Help me choose a new CPU/platform

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

What CPU is best for me right now?

  • Intel 9900K

    Votes: 8 19.5%
  • AMD 2700X

    Votes: 22 53.7%
  • Intel 8700K

    Votes: 2 4.9%
  • AMD 2600X

    Votes: 5 12.2%
  • Other (Below)

    Votes: 4 9.8%

  • Total voters
    41

Thunder 57

Senior member
Aug 19, 2007
672
172
136
#26
Normally I'd agree with you, but Destiny 2 (which the OP specifically mentioned) doesnt really scale beyond 4C/4T:

I'm not exactly sure how how a 3570K @ 4.2GHz compares to a stock 7600K but it shouldnt be that far off. The stock 7600K is about 10% ahead of a 1700 @ 3.9GHz, so a 2700X should just about draw equal.

It would be a HUGE productivity upgrade, but if the OP is looking for a big improvement in 120fps+ gaming in Destiny 2 he may be a bit disappointed in the gains compared to his 3570K.
OP seems to be playing on a 1440p monitor, so this benchmark would be more appropriate:



Also remember that this is an older benchmark without Intel's 8000 and AMD's 2000 series. Since it doesn't seem to scale much beyond 4C/4T, you can still figure it out somewhat though. A stock 2700X would be considerably better than the 1700 @ 3.9GHz here. IPC improvements and probably running around 4.1-4.2GHz as not all cores are loaded.

Of course, overclocking changes everything up if you went with the 8600k.
 
Oct 27, 2006
19,709
197
106
#27
Normally I'd agree with you, but Destiny 2 (which the OP specifically mentioned) doesnt really scale beyond 4C/4T:



I'm not exactly sure how how a 3570K @ 4.2GHz compares to a stock 7600K but it shouldnt be that far off. The stock 7600K is about 10% ahead of a 1700 @ 3.9GHz, so a 2700X should just about draw equal.

It would be a HUGE productivity upgrade, but if the OP is looking for a big improvement in 120fps+ gaming in Destiny 2 he may be a bit disappointed in the gains compared to his 3570K.
That's my feels. I have a Gysnc and 1080ti, and was a bit let down going 4790k to 1700x. Of course I had it at 4.8, couldn't get my 1700X nearly as far, but for encoding and multitasking the 1700X is a beast. I had hoped for a worthwhile upgrade from the 1700 with Zen+/2000, but it seems like that will come next Spring or so.
 

IEC

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
Jun 10, 2004
13,565
390
136
#28
That data is a year old, is for the base game only, and doesn't reflect actual gameplay which can hammer a quad core with no HT (especially if you're running Discord + other apps at the same time). The Forsaken expansion is quite a bit harder on CPU than the base game.

It also doesn't reflect the gains of the Ryzen 2000 series versus the originals.
 

ZGR

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2012
1,824
41
126
#30
There are specific areas in D2, like Raids, where the amount of AI will really hammer any CPU. These benchmarks do not reflect that. Guess we will have to make our own.

Edit: Escalation Protocol CPU benchmark needs to be done. Most amount of AI on D2. That is the only valid CPU stress test.
 

DominionSeraph

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
8,388
21
91
#31
In terms of editing/encoding the 9900K would be the best but costly. 2700X would be the best value here.
2700X would not be the best value. OP has a $700 video card. 32GB DDR4 is going to run a minimum of $200. $120 mobo for either AMD or Intel. $50 PSU. His 850 EVO is $150 (assuming 256GB). And a cardboard box to put them all in is free.
This means you're looking at $1520 vs $1720, meaning a 2700X build is 88% of the cost of a 9900k one, when...



...a 2700X is 67% of the speed of a 9900k.


You shouldn't race individual components as though they work by themselves.
 
Last edited:

SPBHM

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2012
4,821
55
126
#32
that's HEVC because of AVX2, if you are doing h264 encoding AMD is a lot closer I think.
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
3,244
602
136
#35
2700X would not be the best value. OP has a $700 video card. 32GB DDR4 is going to run a minimum of $200. $120 mobo for either AMD or Intel. $50 PSU. His 850 EVO is $150 (assuming 256GB). And a cardboard box to put them all in is free.This means you're looking at $1520 vs $1720, meaning a 2700X build is 88% of the cost of a 9900k one
Including the cost of the GPU to justify relative price/perf ratio using a CPU only benchmark is mind boggling. Why not add the CRT monitor as well, with that $1800 MSRP it will make the 9900K seem dirt cheap by default. Heck, how about electricity, internet , Netflix, even food & drinks consumed during movies should be included. If the OP enjoys a fine selection of wines then we're all set: cost of living is so high, why even check CPU price while add to cart? /s

Meanwhile, back in the real world the price difference between 2700X and 9900K is $300+, so it seems that somehow when you build an entire setup the AMD CPU becomes $100 more expensive to help the comparison further. That's $600 if you consider the 2 systems he's about to build, or enough to buy a new video card with an updated video encoder. Fun stuff.

The 9900K has some very strong points in performance and oc potential, and a weak point in pricing and availability. This thread is actually one of the best case scenarios for it - someone who wants top performance in both CPU limited gaming titles and productivity. The Intel's best mainstream product should stand in front based entirely on it's merits, not a skewed price comparison.

If and when the 9900K will be available at MSRP, it will certainly become a no brainer for the OP. Until then market reality is unforgiving.

PS: @OP - i ended up voting 9900K since that's the performance level you want to be heading towards if availability and pricing gets sorted out. However, if things don't significantly improve by BF/Christmas I would either build using some cheap Intel CPUs and upgrade in 2019, or simply go 2700X and see what those 7nm chips have in store.
 
Last edited:

DominionSeraph

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
8,388
21
91
#36
Including the cost of the GPU to justify relative price/perf ratio using a CPU only benchmark is mind boggling. Why not add the CRT monitor as well
Because it would have diluted the brilliance to make it so specific to the OP. While true it makes even less sense for him, the point was made much earlier. It's why I didn't even suggest a proper case: the Intel is a better value even at the point of a cardboard box build.
 
Last edited:

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
3,244
602
136
#37
Because it would have diluted the brilliance to make it so specific to the OP.
Brilliance? Comparing based on $488 "MSRP" when market price is $580+, if available at all? I need a taste of that magical mirror.
 

DominionSeraph

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
8,388
21
91
#38
Last edited by a moderator:
Feb 23, 2017
547
477
106
#40
What mobotherboard can you get for $120 that is suitable for a 9900k?

Edit: a quick Google search for Z390 will show that whilst you can get a Z390 for near that price, you certainly won't be get anywhere near full performance out of your 9900k using one. For that you are looking at 2-3x the cost.
 
Last edited:
Apr 27, 2000
11,836
1,045
126
#41
2700X would not be the best value.

You shouldn't race individual components as though they work by themselves.
OP can't even buy a 9900k, since there are none available except at eBay markups. And if you had been reading his comments, he wants to buy two identical systems. So good luck putting together two i9-9900k systems between now and Thanksgiving at anything other than astronomical prices.

Why not add the CRT monitor as well
. . . and a few visits to the chiropractor for when you throw out your back lifting the damn thing.

CRT 4tehwin!!!1!111!

(kind of wish I had a 21" Princeton though, meh)

Brilliance? Comparing based on $488 "MSRP" when market price is $580+, if available at all? I need a taste of that magical mirror.
availability = nil, except on eBay maybe.

"Tickle ME Intel"? LOL.
Is that what Krzanich was doing . . . ?
 

nathanddrews

Graphics Cards, CPU Moderator
Super Moderator
Aug 9, 2016
965
0
106
www.youtube.com
#42
Including the cost of the GPU to justify relative price/perf ratio using a CPU only benchmark is mind boggling.
FWIW, I only paid $800 for both of the 1080Ti cards ($400 each) from a dude on craigslist. So we could probably forego a lengthy discussion of price/performance since I'll be replacing virtually every part on two computers and the total cost difference between Intel and AMD is probably about 18%. If we assume some costs for going AMD or Intel:

1. decent OC motherboard is $200
2. quality OC DDR4 with good timings is $200
3. case + PSU is $120
4. new NVME SSD is $200

So before the cost of the CPU, it's going to be $720 per computer - $1440 total. 9900K price isn't a sure thing yet (probably higher, but maybe at or lower with mobo bundles), so we'll go with the MSRP of $488 + needing a decent air cooler for $50. The 2700X is $279 at Microcenter right now. So yeah, $259 extra per system = $518 extra for two systems. Looking at the performance delta between the two stock CPUs for productivity as well as minimum frames and high frame-rates the extra money looks like it buys plenty of extra performance. Even when overclocked - which definitely sweetens the 2700X, the 9900K still provides more than 15% higher minimum frames per game, which is somewhat critical for trying to get a smooth 120fps experience.

I love my CRT - I won't stop using it until one of us dies. :D
 
Feb 23, 2017
547
477
106
#44
I'm not sure that a $50 cooler will be enough for a 9900k, especially not if you want to overclock.
 

Elfear

Diamond Member
May 30, 2004
6,820
50
126
#45
FWIW, I only paid $800 for both of the 1080Ti cards ($400 each) from a dude on craigslist. So we could probably forego a lengthy discussion of price/performance since I'll be replacing virtually every part on two computers and the total cost difference between Intel and AMD is probably about 18%. If we assume some costs for going AMD or Intel:

1. decent OC motherboard is $200
2. quality OC DDR4 with good timings is $200
3. case + PSU is $120
4. new NVME SSD is $200

So before the cost of the CPU, it's going to be $720 per computer - $1440 total. 9900K price isn't a sure thing yet (probably higher, but maybe at or lower with mobo bundles), so we'll go with the MSRP of $488 + needing a decent air cooler for $50. The 2700X is $279 at Microcenter right now. So yeah, $259 extra per system = $518 extra for two systems. Looking at the performance delta between the two stock CPUs for productivity as well as minimum frames and high frame-rates the extra money looks like it buys plenty of extra performance. Even when overclocked - which definitely sweetens the 2700X, the 9900K still provides more than 15% higher minimum frames per game, which is somewhat critical for trying to get a smooth 120fps experience.

I love my CRT - I won't stop using it until one of us dies. :D
You may consider a 2700X/B450 motherboard combo. B450 supports XFR2 so the 2700X should auto-overclock to 4.35Ghz (~4.1Ghz all-core). A B450 wouldn't have the same overclocking features as a $200 X470, but the 2700X doesn't gain a lot of performance from manual overclocking anyway. Microcenter has an Asus Stryx B450-F on sale for $84.99 with CPU purchase. Spec-wise it looks pretty good although I have no personal experience with that board.

Buying two Ryzen systems would save you ~$670-700 over the system you specced above, especially if you have to buy good air coolers for the 9900ks.

The 9900k is definitely at the top of the heap right now but it also costs an arm and a leg with very limited availability.
 
Apr 27, 2000
11,836
1,045
126
#46
Only reason I would avoid B450 would be the possibility of poor-quality power delivery. Not sure if B450 boards stepped it up over B350, but B350 boards really did have some bad VRM configs here and there. Bad enough that a 1700 or 1800x on one was a mistake.
 
Feb 23, 2017
547
477
106
#47
The 9900k will certainly keep you going until DDR5 and PCIe5 are available, at which point it's anyone's guess on where Intel and AMD will be performance wise.
Cost and compatibility are the main issues with the 9900k right now.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
17,776
1,387
136
#48
The 9900k will certainly keep you going until DDR5 and PCIe5 are available, at which point it's anyone's guess on where Intel and AMD will be performance wise.
Cost and compatibility are the main issues with the 9900k right now.
And not the least is availability ...

I still say 2700x with an X470 Taichi $200
 

scannall

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2012
1,379
215
136
#49
Only reason I would avoid B450 would be the possibility of poor-quality power delivery. Not sure if B450 boards stepped it up over B350, but B350 boards really did have some bad VRM configs here and there. Bad enough that a 1700 or 1800x on one was a mistake.
I have the Asrock B450 Pro4. It's been rock solid. I think it was $80 or so.
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
3,244
602
136
#50
we could probably forego a lengthy discussion of price/performance since I'll be replacing virtually every part on two computers and the total cost difference between Intel and AMD is probably about 18%.
The point of my post was the 9900K should stand on it's own despite the price difference, not by skewing price numbers so they seem smaller, especially considering the fact you're in a position to buy either based more on total lifetime of the system (including upgrades) rather than upfront cost.

If we start comparing costs only, absolute or relative, we'll soon see people pointing out B450 motherboards extract all that needs to be extracted from 2700X, we'll get into a never ending discussion on the cooling solution the 9900K will need to get those juicy results. The mud will be above our knees in the first page of replies.

Why not focus on performance numbers instead?
  • Is the 9900K a bulletproof solution for Destiny 2 in it's current form? All I know is the 2700X looks unimpressive in the latest content of the game, but I'd like to see the 9900K deliver where the Ryzen cannot. Otherwise we're just shooting blanks, pun intended.
  • Moving on to video encoding, what's the software environment going to look like? Are we sure you're not going to use hardware accelerated encoding? If Intel's hardware encoder or Nvidia's hardware encoder will play a role, value proposition between Intel and AMD can change drastically.
These are clear cut questions which do not depend on Intel's production capabilities until BF / Christmas, and in my view should take precedence.
 

Similar threads



ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS