Just buy a 3700x today. I wouldn't buy a 3600 today with the next gen consoles being 8 core and being able to score a 3700x for $279 (I currently own a 3600, it's great)Anyone think this will happen? I was gonna grab a 3600 or 3600X soon but I may very well wait.
the 3700x embarrasses the 7700k in every benchmark on this page including power usage.
so when are you buying one?
because at 1440p you are gpu limited.I upgraded from a 7700k @ 4.9 to a 3700X. With a 2080TI at 1440P gaming performance in modern titles is pretty much the same with them only being 1-5 fps different (RDR2 & Assassin's Creed Odyssey). In a handful of games the 7700k is far faster (League of Legends, Far Cry Primal). All in all it's pretty much a wash for gaming.
Hot. I had a 7820x that got up to almost 90c under custom loop before I delided. It then ran in the upper 70s. My 3950x under the same loop kisses 70c. This while keeping my fans at 50% and whisper quite vs having them cranked to 75% on the 7820x. Granted I was overclocking it to 4.8ghz.My 2700X while running HandBrake will get as hot as 65C, but then again I'm using a custom loop. I hear 9900K's typically run 90C while air cooling.
Just buy a 3700x today. I wouldn't buy a 3600 today with the next gen consoles being 8 core and being able to score a 3700x for $279 (I currently own a 3600, it's great)
Anyone think this will happen? I was gonna grab a 3600 or 3600X soon but I may very well wait.
because at 1440p you are gpu limited.
those benchmarks i posted are at 720p
where the cpu is the limitation
So doesn't that support the argument that he should just keep his 7700K until there's at least 10% performance bump in games that people play at real-world resolutions & settings? Defeats the whole purpose if the only place we see a 10% gaming performance margin is when we dump the resolution to 720/768P and lowest settings. I also upgraded from an i7-6700 to a 3700X, virtually no difference in 1440P and 4K performance (and wasn't expecting any).
he said thread performance which at 720p the amd does in spades.
you know when the cpu is being taxed to the fullest
you guys are looking at gpu bound scenarios.
That's one way to look at it. The other is to buy a 3600 now and just upgrade to the 4XXX part later this year or when the 6 core starts to show its weaknesses. I don't think you'll have heavily optimized games initially.
I recently picked up a 3600 for $160 during an Amazon sale. Usually the 3700x is $280 on sale. I mean that last two cores is expensive. Right now I'm not sure you'd notice a huge difference in gaming (I didn't notice a difference between a 3600, 3600x, 3800x, or 3900x) in real world testing. They were all plenty fast for gaming at 1440p in my case.
The more I read, it sounds like the 10700 is going to be priced closer to the 3700x at around $300. The 10900 is going to be some $500+. The 10600 sounded like it was going to be sub-$200.
This is according to techspot.
My 9900KF only uses around 120W IIRC at 5Ghz. It shouldn’t be that hard to cool... it’s only an 8 core CPU.
that may be MSRP but given they still can't even produce enough 9 series cpu's i'd venture to say that you'll never see 10 series at msrp after launch day.
That's at idle conditions. Under full load and while overclocked the 9900K pulls considerably more power than that.
View attachment 236146
Even under turbo boost conditions, you can ignore the TDP ratings. They are meaningless. More than that, the 9900K isn't "just an 8 core" CPU. It's a 14nm CPU at extremely high clock speeds. It isn't a very efficient process when you have 8+ CPU cores in the same package running at the necessary clock speeds to remain competitive. It isn't as if you can take AMD's 7nm processors or something else and extrapolate the power consumption of an Intel CPU as though an 8 core CPU couldn't possibly use that much power or be horribly inefficient because they absolutely can.