9900k or 3800x

Discussion in 'Intel Processors' started by Kajun614, Jul 12, 2019.

  1. Kajun614

    Kajun614 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    143
    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2016
    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
     
  2. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    53,810
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    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.
     
  3. Furious_Styles

    Furious_Styles [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,293
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2013
    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?
     
  4. cjcox

    cjcox [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,133
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    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.
     
    JRZoid likes this.
  5. Mchart

    Mchart 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,212
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    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.
     
  6. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,347
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    *Cross-CCD issues; there are still two CCXs per die, but only one die on the 3800x vs. two on the 3900x.
     
    Armenius and defaultluser like this.
  7. Keljian

    Keljian Gawd

    Messages:
    578
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    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.
     
    Armenius and Engr62 like this.
  8. DooKey

    DooKey [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,935
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Depends on what you do with it. I'd lean 9900K if gaming and for productivity I'd go 3900X.
     
  9. Keljian

    Keljian Gawd

    Messages:
    578
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    I would actually lean the other way.

    When you are talking productivity, the idea of random incompatibilities due to drivers/platform immaturity is .. not good. The idea of a random crash taking out an hour or two of work is also not good.
     
  10. cjcox

    cjcox [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,133
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    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.
     
    Keljian likes this.
  11. Keljian

    Keljian Gawd

    Messages:
    578
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    I agree.

    However:
    1. Some problems necessitate an agesa update which can only really be done by motherboard manufacturers and they take time to integrate this into their bios files

    2. Some issues lie with software devs (such as Bungie for destiny 2) and they can’t give etas on fixes until the problems are properly triaged and diagnosed, which for some developers can take a while. This is especially the case for big devs like autoCAD/Adobe.

    3. Some issues lie with drivers/peripheral manufacturers such as nVidia. This takes time to diagnose and solve.

    4. A resolution to one issue may create one or more other issues.

    If content production/software creation is your key job, waiting for these issues to be fixed can push out project deadlines significantly. And a random crash could take out hours or days of work (eg crash while saving, lack of backups etc).

    This is an unacceptable risk for most people who do this stuff as a job.

    I am currently working on a microcontroller based job, if any of the elements of the toolchain I use break down while I am working, it’s time wasted. A good example is yesterday with AutoCAD, I was having install issues with the latest version. A rather complicated clean install process was required to fix the issue and it took me two and a half hours total to fix it, from woah to go.

    Had I been on Zen2, I wouldn’t have known whether or not the issue was with the install process/bad install or whether it was something in drivers or windows where I had to wait for a company to fix the problem.

    That said! AMD addressing their issues and slowly allowing their hardware to mature incrementally can only mean that in time it will get better. Just remember however they had a space of about 10 years where they were not competitive. A lot of software was written and maintained without them in mind.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2019
    GoldenTiger likes this.
  12. Fremunaln

    Fremunaln [H]Lite

    Messages:
    75
    Joined:
    May 3, 2019
    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
     
  13. Kajun614

    Kajun614 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    143
    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2016
    70% gaming
    15-20% Video (gameplay & minor work videos)
    Rest is a bunch of random stuff.
     
  14. Keljian

    Keljian Gawd

    Messages:
    578
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Get yourself a 3700x, an X570 board and be done with it.
     
    N4CR likes this.
  15. maxius

    maxius 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,368
    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2001
    1151 is a dead socket it is being replaced by +49 pin 14nm comet lake socket next year the following year their 7nm drops
     
  16. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    53,810
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Unknown.
     
  17. Fremunaln

    Fremunaln [H]Lite

    Messages:
    75
    Joined:
    May 3, 2019
    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.
     
  18. Lepardi

    Lepardi Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    185
    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2017
    You could also get a 3600, and next year slap in a 4800X and be truly futureproof.
     
  19. spine

    spine 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,538
    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    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.
     
    Keljian likes this.
  20. KickAssCop

    KickAssCop [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,547
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
  21. OrangeKhrush

    OrangeKhrush [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,493
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2016
    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.
     
  22. Keljian

    Keljian Gawd

    Messages:
    578
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    A gigabyte aorus elite should be sufficient for a 9900k at 5ghz..
     
    Armenius likes this.
  23. the_real_7

    the_real_7 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,184
    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2007
    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
     
  24. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    53,810
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Or an ASUS ROG Maximus XI APEX.
     
    Wade88 likes this.
  25. Keljian

    Keljian Gawd

    Messages:
    578
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Sure let's go for a top of the line board :)
     
  26. FedericoUY

    FedericoUY n00b

    Messages:
    59
    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2016
    Are the apex's still with dual ram slots?
     
  27. tangoseal

    tangoseal [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,305
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    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.
     
    N4CR likes this.
  28. Keljian

    Keljian Gawd

    Messages:
    578
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Yep.. 2 slots.. though to be fair you can go up to 64 gig with two slots these days.
     
  29. funkydmunky

    funkydmunky 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,299
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    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.
     
  30. Keljian

    Keljian Gawd

    Messages:
    578
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2019 at 12:35 AM
    Armenius likes this.
  31. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    53,810
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    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.
     
    Wade88 likes this.
  32. XoR_

    XoR_ Gawd

    Messages:
    809
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2016
    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.

    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.
     
    Armenius and Keljian like this.
  33. XoR_

    XoR_ Gawd

    Messages:
    809
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2016
    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...
     
  34. ChadD

    ChadD 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,942
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2016
    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.
     
  35. funkydmunky

    funkydmunky 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,299
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    "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
     
  36. XoR_

    XoR_ Gawd

    Messages:
    809
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2016
    Not the first time and hopefully not the last
     
  37. Keljian

    Keljian Gawd

    Messages:
    578
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    No. If you have the same clock, AMD would be marginally faster, at 5ghz the 9900k is faster than the 4.5-4.6ghz chips AMD has out now, except where more cores are present and used.

    AMD could release a 5ghz chip and stomp all over Intel at that speed.

    The issue is that AVX2 on the 9900k by default drops the clock speed by 300mhz, to 4.3ghz. There it can’t compete with AMD at 4.5. Clock it up to 4.8/9ghz and it will outdo the 3700x chips (and probably the better chips too)

    More power at idle is a big deal. Most computers spend a lot of time idling.

    If I wanted to sling mud, I’d talk about:
    • Destiny 2
    • Linux
    • Nvidia whea
    • Ryzen’s vr incompatibilities (vive)
    • Scheduler issues
    • Ram compatibility (including latency)
    • Issues with the clock of the infinity fabric
    • Issues with PBO not working properly
    • Sata issues
    • Incompatibilities with soundcards and some other peripheral cards
    • Incomplete ECC implementation
    • Linux compilation issues
    • Revision issues (some things were fixed and no one spoke about them) - consumers didn’t know which to get
    • Random software incompatibilities (Adobe during the last year)
    • Temperature reporting problems
    • Over reliance on AGESA to fix things (which means putting a lot of pressure on motherboard manufacturers to release bios updates)
    Google any of these things in the context of Ryzen for further info.

    I like AMD, I really do. I always have, since the 386dx40. I want AMD to “surpass” intel.

    I have faith they will fix all of these things.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2019 at 9:13 AM
    GoldenTiger, Armenius and mikeo like this.
  38. tangoseal

    tangoseal [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,305
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Rediculous? Ok man
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2019 at 3:08 AM
  39. XoR_

    XoR_ Gawd

    Messages:
    809
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2016
    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?
     
  40. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    53,810
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    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?
     
    Armenius and Keljian like this.