i9 9900X vs AMD Threadripper 2920X

[ChrispyjBMW]

Well it boils down to these 2 processors and I just don't know which route to go? The intel chip has 16 PCIe lanes while the Threadripper has 64. I understand the GPU will need lanes so will 16 be enough? Which route should I go? all perspectives are welcome. Thank you folks.

 

[BigDaveX]

Do you mean the 9900X or 9900K? Because the former has 10 cores, uses LGA2066 and has 44PCIe lanes, while the latter has 8 cores, uses LGA1151 v2 and has only 16 PCIe lanes.

Aside from that, I'd say the 2920X is probably the better choice on balance, as it's a lot cheaper while offering very comparable performance in anything that doesn't make use of AVX instructions. It really depends what you'll be using it for, though.

 

[Markfw]

Do you mean the 9900X or 9900K? Because the former has 10 cores, uses LGA2066 and has 44PCIe lanes, while the latter has 8 cores, uses LGA1151 v2 and has only 16 PCIe lanes.

Aside from that, I'd say the 2920X is probably the better choice on balance, as it's a lot cheaper while offering very comparable performance in anything that doesn't make use of AVX instructions. It really depends what you'll be using it for, though.

I would have to agree, unless you are a primary gamer. For anything else, the 2920x will beat the 9900k performance/$$$

 

[BigDaveX]

I would have to agree, unless you are a primary gamer. For anything else, the 2920x will beat the 9900k performance/$$$

Actually, if you're comparing the 9900K (not the 9900X) to the 2920X, it's a lot closer than a standard desktop chip has any right to be. Looking at AT's benches of the two, the 2920X is ahead on balance, but there are more than a few cases where the 9900K wins, and a system based on that chip would be cheaper overall due to only needing dual-channel memory and an Z370/Z390 board instead of X399.

The 9900X, on the other hand, really doesn't come close to justifying its price premium unless you're running some really exotic AVX-512 code.

 

[Atari2600]

Whats your critical use case?

 

[ChrispyjBMW]

Do you mean the 9900X or 9900K? Because the former has 10 cores, uses LGA2066 and has 44PCIe lanes, while the latter has 8 cores, uses LGA1151 v2 and has only 16 PCIe lanes.

Aside from that, I'd say the 2920X is probably the better choice on balance, as it's a lot cheaper while offering very comparable performance in anything that doesn't make use of AVX instructions. It really depends what you'll be using it for, though.

yes, you are correct 9900K, my apologies as I had X on the brain!

Predominately gaming, will do video editing and encoding, regular surfing and Office task but gaming all the way.

 

[ChrispyjBMW]

Actually, if you're comparing the 9900K (not the 9900X) to the 2920X, it's a lot closer than a standard desktop chip has any right to be. Looking at AT's benches of the two, the 2920X is ahead on balance, but there are more than a few cases where the 9900K wins, and a system based on that chip would be cheaper overall due to only needing dual-channel memory and an Z370/Z390 board instead of X399.

The 9900X, on the other hand, really doesn't come close to justifying its price premium unless you're running some really exotic AVX-512 code.

Thank you for your response, yes the 9900K, I didn't mean to type X.. however that brings up another question, dual channel vs quad channel, which would be the better route?

 

[Markfw]

The minute you say gaming, the 9900k wins, even though I love threadrippers (I have 6 of them)

 

[ChrispyjBMW]

Whats your critical use case?

every day tasks, video encoding and editing.. main primary use would be gaming. BO4, BFV, BF1, PubG, may get back into WoW

 

[ChrispyjBMW]

The minute you say gaming, the 9900k wins, even though I love threadrippers (I have 6 of them)

I gotcha.. did it out perform as far as gaming?

 

[Mopetar]

What resolution are you running and what card are you using or planning to use? If you're going to be GPU bound, it really doesn't matter which you get. If you're gaming at 1080p the Intel chip is going to be a better bet.

 

[Markfw]

I gotcha.. did it out perform as far as gaming?

If you are the "ultimate gamer" its faster. If you use other things a fair amount, you still may want to consider the 2920x, its better in multitasking.

 

[Arachnotronic]

yes, you are correct 9900K, my apologies as I had X on the brain!

Predominately gaming, will do video editing and encoding, regular surfing and Office task but gaming all the way.

9900K, no question.

 

[Rifter]

for gaming as primary use then 9900k hands down. If productivity apps are your main use then 2920x

 

[ChrispyjBMW]

What resolution are you running and what card are you using or planning to use? If you're going to be GPU bound, it really doesn't matter which you get. If you're gaming at 1080p the Intel chip is going to be a better bet.

right now 0 resolution.. I'm starting all over from scratch.. I had a X99 build I sold 4 years ago and was using a AlienDellWare laptop as my "gaming" PC.. it had a i7 4xxx series with a Nividia 660M. Sold it 10 months ago and now my summer 2014 MacBook Pro is my gaming PC for now, since I used bootcamp to install windows but BO4 looks like shit so its time to start a new gaming rig... I already have the tower, PSU, fans, Blue-ray drive, LC system, M2 960 EVO, all I need is RAM, GPU, CPU and Mobo....

I want either a 1080Ti or a regular 2080.. and as you know I can't decide between the 2920X or the 9900K.. quad vs dual..

 

[ChrispyjBMW]

If you are the "ultimate gamer" its faster. If you use other things a fair amount, you still may want to consider the 2920x, its better in multitasking.

Gaming = primary function. work function such as folding and other duties will be done on this PC

 

[Arachnotronic]

Gaming = primary function. work function such as folding and other duties will be done on this PC

Also keep in mind that better ST perf isn't just about gaming -- it has an impact on the responsiveness of everything you do.

If gaming is your main use case, then 9900K is the no-brainer choice.

 

[ZGR]

If you are gaming at 60hz, then either CPU is fine. Above 144hz, the i9 will pull ahead.

I would look at the 2700X or 9700k instead.

 

[ChrispyjBMW]

If you are gaming at 60hz, then either CPU is fine. Above 144hz, the i9 will pull ahead.

I would look at the 2700X or 9700k instead.

I do want a 100Hz monitor or above.. 60Hz is old news and want more than that... Thank you for your perspective. I will check out the other 2 chips you mentioned.

 

[ChrispyjBMW]

Also keep in mind that better ST perf isn't just about gaming -- it has an impact on the responsiveness of everything you do.

If gaming is your main use case, then 9900K is the no-brainer choice.

Pardon my ignorance but what do you mean by ST perf?

 

[Rifter]

Pardon my ignorance but what do you mean by ST perf?

Single thread

 

[ChrispyjBMW]

Single thread

gotcha! DOH!

 

[Dasa2]

Thank you for your response, yes the 9900K, I didn't mean to type X.. however that brings up another question, dual channel vs quad channel, which would be the better route?

Intel quad channel systems have higher latency so they are actually much slower for games and more competitive performance wise with Threadripper.
Paring the 9900K with 4x8GB high speed DDR4 will also boost it's performance a fair bit although as pointed out if you don't need the performance you wont notice the difference at least for now.
for 9900K I would go with 4x8GB 3200c14 If you wish to OC but if you dont want to OC I guess it depends on how much you want to spend.
The reason for 4 sticks is to get the benefits of dual rank RAM which from my early testing seems to bring 3-5% extra performance to my 6700k In games but it wont help with video editing.

 

[ChrispyjBMW]

Intel quad channel systems have higher latency so they are actually much slower for games and more competitive performance wise with Threadripper.
Paring the 9900K with 4x8GB high speed DDR4 will also boost it's performance a fair bit although as pointed out if you don't need the performance you wont notice the difference at least for now.
for 9900K I would go with 4x8GB 3200c14 If you wish to OC but if you dont want to OC I guess it depends on how much you want to spend.
The reason for 4 sticks is to get the benefits of dual rank RAM which from my early testing seems to bring 3-5% extra performance to my 6700k In games but it wont help with video editing.

Gotcha... 4 sticks for dual channel? I thought 4 would bring out quad channel?

 

[Dasa2]

The memory controller on the 9900K only handles dual channel even with 4 sticks of RAM and while quad channel platforms like the 2066skt increased bandwidth significantly it's at the expence of latency.

Separate to dual channel\quad channel there is single rank and dual rank RAM for example 8GB sticks of samsung B die are single rank while 16GB sticks are dual rank which brings a small performance boost to the CPU but 16GB dual rank sticks usually don't reach the high clock speeds of 8GB single rank sticks although in a MB like Asus Apex they come close, However 4 single rank stick offer the same performance advantage as two dual rank sticks and with a high quality MB can hit higher clock speeds.