The Radeon Technology Group (RTG) has received its first Zen 2 sample!

Algrim said:
You're initiating a circular argument here. Defenders of Ryzen have (almost) always defended the slower cores by claiming that 'not everyone games' or 'not everyone exclusively games' so the extra cores are 'worth it'. Intel now has a faster, higher core count part. Simply stating that there are more expensive parts out there that are faster doesn't negate the original point: Intel now has a faster gaming part that is no longer as vulnerable to the 'but Ryzen does more work' argument.

My secondary argument is that value is relative; specifically if you get paid or not for your work. If you don't, then Intel may not have the best value for you. If you do, you can easily justify the extra cost because it will pay for itself. It's personally not worth it to me because I game on my gaming computer and I work on my workstations. However, I used a game/work scenario to show how easily I could justify building a machine that worked as well as it gamed.
Click to expand...
The thing is there are better thread workhorses, and when it comes to gaming the value for the gain isn't there. It has its limited purpose for those that need many, but not too many, cores, and want to game in not GPU limited scenarios, and don't care about price/performance. That's a niche of a niche segment.
 
Algrim said:
You're initiating a circular argument here. Defenders of Ryzen have (almost) always defended the slower cores by claiming that 'not everyone games' or 'not everyone exclusively games' so the extra cores are 'worth it'. Intel now has a faster, higher core count part. Simply stating that there are more expensive parts out there that are faster doesn't negate the original point: Intel now has a faster gaming part that is no longer as vulnerable to the 'but Ryzen does more work' argument.

My secondary argument is that value is relative; specifically if you get paid or not for your work. If you don't, then Intel may not have the best value for you. If you do, you can easily justify the extra cost because it will pay for itself. It's personally not worth it to me because I game on my gaming computer and I work on my workstations. However, I used a game/work scenario to show how easily I could justify building a machine that worked as well as it gamed.
Click to expand...

That all depends. By saving $200-250 going with the 2700x you could actually have a better gaming experience because you could use that money toward an even better video card. As an example a 1080ti over 1080 GTX.

Now if price isn't an issue, no doubt about it the 9900k would be the way to go. Because if money isn't an issue you could afford whatever GPU you want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: otg
like this
A magic fairy told me that the engineering samples are now more stable and one has been benchmarked in CPU-Z version 1.86 but not validated scoring a 603 in single thread and 6177 in multithread. Take the magic fairy's claim with a grain of salt.
 
Overshock81 said:
A magic fairy told me that the engineering samples are now more stable and one has been benchmarked in CPU-Z version 1.86 but not validated scoring a 603 in single thread and 6177 in multithread. Take the magic fairy's claim with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

I don't trust fairies anymore....They told me they had the magical lottery numbers for the Mega Millions. It was a whole Mega $1 for me....
 
Meeho said:
The thing is there are better thread workhorses, and when it comes to gaming the value for the gain isn't there. It has its limited purpose for those that need many, but not too many, cores, and want to game in not GPU limited scenarios, and don't care about price/performance. That's a niche of a niche segment.
Click to expand...

The 9900k a good choice for mixed use. You know, someone who games sometimes, maybe does video/audio/rendering work sometimes, compiles shit, streams, or does very heavy multitasking... but is on a middling budget.

The 2700X exists one tier down, is cheaper and is, IMHO, a better value for this use case than the 9700k (which theoretically also lives on this second tier, but is too expensive, IMHO). So if your CPU budget is ~$300, go Ryzen for this mixed use shit. If your CPU budget is $500-$600, your options are a low-end Threadripper, or the 9900k, either of which will serve well. On biases a little more to multithreaded workloads, the other is more general and a better gaming choice.
 
Everyone is talking about the 9900K but what about the 9700K? It a little bit cheaper (for me it's the most I'd consider spending on any one component £500). The 9700K should be able to overclock a little better or be easier to cool. What do you guys think?
 
TheFlayedMan said:
Everyone is talking about the 9900K but what about the 9700K? It a little bit cheaper (for me it's the most I'd consider spending on any one component £500). The 9700K should be able to overclock a little better or be easier to cool. What do you guys think?
Click to expand...

if you don't need the extra threads then yeah it's not a bad buy but i'd still go with the 8700k.. lose the 2 extra physical cores in favor of having 12 threads with the same theoretical overclock potential. or just save the money and get a 2700x.. in all honesty unless you're just purely gaming the 9900k is the only cpu in that line up worth buying.
 
My thinking on the 9700K vs 8700K is that the HT cores are worth 25% of a full core so I'd rather have 8 cores than 6 with HT. Just IMO of course.
 
so glad i got a 3930k, but lets at least try to stick with interesting AMD CPU development\s? really dont want to Hear about Intel K here. thanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: otg
like this
Can't wait for Zen 2. Will be my first AMD processor since the Athlon Thunderbird days. Excite!
 
I was really hoping to go AMD my last box & I went intel. Why? Only 2 reasons.

1) AMD was in the middle of the weird linux/compiler bug on the Ryzen 1xxx series. There was a 50+ page thread over on amd.com forums about it.
2) My i5-8400 + Motherboard was to be an immediate replacement for an LGA1150 (haswell) setup in which new motherboards couldn't be found. The i5-8400+Z370 board was $255 after $20 MIR and was significantly cheaper than going 6 or 8 core Ryzen. IIRC the 6 core was about $230 at the time without a board.

Still hoping to go AMD next round, but no need with basically 4 desktops (1 i5-8400, 2 i7/e3-haswell, 1 sandy-e) I think it's going to be a while...
 
/dev/null said:
I was really hoping to go AMD my last box & I went intel. Why? Only 2 reasons.

1) AMD was in the middle of the weird linux/compiler bug on the Ryzen 1xxx series. There was a 50+ page thread over on amd.com forums about it.
2) My i5-8400 + Motherboard was to be an immediate replacement for an LGA1150 (haswell) setup in which new motherboards couldn't be found. The i5-8400+Z370 board was $255 after $20 MIR and was significantly cheaper than going 6 or 8 core Ryzen. IIRC the 6 core was about $230 at the time without a board.

Still hoping to go AMD next round, but no need with basically 4 desktops (1 i5-8400, 2 i7/e3-haswell, 1 sandy-e) I think it's going to be a while...
Click to expand...

I got a 2600(non-x) for $199 Canadian, that should be in the mid 100s USD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top