• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

9900k or 3800x

K

Kajun614

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 7, 2016
Messages
160
Yeah, im sorry for posting this but im at work but leaving early today to get my parts from microcenter.


With the price drops of the 9900k ($440)locally it makes it hard to choose my new build. amd vs intel. Im like 80% on the side of amd this time around. Competition is great for us

9900k OC to 5g (everyone seems to get there now) Boards are cheaper although no new features like on the 570 boards. The whole build is mature. Security patches I dont really know how it actually effects things in the end?

AMD 3000 series is faster clock for clock but will never reach 5g..maybe 4.4 - 4.5 on a 3800x
Bios flashing n such
Some future proof features on the motherboards. although not much of use for me except maybe usb and I like the 3 socket m2 drive board.(I would use that)
lol maybe im 90% sure
Could be upgraded in future to the 3950x If I really wanted to flex but meh
 
Kajun614 said:
Yeah, im sorry for posting this but im at work but leaving early today to get my parts from microcenter.


With the price drops of the 9900k ($440)locally it makes it hard to choose my new build. amd vs intel. Im like 80% on the side of amd this time around. Competition is great for us

9900k OC to 5g (everyone seems to get there now) Boards are cheaper although no new features like on the 570 boards. The whole build is mature. Security patches I dont really know how it actually effects things in the end?

AMD 3000 series is faster clock for clock but will never reach 5g..maybe 4.4 - 4.5 on a 3800x
Bios flashing n such
Some future proof features on the motherboards. although not much of use for me except maybe usb and I like the 3 socket m2 drive board.(I would use that)
lol maybe im 90% sure
Could be upgraded in future to the 3950x If I really wanted to flex but meh
Click to expand...

Don't count on it. Ryzen 3000 series chips really don't go beyond 4.3GHz when overclocked manually. You have to leave PB2 on or use PBO to get any boost clocks above that range. The 4.5GHz clocks aren't even really guaranteed either as they are governed by many factors. In heavily threaded workloads those clocks will drop to around 4GHz.
 
Dan_D said:
Don't count on it. Ryzen 3000 series chips really don't go beyond 4.3GHz when overclocked manually. You have to leave PB2 on or use PBO to get any boost clocks above that range. The 4.5GHz clocks aren't even really guaranteed either as they are governed by many factors. In heavily threaded workloads those clocks will drop to around 4GHz.
Click to expand...

Hey dan what's the word on the socket for AMD? Is x570 going to be the last before you have to buy a new mobo?
 
I think the "whole point" of the release is that.... it's pretty much up to you now. However, not sure the 3800x is the best. I'd go 3900x if that sort of thing matters.... or drop down to the 3700x (cooler).

With that said, if you're the type to upgrade your CPU quickly, AMD has certainly done a better job of allowing this without having to replace the motherboard.
 
cjcox said:
I think the "whole point" of the release is that.... it's pretty much up to you now. However, not sure the 3800x is the best. I'd go 3900x if that sort of thing matters.... or drop down to the 3700x (cooler).

With that said, if you're the type to upgrade your CPU quickly, AMD has certainly done a better job of allowing this without having to replace the motherboard.
Click to expand...

3800X should presumably be better for gaming by a small amount as it's running a better binning compared to the chiplets on the 3900x. You also don't have the cross-CCX issues that the 3900x brings.

Unfortunately, there aren't good benchmarks between the two right now.
 
Depends on what you do with it. I'd lean 9900K if gaming and for productivity I'd go 3900X.
 
Keljian said:
Maturity is king for me, I don’t want to run into random problems while software teams and hardware teams get their acts together, I say go the 9900k.
Click to expand...

With that said, it's pretty amazing how fast the issues are being addressed on the AMD side. It's certainly making me feel more comfortable.
 
What do you hope to achieve with the either is the question?

Is it a 100% gaming rig, or mix productivity with gaming?
Are your primary applications well coded for multiple cores, or is it the IPC hungry of yore with a new color ui?

Those are you key questions. Everything else is secondary.

Longevity, stability are up to the board maker
 
70% gaming
15-20% Video (gameplay & minor work videos)
Rest is a bunch of random stuff.
 
Kajun614 said:
Yeah, im sorry for posting this but im at work but leaving early today to get my parts from microcenter.


With the price drops of the 9900k ($440)locally it makes it hard to choose my new build. amd vs intel. Im like 80% on the side of amd this time around. Competition is great for us

9900k OC to 5g (everyone seems to get there now) Boards are cheaper although no new features like on the 570 boards. The whole build is mature. Security patches I dont really know how it actually effects things in the end?

AMD 3000 series is faster clock for clock but will never reach 5g..maybe 4.4 - 4.5 on a 3800x
Bios flashing n such
Some future proof features on the motherboards. although not much of use for me except maybe usb and I like the 3 socket m2 drive board.(I would use that)
lol maybe im 90% sure
Could be upgraded in future to the 3950x If I really wanted to flex but meh
Click to expand...

1151 is a dead socket it is being replaced by +49 pin 14nm comet lake socket next year the following year their 7nm drops
 
Kajun614 said:
70% gaming
15-20% Video (gameplay & minor work videos)
Rest is a bunch of random stuff.
Click to expand...

Are your games primarily CPU intensive with emphasis on the single threaded performance IE. Simulations or optimized well for multiple cores etc. If the former, then you`d be better off with a Intel, and of course if you can wait possibly the next 10XXX refresh. However if your willing to take a bit of IPC loss (the gap is minuscule compared to earlier ryzens) a AMD chip would be ideal.

The platform being stable etc is a upto how long till another flaw is discovered, patched, beta tested, and then finally launched by the board maker. As of right now, an Intel 9k would be the winner since its been on the market far longer then say AMD, but its not like AMD has launched a BSOD setup at launch. Finally, board makers have an incentive to launch revisions as quickly as possible for a new launch, then a chip thats been out for as long as the 9900k has been out.
 
Kajun614 said:
70% gaming
15-20% Video (gameplay & minor work videos)
Rest is a bunch of random stuff.
Click to expand...

70% Gaming. The only reason not to get a 9900K is because it's just a boring option. Boringly better, because it's not new and you could've got one months ago.

Ryzen 3 hasn't changed its price, infact, it's just made it look even more attractive.
 
While the X570 boards offer nothing of value yet and are expensive, going the intel route is not cheaper, to run a 9900K at 5Ghz you need a top end board which is also very expensive and you also need a good cooling solution.

If you are just gaming then the 9900K should work for you there.
 
A 9900k if your gaming and you just want a snappier experience on the desktop. Ryzen memory latency is alot higher than intels at the moment
 
Mchart said:
3800X should presumably be better for gaming by a small amount as it's running a better binning compared to the chiplets on the 3900x. You also don't have the cross-CCX issues that the 3900x brings.

Unfortunately, there aren't good benchmarks between the two right now.
Click to expand...

Cross ccx issues? What are those. Is this legit or more fud?
I can detect no issues on my 3900x. I get badass performance on this thing.

I can h265 encode two staxrip conversions at 30fps avg each and play battlefield V on my 3440x1440 @100hz 100fps solid without flinching.

My 2950x would vomit all over the place doing this - the new design in this chip makes it damn powerhouse in everything. I just miss my quad channel ram.
 
The 9900K costs more and requires a very decent HS/F on top of that price. And if you game above 1080p its advantage is minimal to nonexistent.
Put the money saved towards a GPU or any other needed components and it will serve you better in the long run.
There are many good X570 MB's in the $200-250 range and if you don't need the features go get a bargain X470 which will again save you more money.
We haven't seen any 3800X reviews yet but it will perform a notch above the 3700X out of the box which pulls it ever so closer to a 9900K in Intel's last grasp low-rez, low core count games.
 
spine said:
70% Gaming. The only reason not to get a 9900K is because it's just a boring option. Boringly better, because it's not new and you could've got one months ago.

Ryzen 3 hasn't changed its price, infact, it's just made it look even more attractive.
Click to expand...
Recently I got 9900K because I decided there is no way I could even use 12 core CPU and since upgrading whole platform is so costly anyway it doesn't make that much difference to get i9 instead of i7.

In a sense this is not as interesting as changing platform to AMD would be. On Intel platform everything always looks the same, from driver installers, tools gui to RAID setup utility in BIOS. Existing RAID worked immediately and Windows10 was running in no time like pretty much nothing have happened. There was like one second hickup during boot in which I guess Win10 thought "Something is not right... moving on" :)

On the other hand this aspect of computer should not be interesting. It should just work.
Not that AMD would not, it is just imho bad reason to influence buying decisions.

Keljian said:
A gigabyte aorus elite should be sufficient for a 9900k at 5ghz..
Click to expand...
5GHz is pretty much given on these CPU's and most Z390 mobos should handle this as well. Best to refer to VRM lists like this one [URL]https://www.overclock.net/forum/27657582-post2156.html[/url]

BTW. I am not sure if all-core OC is the right way to go these days.
5GHz on all cores is obvious but I guess it is better to define it as turbo for 8 cores and try to get as much clock cores as possible for less cores eg. 5.3 for 1-3 threads, 5.2 for 4-6, 5.1GHz for 7 and 5GHz for 8, something like that
I have not yet tested how it works in practice or how troublesome that would be to stress test because of insufficient cooling and single stick of 2400MHz ram but I will definitely try to go this route.
Zen2 reviews show that for these processors tweaking Precision Boost Overdrive is generally the better way to OC and gives better results, especially in games, compared to all core overclock. I do not see why this would not be the case for Intel as well. After all, we are mostly limited by thermals here. I only did quick test and 5.3GHz seems to work fine on 4c/4t configuration without even touching anything than changing multiplier.
 
tangoseal said:
I can h265 encode two staxrip conversions at 30fps avg each and play battlefield V on my 3440x1440 @100hz 100fps solid without flinching.

My 2950x would vomit all over the place doing this - the new design in this chip makes it damn powerhouse in everything. I just miss my quad channel ram.
Click to expand...
This Threatripper have 16c/32t and quad channel memory and decent clocks. I do not really see how 3900X could do better in this ridiculous scenario with 4 less cores , even with its 15% IPC improvement and slightly higher clocks

BTW. Are you going Zen2 Threadripper when it comes out? This seems like the right upgrade path and 3900x in the middle seems kinda pointless imho...
 
Keljian said:
Last gasp? :) Intel is not so easily defeated.

What you'll save on a heatsink with AMD, you'll lose on X570, and consume more power at idle...

Remember even if AMD hit IPC parity, they have a clockspeed disadvantage.
Click to expand...

Clockspeed disadvantage ? Man I swear the more Ryzen2 comments I read the more I get the deja vu.

Haven't we all learned that clock speed is far from the determining factor in regards to performance. No this isn't P4 vs Athlon... still look at the benchmarks folks AMD is besting Intel in almost everything at lower clocks. I have no idea why people are so hung up on hitting 5ghz. Does your epeen grow 10 inches when you break 4.97 gigawatts I mean gigahertz or something ?

And why are we worried about idle power ? Really what is a couple more watts when your doing nothing. If your doing nothing for a really long time turn your damn machine off. ;)

You are right though Intel will be back... late this year or next with their sunnycove chiplet parts. Should be an interesting 2020. 2019 though unless Intel has somehow been able to keep the lid on a hail mary miracle part has been soundy bested in the consumer space.
 
Keljian said:
Last gasp? :) Intel is not so easily defeated.

What you'll save on a heatsink with AMD, you'll lose on X570, and consume more power at idle...

Remember even if AMD hit IPC parity, they have a clockspeed disadvantage.
Click to expand...
"Grasp" meaning something they hold onto. Won't let go of.
There are many X570 MB that are priced right in line with what would be needed to power an 9900K properly (how cheap of a board are you gonna run a 9900K on?). And as I stated there are many good X470 boards at even less money.
Consume more power at idle? LOL, your bringing out the big guns eh!
IPC parity? :D
 
ChadD said:
You are right though Intel will be back... late this year or next with their sunnycove chiplet parts. Should be an interesting 2020. 2019 though unless Intel has somehow been able to keep the lid on a hail mary miracle part has been soundy bested in the consumer space.
Click to expand...
Not the first time and hopefully not the last
 
XoR_ said:
This Threatripper have 16c/32t and quad channel memory and decent clocks. I do not really see how 3900X could do better in this ridiculous scenario with 4 less cores , even with its 15% IPC improvement and slightly higher clocks

BTW. Are you going Zen2 Threadripper when it comes out? This seems like the right upgrade path and 3900x in the middle seems kinda pointless imho...
Click to expand...

Rediculous? Ok man
 
Last edited:
tangoseal said:
Rediculous? Ok man, my continuing conversation with you on this topic ends here because you are already shut down to what I am literally seeing with my eyes. I cant explain why things are like this but they are.

What I do find is all the intel owners are trying to quantitatively rationalize the superior nature of Intel, yet they are not actually using the two chips side by side. I can tell you there is a mad difference man. Its mad. And I could give a shit less about the pro benchmark (paid by youtube views) like Jays2cents and OC3d etc...
Click to expand...
Where did I mention Intel for you to ever bring this up?
I just said 16c/32t Zen1+ should be better than 12c/24t Zen2 for your usage scenario because it have more cores and quad channel memory.

Oh, and if you bring Intel up then: did you do the same kind of test on Intel?
 
Keljian said:
Last gasp? :) Intel is not so easily defeated.

What you'll save on a heatsink with AMD, you'll lose on X570, and consume more power at idle...

Remember even if AMD hit IPC parity, they have a clockspeed disadvantage.
Click to expand...

You mean a heat sink that no enthusiast would probably use? A heat sink that would probably gimp your boost clocks and certainly limit the shit out of an all core overclock?
 
Dan_D said:
You mean a heat sink that no enthusiast would probably use? A heat sink that would probably gimp your boost clocks and certainly limit the shit out of an all core overclock?
Click to expand...
It was used for reviews of the 3700X in direct comparison to the 9900K. I am sure 3800X reviews will do the same.

Keljian when are you going to correct your "last gasp" faux pas or is misquoting how you roll?
 
ChadD said:
Haven't we all learned that clock speed is far from the determining factor in regards to performance. No this isn't P4 vs Athlon... still look at the benchmarks folks AMD is besting Intel in almost everything at lower clocks. I have no idea why people are so hung up on hitting 5ghz. Does your epeen grow 10 inches when you break 4.97 gigawatts I mean gigahertz or something ?.
Click to expand...

Humans have 5 fingers on each hand, and two hands, so our number system is base10 as a result.

5 (ghz) is a big deal to humans! :blackalien::alien::greyalien::panda::penguin:
 
Last edited:
I'd probably spend the extra money to get the 3900x, that said, if it's the 3800x vs 9900k, I'd without a doubt get the 9900k. I don't count future processor upgrades on a platform.

If I'm upgrading my processor I'm generally replacing the board. I generally buy mid to lower end boards.
 
Dan_D said:
It's not as expensive as the Maximus XI Extreme.



Yes. It's the one thing I don't like about it but the thing does at least clock RAM extremely well. Which is the point.
Click to expand...

Shame that, I have the IX with a 7700k, and only regrets is that I'm tied to 16gb of fast memory (tridentz 3600 cl15 binned ones)...
Nowadays 32gb is in some cases needed... :(
 
FedericoUY said:
I know, buy I enjoy OCing, that's mostly why :)
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Case in point though, my Threadripper 2920X is actually faster using DDR4 3000MHz modules with better timings than it is using the DDR4 3600MHz modules I used in the benchmark testing against the Ryzen 9 3900X. Those modules have much worse timings. I used them to achieve memory clock speed parity. It wouldn't have done much better against the new Ryzen, as that had little impact on most of the tests but it does test better with the slower clocked yet better latency modules.
 
Dan_D said:
Fair enough. Case in point though, my Threadripper 2920X is actually faster using DDR4 3000MHz modules with better timings than it is using the DDR4 3600MHz modules I used in the benchmark testing against the Ryzen 9 3900X. Those modules have much worse timings. I used them to achieve memory clock speed parity. It wouldn't have done much better against the new Ryzen, as that had little impact on most of the tests but it does test better with the slower clocked yet better latency modules.
Click to expand...
How are new ryzens doing with timings? 3600 @ ?
I've been rock solid on my 7700k with 3600 15-15-15 35 1t at 1,36vram. Totally pleased with it, but would need some more gigs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top