![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Buy new i9-9900 (non K) for 220 USD or save and wait for 10900k or 10700k
- Thread starter edo101
- Start date
the_real_7
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,402
if your going non K for a 9900 go for amd it will be faster. where the magic starts with intel is the overclocking that's when you start seeing that single core edge really kick in. don't waste your time otherwise
I normally wouldn't but for 220 bucks, it seemed tantalizing. what would be AMD's equivalent for aroudn the price range and performance? I thought 9900 can get 4.6Ghz on all cores?
/dev/null
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2001
- Messages
- 15,182
I'd love to get a 9900 for $220...any links?
the_real_7
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,402
I'd get a 3600x with a decent x570 board and overclock it . . Then you still have a open door for zen 3 with out having to switch everything again. A love 9th gen intel if you can see my signature. but the door has closed on that architecture. I also have a Amd 3900x on a x570 itx board. The intel is faster overclocked. Better yet if 3d gaming go a 9600k that will hit high mhz 5.1 easy and is a gaming monster at $200 keeps up with all it Intel brothers
Get the 9900 non K. If you aren't happy with it, I'd buy from you for $220.
Ha I might just do that. I actually thinking I'll cancel it or return it since a lot of people on the overclock.net forums think I should get a 10600k or 3700x instead which boggles me mind a little
DooKey
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2001
- Messages
- 13,552
That's a great deal. Well worth the $220. Buy it.
DooKey
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2001
- Messages
- 13,552
You're getting an eight core high-end CPU for $220. That's kinda hard to beat. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
Quote from OCN: "I'd get a 3600x with a decent x570 board and overclock it . . Then you still have a open door for zen 3 with out having to switch everything again. A love 9th gen intel if you can see my signature. but the door has closed on that architecture. I also have a Amd 3900x on a x570 itx board. The intel is faster overclocked. Better yet if 3d gaming go a 9600k that will hit high mhz 5.1 easy and is a gaming monster at $200 keeps up with all it Intel brothers"
DooKey
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2001
- Messages
- 13,552
If you want an AMD rig instead you should buy a 3600 and save some cash. The 3600X is a waste of money compared to the non-X. However, you are going to get two less cores and four less threads. If that isn't an issue then go for it. Also, you should buy the 9900 anyway and resell it for a nice profit.
D
Deleted member 312202
Guest
I was in the same boat when I got my 9900K (not $220 though but still a nice price). I went that route and sold my older hardware to a friend.
I don't want one or the other. I want what suits my needs which would also give me best bang for my buck. I'm not in the world of spending willy nilly and brand loyalty. Even as an Intel intern. If I could support AMD, I would if it suit my single core needs and my budget can handle it. Since we need them to stay in the market. Thats where I am.
It sounds liek I should keep it for now, and wait till Zen 3. if its good i build with it. If its not, I'll sell it
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,693
Still wondering where the link is to buy this for $220.
DooKey
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2001
- Messages
- 13,552
He's an Intel intern. Employee pricing.
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,693
Judging by what people get fired for nowadays, I wouldn't be posting in a forum saying you're looking at AMD products as an Intel intern.
UnknownSouljer
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2001
- Messages
- 9,041
This whole thread is absurd.
Basically it's: talk me out of buying this really great discounted processor. I really want this other AMD thing.
...Okay? So buy the other thing?
You're pretty set on what you want, I'm not sure what's the point in hearing any form of advice especially when anyone says contrary to what you want, you've revealed that you've done research to cement your position.
It's your money, go do whatever you want with it.
Basically it's: talk me out of buying this really great discounted processor. I really want this other AMD thing.
...Okay? So buy the other thing?
You're pretty set on what you want, I'm not sure what's the point in hearing any form of advice especially when anyone says contrary to what you want, you've revealed that you've done research to cement your position.
It's your money, go do whatever you want with it.
Comixbooks
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 22,007
Is this for Intel Retail's Edge summer sale or something?
UnknownSouljer I don;t know where you got the idea that i just want AMD. Re read my comment. I am simply just trying to make the best decision without having my Intel discount blinders on
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,693
I mean, it's not hard to see why people think you want AMD as you literally said you would prefer AMD.
But back to your question:
The Intel discount skews the price/performance strongly to Intel. I mean you're essentially getting a processor for ~60% of it's retail price. The closest AMD comparison is probably the 3700x at ~$280.
However, the Intel 300 series boards are dead ends at this point while AMD will get one more product refresh in AM4 which very well could end up being a substantial improvement over the 9900. Hard to say at this point as it hasn't been released. As pointed out, you could get a 3600 now and then drop in a Zen3 product of your choosing later. With Intel 300 boards, you don't have that option.
But the price/performance of the 9900 at $220 is too high. There's no downside to buying it as you could probably make $80 selling it outright even if you went AMD. Besides, it's not like the 10900k/10700k are anything different. It's all the same core (starting at near double the price and up from there). The closest new Intel comparison is the 10700 (non-k), and you're essentially getting one of those that's slightly faster with higher boosting for 2/3 of the price of that CPU.
Last edited:
I appreciate the advise I will hold on to it for now till Zen 3 and figure out the final plan. The overclock.net guys were so against me getting a 9900. Hell I was convinced it was a terrible processor by the way they were talking about it
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,693
You have to evaluate it in terms of how much it really cost you. At full price, the overclock.net guys are probably correct. At $220? That's a totally different ball game. The cheapest one on ebay is an ES 9900 chip that boosts 500Mhz less than yours and is $300 + S/H. NE is selling your CPU for $440. And at those prices, it makes NO sense as the 10700 is $335. But at $220? Heck, I'd trade you my 10700 for your 9900 + $100 cash
.I mean, I like AMD and all and would recommend it, but I'm not a fan boi to the point I think Intel are POS. They make good chips depending on your needs they can make sense. At $220, it was a great deal for what you're getting. It does a good amount better than a 3600x in gaming, but still falls short in highly threaded tasks (depending on what/how many you use). You said you needed strong single core performance for some 3D games, which points straight to Intel. If you do a bunch of other thing, or just like something new, zen3 is coming soon but we have no clue how much single thread gap it will close yet. If you have patience, zen3 should at least be announced by the end of year with limited supply possibly. I have a B450/1600 in my ITX desktop, just put together a B550 + 3700x for my son this past Monday, and the other 3 desktops are all Intel machines (6600k, and 2 G4560's for my daughters). I'm curious to see what zen3 has to offer as I almost got 2x 3700x (one for my son and one for mine) but figured I'd hold off and see what's on offer at the end of the year.
That 9900 is a no-brainer. Everyone is gaga over AMD these days, but for the things most people actually do with them, they're not really that much faster (if at all) than a competing Intel product, and you're certainly not going to get a faster AMD part that cheap.
Edit: Subjectively, I don't really like my 3600/B450 setup that much. I get some quirky behavior sometimes that I don't get on any of my various other (Intel) machines. I can't be sure it's the fault of the platform, but it feels like it is, and I don't think I'd buy another Ryzen setup, even if it's cheaper than Intel for similar performance.
It's sort of understandable that someone posting on overclock.net would poo-poo a CPU that isn't overclockable. If what they do is overclocking, then a CPU you can't overclock isn't very useful to them, is it? That said, my 9900K was an awesome CPU at the stock speed. I wish I had a second one, even if it's not overclockable.
I say get the 9900 and go play some games or whatever it is you intend to use it for. Life is too short for this sort of hand wringing.
Edit: Subjectively, I don't really like my 3600/B450 setup that much. I get some quirky behavior sometimes that I don't get on any of my various other (Intel) machines. I can't be sure it's the fault of the platform, but it feels like it is, and I don't think I'd buy another Ryzen setup, even if it's cheaper than Intel for similar performance.
It's sort of understandable that someone posting on overclock.net would poo-poo a CPU that isn't overclockable. If what they do is overclocking, then a CPU you can't overclock isn't very useful to them, is it? That said, my 9900K was an awesome CPU at the stock speed. I wish I had a second one, even if it's not overclockable.
I say get the 9900 and go play some games or whatever it is you intend to use it for. Life is too short for this sort of hand wringing.
I had to opposite, I had some quirky issues with my 6600k that were completely solved when I switched to the 3700x. We would get stuttering in games running 90fps. Swapped the 3700x and it is completely smoothed out. My 1600 has been rock solid too. Just some people have good/bad luck or some quirky software somewhere that causes stuff and gives them a bad taste in their mouth, which is understandable. I have had issues with both over time, but neither has been that much better/worse. Of my 5 main desktops (in use daily) 3 are Intel 2 are AMD.
For $220 I'd get the 9900 and a decent value board, and some sale ram. I'd slap it together and get 90+ % of the performance you'd get with a higher end Intel or AMD system, for a fraction of the cost. Will be a SIGNIFICANT leap from what you're running now! I'm cheap though! Was hardcore AMD back in the day, and love them today as well, but if I'm honest, Intel's had my $ for the past many years, from i7 on! I've dabbled in AMD and they've been fun to mess with, but my main systems have been Intel. That said, I'm super stoked about the next gen Ryzen and I'll likely jump ship at that point. That's what I would do! But you could be different! But yeah, IMO build a cheap setup with a very DECENT 9900, and then do next Gen Ryzen, and sell your rig for not a ton less that your'e paying for it, since your cpu is such a bargain!