cpu upgrade wait or buy

S

s002wjh

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
427
i heard intel 10th gen would release soon for desktop, anyone know about approx. pricing? is it worth the wait or i should pull trigger on 9700k, which i can get from microcenter for $299. its mainly for games.

i'm also confuse as which one is the newer one, there is the coffee lake, skylake and other type of lake, have no idea which gen are those. unlike zen1,2,3
 
10th gen comet lake will just bring more hot cores to an ancient design. This will give u nothing for games. Buy now. Get an aio for intel.
 
If you have to have a new platform, go for an Ryzen R7 3700x for $29 more and get ~90% of 9900k performance. You can couple it with a fairly inexpensive B450. there is very little reason to go with Intel right now.. 5- 10 FPS less in games, and Ryzen is just as fast in everything else except where there is intel based acceleration/ programs that are programmed to work best with intel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mega6
like this
Add in the cooler price for intel vs included wraith these results are even more slanted to AMD and the 3700.

upload_2019-11-24_8-56-46.png
 
Last edited:
If it's primarily for gaming, the 9700k isn't bad obviously. At MC, the 3700x should be on sale also.

I don't think that it's worth waiting if you're set on Intel as it's still going to be a few months out, is going to need a new socket (for unknown reasons), and likely isn't going to bring anything new to the table except maybe a better IGP and some different boost clocks. Performance per dollar likely won't be there as you have to factor in the "new" platform cost also. At this point Z370/Z390 boards are cheap (relatively speaking).
 
i thought about ryzen, but if i go ryzen ill go with 570 chipset. but its primary for gaming, also i Watercool cpu, so i already have cooler for both amd and intel. i didnt go with ryzen due to x570 price. and since i use for game mostly, intel is bit cheaper for me.
both ryzen 3700x and 9700k at MC are same price $299, so the difference is really the mobo price.

any idea which x570 is about same as gigabyte z390 aorus pro wifi?
 
Last edited:
If you go x570. You get pcie 4. But if you don't care. X470 B450 you won't give up anything else. If you go Intel. You don't get pcie 4.
 
I'm not touching Intel until the new chips release and are proven not to need patching for security without losing performance.
And can actually have holes patched, unlike current designs.
Now isnt the best time to buy with the new AMD cores coming as well.
 
s002wjh said:
i thought about ryzen, but if i go ryzen ill go with 570 chipset. but its primary for gaming, also i Watercool cpu, so i already have cooler for both amd and intel. i didnt go with ryzen due to x570 price. and since i use for game mostly, intel is bit cheaper for me.
both ryzen 3700x and 9700k at MC are same price $299, so the difference is really the mobo price.

any idea which x570 is about same as gigabyte z390 aorus pro wifi?
Click to expand...

The x570 aorus elite is $149 on Newegg right now. Probably a similar feature set. I think there is a pro Wi-Fi version but it is probably slightly more expensive than the z390 version.
 
yea i forgot about pcie4. seem x570 is slightly more expensive than 390. hard choice
 
$20-30 difference? I don't think you could go wrong either way. It really comes down to how much you think the extra threads would help you. Obviously 16 threads with AMD vs. 8 with Intel for $20. I don't think you could go wrong either way personally.
 
yea,

I did the math, if I buy same mobo gigabyte aurors pro wifi, AMD cost me extra $50, not a big deal. the only thing is Intel still better than AMD for gaming and cost less for me. intel seem about 10% ahead of AMD in term of gaming. though I can see AMD is more upgradeable since their CPU is compatible with older chipset most time. so I can use same chipset for 4th or 5th gen ryzen ?
 
s002wjh said:
yea,

I did the math, if I buy same mobo gigabyte aurors pro wifi, AMD cost me extra $50, not a big deal. the only thing is Intel still better than AMD for gaming and cost less for me. intel seem about 10% ahead of AMD in term of gaming. though I can see AMD is more upgradeable since their CPU is compatible with older chipset most time. so I can use same chipset for 4th or 5th gen ryzen ?
Click to expand...
If all the patches for the security mitigation ever enters into your BIOS microcode and the OS, you're ultimately looking at a processor that might be slower than AMD.

Can't argue the price though. Even though I have an AMD 3600 on hand (that clocks well) I blew up a "low end" board pushing it. The cost of picking up a cheap 370 board and a 6 core Intel is almost unbeatable now.
 
Nasgul said:
PCIe 4.0X16 won't be mainstream till Intel adopts it. And PCIe 3.0X16 isn't even used at its full potential. So.......

The 9700KF is $329.99 https://www.newegg.com/core-i7-9th-gen-intel-core-i7-9700kf/p/N82E16819117994

The ASUS ROG Strix Z390 is $229.99 https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16813119151?Item=N82E16813119151

If you buy the similar from the competition, you'd pay an extra $120 for the same thing.

Not to mention the 570 requires active cooling, and hope that tiny little fan never fails.

And while the 9700KF does not come with a cooler, water cooling is fantastic......but only if it's a Loop, an AIO isn't going to cut it as good as a be quiet! Dark Rock Pro 4 in my opinion.

Right now the "HYPE" is that for the first time in 13 years the competition has come out with a new design to fight up against an old 5+ year old design tech.

Kinda like Prescott days, but give Intel another 2 years and they'll send the competition back to the stone age for another 13 years.
Click to expand...

I mean the least you could do is actually get facts right if you're going to bash AMD. It's $229 vs $329 for the Strix E variants, so not $120 (and that's not counting the fact that you get a "stock cooler" with AMD vs. none with Intel "K" chips). The 570 active cooler, especially on higher end boards rarely spins after bios updates. PCIe 4 already has tangible benefits with NVMe vs PCIe 3. Graphics? Not so much, but there are use case scenarios where PCIe 4 does make a difference ($100 difference is doubtful, but still in the realm of subjective).

Z370/Z390 is a dead platform. If the OP really believes that 10th Gen chips are imminent, his board is already obsolete. At least there's a better than good chance that a X570 will support Zen 3 as it won't have DDR5. Then that extra $100 might actually save the OP money later.

Prescott vs. 10nm struggles are two totally different problems. In the former, Intel bet big on being able to ramp up clockspeeds with netburst and wasn't able to. They still had process advantages and alternatives. In the later, Intel simply cannot make 10nm chips for anything other than ULV laptops, etc. and that's a bigger problem. Your 2 year sending AMD back to the stone age assumption is that the jump to 7nm will go smoothly and that's a pretty big assumption.

I have both platforms and use both for different tasks. It's just not as straightforward as you make it out to be.
 
Last edited:
I guess x570 is more future prove compare to z390. as for the poster complain about gigabyte software, any other user had similar experience?
 
s002wjh said:
I guess x570 is more future prove compare to z390.
Click to expand...

Relatively. Z390 is a dead end at this point. Not saying the processors available for it are bad by any means, but what is out there now is all you're going to get. X570 will likely only get 1 more upgrade, so it's not as "future proof" as say buying a nice X470 last year.
 
matt167 said:
If you have to have a new platform, go for an Ryzen R7 3700x for $29 more and get ~90% of 9900k performance. You can couple it with a fairly inexpensive B450. there is very little reason to go with Intel right now.. 5- 10 FPS less in games, and Ryzen is just as fast in everything else except where there is intel based acceleration/ programs that are programmed to work best with intel.
Click to expand...
You need to work on your sales pitch.

This reads that ryzen 3700x is 10% slower to just as fast and costs $30 more without speaking to any of the times when Ryzen comes out ahead. ;)
 
Nasgul said:
PCIe 4.0X16 won't be mainstream till Intel adopts it. And PCIe 3.0X16 isn't even used at its full potential. So.......

The 9700KF is $329.99 https://www.newegg.com/core-i7-9th-gen-intel-core-i7-9700kf/p/N82E16819117994

The ASUS ROG Strix Z390 is $229.99 https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16813119151?Item=N82E16813119151

If you buy the similar from the competition, you'd pay an extra $120 for the same thing.

Not to mention the 570 requires active cooling, and hope that tiny little fan never fails.

And while the 9700KF does not come with a cooler, water cooling is fantastic......but only if it's a Loop, an AIO isn't going to cut it as good as a be quiet! Dark Rock Pro 4 in my opinion.

Right now the "HYPE" is that for the first time in 13 years the competition has come out with a new design to fight up against an old 5+ year old design tech.

Kinda like Prescott days, but give Intel another 2 years and they'll send the competition back to the stone age for another 13 years.
Click to expand...
Lots of misinformation in this post...
 
You're gaming, so I've noticed some games btw 2600/1700x and 8400/7820x had 100% core use that did span 6 vs 8 cores.

I'd go 8 core something Intel if buying new.
8700k if buying used.

You aren't doing something NOT gaming primarily, then some games, so why would you give up performance by going to Ryzen?

In that same vein you could run a 9400f vs 8700k/9700k and give up performance.
Again that is pointless for someone that primarily wants to game and is spending money on a focused build.

You didn't say you wanted the cheapest anything, and AMD is no longer pushing the cheapest alternative.
AMD is not trying to build the fastest gaming CPUs, that was Athlon64 a very long time ago.

So let us know if you score a killer Black Friday deal somewhere, or see a used deal off someone that's decided their gaming focused parts were the wrong choice for a productivity biased workload.
 
Archaea said:
You need to work on your sales pitch.

This reads that ryzen 3700x is 10% slower to just as fast and costs $30 more without speaking to any of the times when Ryzen comes out ahead. ;)
Click to expand...

cept when you factor in, the cost of the mobo. This margin is much wider.
 
matt167 said:
cept when you factor in, the cost of the mobo. This margin is much wider.
Click to expand...

You can get a better z370 for not much.
My Maximus X was $129 on MC clearance.
It'd be fine for 8700k/9700k/9700kf/9900k/9900k whatever

I can run 2x nvme drives at full speed, it's stacked with 4x16gb ram, and I don't have a stupid chipset fan to think about on top of weird voltage to boost bs
 
Nasgul said:
Let me get you the "facts" and I'm gonna explain like I'm talking to a Yellow Lab..........better yet, a 5 year old:
Here is something you don't know, the CPU 9700K, he can buy it at microcenter for $299.99. vs $329.99 for the 3700X
Now, when you add the $229 vs $329 of the mobos (yes the 570 is $100 more) PLUS THE PRICE OF THE CPU, then you're looking at a difference of $130 by this I mean: CPU + Motherboard price, got it? See what I did there w/o having to add it in the previous post which You didn't understand? The price of the CPU came in to play in the OVERALL price this time which the difference IS $130 now, no t$120 as I posted before.

So, when I meant "If you buy the similar from the competition, you'd pay an extra $120 for the same thing." I meant for both, as I stated the price for both, both meaning CPU and motherboard of course. I didn't post the price of just the motherboard, did I?

As for the cooler? Yeah!!! Everyone is putting the "stock" cooler in their system....yeah.


"The 570 active cooler, especially on higher end boards rarely spins after bios updates." You posted that, care to elaborate on that part of the comment? BTW, so it's not because the chipset uses 11w and it runs very hot, it only needs the fan because of BIOS "updates" ah...........

And finally, did that "actually" explain the fact that you couldn't understand?
Click to expand...

Evidently, here is something YOU don't know...the 3700X is ALSO $299 at MC and your whole point is invalid, but somehow you think I'M the one needs it explained like to a 5 year old rather than taking 15 seconds and double checking "the facts" before posting :rolleyes:. Internet tough guy backfire.

X570 Chipset fans have fan profiles and do not turn on until the temperature gets over 60C on a balanced profile or 75C on a silent profile depending on the board vendor. In a case with minimal airflow in the area around the chipset, it might never turn on depending on use cases. I admit it isn't ideal, but it's not a deal breaker.

Nobody is going to say that the stock cooler is fantastic, but it works. Techspot did a writeup on how the 3900x cooler does work to cool a 12C/24T CPU. Once again, something Intel can't say the same about because they don't include one at all.
 
Last edited:
actually at MC both 9700k and 3700x are $299, mobo z390 gigabyte aorus pro wifi is $149 after bundle discount. x570 aorus pro wifi is $199 after bundle discount, x570 aorus elite wifi is $149 after bundle discount. so going ryzen is about $50 extra. both cpu price is same so only mobo has price difference of 50ish.
 
A couple things to throw in, having been eyeing new systems for about a year at microcenter, if strictly for gaming any reason why not the 3600x or 9600k? The 3600x was the one I had really eyed up, especially since right now you get a free game as well, and if you ever need more, the 3950x is available. The 9600k was really tempting for me as I also have a waterblock all ready to go and overclocking it sounds fun, but the ryzen 2 chips are just so solid.
I guess it also depends on what your upgrading from?
 
s002wjh said:
actually at MC both 9700k and 3700x are $299, mobo z390 gigabyte aorus pro wifi is $149 after bundle discount. x570 aorus pro wifi is $199 after bundle discount, x570 aorus elite wifi is $149 after bundle discount. so going ryzen is about $50 extra. both cpu price is same so only mobo has price difference of 50ish.
Click to expand...

I ended up with the same combos as you listed except for the x570. I used the X470 Gaming 7.

Initially had bios issues with the 3700x but that was right around launch and its solved now.

Both MB were rock solid. I kept the 9700x for my gaming rig since it is now doing 5.1 (all cores) on an AIO and doesn't go above 70º while gaming on a balanced fan setting. I can't hear my AIO. The 9700X performed a lot better than the 3700X in games I play and especially when combined with VR.

The choice would be do you game only or are you interested in mixing gaming with productivity.

IMO, the 9700X is a better gaming chip, which is why its on my gaming setup, but if I was doing large amounts of productivity work (video editing primarily) I would go with the 3700X. ​
 
Last edited:
9700k in the game box, cheapie 2700x black Friday build for recording and capturing HL Alyx.

Now that would be a fun excuse to dip into VR gaming.
 
I was in the same situation as OP and went 9700K over Ryzen. I am absolutely not a fanboy and am excited to see AMD back at the table pushing Intel hard on consumer, HEDT and server. My rationale for 9700K over 3700X:

1) My use case is pure gaming w/ 1080 Ti (possibly upgrading to 2080 Ti in the new year). Only other use of PC is web browsing/light MS Office/content consumption. If I did literally anything else compute intensive with PC I would have gone Ryzen.

2) While Ryzen is perfectly acceptable gaming performance (i.e. the "floor" fps rates are fine, especially since I play at 2560x1440 144Hz), the 9700K at both stock and reasonable OC is faster, it just is. People keep warning about future games taking advantage of more than 8 cores/threads but this has been talked about for 13+ years going back to Q6600 era days without much evidence to support massive thread scaling in gaming workloads.

3) I enjoy overclocking/tinkering with settings. I am going to run an NH-D15 and try for 5GHz for the fun of it.

4) I don't care about PCI-e 4.0 and future upgrade path of Z390 vs. X570. When I upgrade anything besides GPU I sell the entire box and build a new one.

Here in Canada the 9700K is $455, 3700X $430 and the premium on a decent X570 board is about $50 like for like. Throw in the included cooler and it's a wash money wise.
 
grambo said:
I was in the same situation as OP and went 9700K over Ryzen. I am absolutely not a fanboy and am excited to see AMD back at the table pushing Intel hard on consumer, HEDT and server. My rationale for 9700K over 3700X:

1) My use case is pure gaming w/ 1080 Ti (possibly upgrading to 2080 Ti in the new year). Only other use of PC is web browsing/light MS Office/content consumption. If I did literally anything else compute intensive with PC I would have gone Ryzen.

2) While Ryzen is perfectly acceptable gaming performance (i.e. the "floor" fps rates are fine, especially since I play at 2560x1440 144Hz), the 9700K at both stock and reasonable OC is faster, it just is. People keep warning about future games taking advantage of more than 8 cores/threads but this has been talked about for 13+ years going back to Q6600 era days without much evidence to support massive thread scaling in gaming workloads.

3) I enjoy overclocking/tinkering with settings. I am going to run an NH-D15 and try for 5GHz for the fun of it.

4) I don't care about PCI-e 4.0 and future upgrade path of Z390 vs. X570. When I upgrade anything besides GPU I sell the entire box and build a new one.

Here in Canada the 9700K is $455, 3700X $430 and the premium on a decent X570 board is about $50 like for like. Throw in the included cooler and it's a wash money wise.
Click to expand...

That's assuming you want PCIE 4.0 as an option, as there is zero reason to need a X570 to run a 3700x. A B450/X470 is fine in a gaming computer and you can save at least $100 on one vs the 570. Z390 has the same feature capabilities as X470 and B450 in a lot of cases.. Features and premium cost go up with all the platforms. If you 'buy what you need' a $79 B450 will probably work just fine. Multiple brands are now coming 3k ready.

I'm absolutely not a Fanboy either. Last computer I built was an Athlon II X3 445 Rana. I skipped Bulldozer for obvious reasons and up until 2 months ago, was running a Dell Precision T3500 on 10 year old architecture maxing out most games with at least reasonable framerates ( above 50 FPS 1080p ) on a GTX 1070 with a software overclocked W3680. The 3600 build I have now, was much cheaper than an 8700k build at the time I built it, and overall not much more than I paid for the T3500 with X5670 and 12gb of Ram in 2016.
 
shaolin95 said:
I have seen many delusional AMD fans but you take the trophy! wow..just..wow
Click to expand...

Or Intel fans in denial waiting for another + on the end of their nodes?

Wow..just..wow?

His statement didn't seem all that far fetched depending on the workload.
 
"Mainly for games, 9700k, nothing else pressing."
There's nothing wrong with that statement.

I wouldn't think there was anything wrong with 9600k, mostly gaming +some photoshop on a cpu budget to buy a higher tier gpu, either.

There's also nothing wrong with "I make my living typing json, yaml, python, bash, and react on my issued MacBook Air" either.
 
I decided to stick with Intel too. I am happy to see AMD back in the game, and winning. It's like the Athlon days again, maybe thet can do the Athlon 64 thing again. But I trust the Intel platform more than AMD.

I was going to do a Ryzen 2600/3600 build, but I like to OC in moderation, and those chips have no headroom at all, at least not with modern boost tech they are using. I decided to stick with an Intel K-series, because they just kill it in gaming, and that's all I do really.

I was going to wait for a refresh, but a deal popped up on Newegg for the 9600K+Z390 in my sig, getting them for $280. I just wanted a core updrage (CPU/mobo/RAM), I already have a good cooler and everything, but I ended up getting the 660p deal for $80, and the Corsair RAM for $60.

The savings for the AMD deals were just not compelling enough. All this for Win10 of course, can't play NFS Heat without it :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top