 real cores is interesting. With nearly the came clocks I'll be curious if real software tests show the 9700K and 9900K not all that different.
Yeah, like I’m right in the middle of buying a bunch of Gen10 servers right now.
Been in tons of roadmap mtgs, Cascade Lake mtgs etc...
I think it's on this guy.
Some of these comments are funny. Many things cost a great deal of money you can question if they are worth that value. A Kiton suit costs $8,000, a Gucci T-shirt costs $600 you can look at the fabric and craftsmanship and see they are better than what you find at Macy’s. Value is determined by what you get for your money for logical people 12% increase in performance does not correspond to 60% in cost. Feel free to spend as much as you want, the same with custom loop water cooling just don’t look down your nose when people question the worth.
Some of these comments are funny. Many things cost a great deal of money you can question if they are worth that value. A Kiton suit costs $8,000, a Gucci T-shirt costs $600 you can look at the fabric and craftsmanship and see they are better than what you find at Macy’s. Value is determined by what you get for your money for logical people 12% increase in performance does not correspond to 60% in cost. Feel free to spend as much as you want, the same with custom loop water cooling just don’t look down your nose when people question the worth.
I agree with you about not looking down noses- but I disagree with your examples. I've seen plenty of designer wear that, while comparatively expensive, does not denote quality one bit.
With particularity, there were some statements like, you're not [H]ard if you question the value of the i9. That, I disagree with. I'm a big softy, anyways - not [H] at all. Nevertheless, I find value to be a legitimate metric.There are those that do look down their nose at others- I see no place for them here.
However, I will state that value and utility matter. For some, 12% isn't worth it. I get it. It's not worth it to me either!
For others it may very well be. I've already explained in this thread why I find the 9900k attractive, and there are situations where it gets closer to a performance ideal while still not being fast enough.
With particularity, there were some statements like, you're not [H]ard if you question the value of the i9. That, I disagree with. I'm a big softy, anyways - not [H] at all. Nevertheless, I find value to be a legitimate metric.
I still have the tape, lol.
I used to have to load a 16k program into a pdp11 with no console, that was a piece of test equipment.
Everytime the power failed.
I finally noticed the chick from accounting I went to lunch with could do it perfectly, in about 10 minutes, so we started diversifying some jobs.
This was in 85, lol.
Luck! Let us know!What CPU do you guys think would be most likely paired with the 2080 Ti? Another factor you should NOT consider is cost factor. If someone drops $1300 for a GPU, dropping an additional $200 for a 9900K is probably not a problem.
I'll be down at Microcenter early Friday morning to get the 9900K.
Hoping to get 5.1+ Ghz on all 8 Cores under load and stable.
Do the 9900K with your 2080 TI. It’s what I’m doin. Sadly I might get the i9 before the TI at this rate. eVGA has been delayed on the FTW3s, but they said they’ll start shipping en masse this week. We’ll see. Not holding my breath.What CPU do you guys think would be most likely paired with the 2080 Ti? Another factor you should NOT consider is cost factor. If someone drops $1300 for a GPU, dropping an additional $200 for a 9900K is probably not a problem.
I'll be down at Microcenter early Friday morning to get the 9900K.
Hoping to get 5.1+ Ghz on all 8 Cores under load and stable.
Maybe you should keep up with tech better as ray tracing is going to be a bit cpu dependent too. And who gives a shit about spending a little more for the best gaming cpu made when you are already spending quite a bit to get the best gaming experience? It will be so ironic next year if AMD ends up having the better gaming cpu with next gen Ryzen and charging more for it. I am pretty sure the AMD nuts will change their tune when its their team doing the same thing as Intel.I wonder how the 9900K will help the 2080 Ti when Shadow Of The Tomb Raider running with RT at 1080p is getting 45fps with mostly max settings?
Plus who cares what the 9900K gets at 1080p? The comparison in itself is utterly pointless and has no practical or even logical reason to conclude that it will make a significant impact on your gaming experience.
What is the percent difference at 4K? or even 1440p? 2%? 0% or does it show AMD starting to go ahead like previous benchmarks has shown before at higher resolutions? If one or you want to spend the money on a 9900K great, have fun but some trying to justify it by worthless game benches not reflecting real usage cases for that level of hardware seems pointless and a big waste of time. Reality - the 9900K will not add anything significant over your gaming experience over a 8700K or even a 7700K and for most even an I5 or lower end Ryzen. The 9900K will increase CPU heavy loads that uses the cores and could be the use case except AMD trumps them big time with ThreadRipper.
Yes, also not to deter Intel nuts to make the same claims or get stuck on single thread silliness fixation. Well if RT on the RTX is very CPU dependent then ThreadRipper for sure will be the CPU to ownMaybe you should keep up with tech better as ray tracing is going to be a bit cpu dependent too. And who gives a shit about spending a little more for the best gaming cpu made when you are already spending quite a bit to get the best gaming experience? It will be so ironic next year if AMD ends up having the better gaming cpu with next gen Ryzen and charging more for it. I am pretty sure the AMD nuts will change their tune when its their team doing the same thing as Intel.
Maybe you should keep up with tech better as ray tracing is going to be a bit cpu dependent too. And who gives a shit about spending a little more for the best gaming cpu made when you are already spending quite a bit to get the best gaming experience? It will be so ironic next year if AMD ends up having the better gaming cpu with next gen Ryzen and charging more for it. I am pretty sure the AMD nuts will change their tune when its their team doing the same thing as Intel.
You can probably forget that as they will optimize it around desktop cpus so 8/16 threads will be where its at.Yes, also not to deter Intel nuts to make the same claims or get stuck on single thread silliness fixation. Well if RT on the RTX is very CPU dependent then ThreadRipper for sure will be the CPU to own
I dont care either way but its hilarious to see the bitching about the relatively small price difference in a high end gaming build. AMD can and should charge more if they get the upper hand but many around here think only the big evil Intel does that.Why? If the answer to price/performance becomes Intel, so be it.
Than AMD has nothing to worry about, AMD multi-threading per core is better than Intel's Hyper Threading. You take the performance of one core using two threads, AMD catches up to Intel.You can probably forget that as they will optimize it around desktop cpus so 8/16 threads will be where its at.
Not in gaming it doesn't.Than AMD has nothing to worry about, AMD multi-threading per core is better than Intel's Hyper Threading. You take the performance of one core using two threads, AMD catches up to Intel.
Now that would be some interesting tests to do, confine a game to one core two threads - might have to explore that one.Not in gaming it doesn't.
Last time an Intel chip was said to overclock easily to 5Ghz, it turns out only a small fraction of chips sold could hit those speeds. The vast majority only hit 4.8Ghz at best. I really doubt that's different for the 9900K.Exactly why I was hoping to get a combination of 2700x and 8700k in one CPU. The fact is for some programs like Photoshop or even Premiere (when using the 8700k IGPU), even the 8700k outperforms the 2700x and that is not taking into consideration that ones normally OCes max to about 4.2 and the other to 5Ghz. If the 9900k can OC to 5Ghz (all cores of course) then it will be my perfect CPU for a long time.
You are forgetting the OC capabilities of both CPUs...if 9900K is able to hit 5Ghz all cores, the gap will increase.
I've not seen many Adobe benchmarks to know how much of a difference there is, but I do know that Adobe products don't tend to scale with CPU cores.At least for most ofthe programs I will be using,like Photoshopt and Premiere, the advantage of the 9900k should be even higher considering the 8700k was already performing better in some areas.
That is why the 9900k is an interesting option for me.
I really doubt that's different for the 9900K.
or get stuck on single thread silliness fixation.
Plus who cares what the 9900K gets at 1080p?
If I’m going to spend that kind of money on a cpu, it’ll be a Threadripper. Because cores.
Just as a curiosity what is the bottleneck at 1440 in your system? 2600k is very long in the tooth, at least at 1080p you would get significantly higher frames with a new i7. 1440p I'm not sure. I have a 4790k that is the bottleneck in mostly all of my shooters at 1080p (paired with v64).
I would love to see 1440p 144hz, but probably not until my next build in a year or two.
As for sweet spots, that varies from person to person. Ive been so spoiled by over 2000 hours of CS:GO that I could honestly tell you if the framerate is under 200. In less competitive games i dont mind 100fps, but I do notice the blur when I move fast.
How much would you pay for a 12% increase in the length of your e-peen?Somehow I don't think paying 66% more money for only a 12% performance difference is very economical.