• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Question Next CPU/Platform Upgrade Timing?

dsc106

Senior member
May 31, 2012
268
6
81
Specs in my sig: essentially, a 2012 Sandy Bridge E 3.2ghz 6-core build (2nd gen core i7). 64gb RAM. Upgraded with GTX 1080 TI. Still kicking well, but I'm a video editor, and gamer on the side.

This nothing urgent, but my timeline is beginning to feel like "within the next 18 months, 2 years tops" for a core system upgrade. But here are my questions:

1. How noticeable would a CPU upgrade today be? For 4K video with HEVC, I am guessing it would be noticeable. For everything else, i.e. games, I am guessing kinda-sorta but not really worth it?

2. Thoughts on timing? Ice Lake 10nm is around the corner, and that seems like a good time to move on, so sometime in early 2020, or by the end of year 2020. Thoughts?

3. I am not familiar with Intel's usual product plans: should we expect an Ice Lake 10nm Extreme Chip within the next 18 months? Or will I find myself preferring a 14nm Extreme Chip with more cores for video editing?

My thoughts for an upgrade are the following:

- Move from 64gb RAM to 128gb.
- Move from 6-core 3.2ghz to as many cores as I can and as fast as I can (12 core 4.5ghz??)
- Acquire new chip tech that better supports HEVC, h.265, 4K, HDR, 10-bit color, etc.
- Motherboard with all new features for easy use of PCI-E M.2 SSDs and lots of SATA ports, etc.

Will next year be good timing? Or is this year just as good as any, or is my system strong enough and upgrade benefits minimal enough that I should press through longer for a big breakthrough in 2021?

It seems DDR5 isn't going to be worth waiting for and the CPU upgrade cycles have really slowed down.

I am also wondering if my Corsair 850 PSU will be good to keep chugging on a new rig, or if I need to upgrade it for either age (it will be 8 years old in 2020) or power (is 850w enough for a high powered rig these days / next year?)

If this seems premature, it is because I need to start budgeting and planning now to project my upgrade next year, and also want to get an idea of what I should target roughly for timing. It's nice to be in a place where there is no pressing need, but also realizing that as 4K h.265 HEVC, HDR, and other things keep moving forward the time is drawing near where a new, strong platform may serve me well for another 7-10 years (I can't believe that's how long upgrade cycles for PCs have moved to! I remember having to upgrade every 2 years "back in the day"...)

Thank you!
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
18,948
6,272
136
I Think waiting on the Ryzen 3000 chips is worth the wait. Ice lake 10 nm will be a while (not this year, maybe not next). If you want a lot of cores, 2970wx or 2990wx are out there now, but not that great for gaming. You could keep you current setup for gaming and add this new rig for video work.

Bottom line is that Intel is not a good option any time soon for a lot of cores. The 9900k is the only option, but that only 8 cores. Great for gaming, but the 2970wx will destroy it in video, and not be too far behind in gaming.
 

dsc106

Senior member
May 31, 2012
268
6
81
Oh wow, I didn't realize that AMD was actually BETTER these days - I just thought they were a great budget option. Times change eh?

I can wait. So the Ryzen 3000 would be great for gaming AND video... and better than Intel? Support for 128gb RAM?

Will my PSU hold up?

How big is the performance jump from my current system in terms of tangible feeling, not just benchmarks?
 

scannall

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2012
1,527
891
136
Oh wow, I didn't realize that AMD was actually BETTER these days - I just thought they were a great budget option. Times change eh?

I can wait. So the Ryzen 3000 would be great for gaming AND video... and better than Intel? Support for 128gb RAM?

Will my PSU hold up?

How big is the performance jump from my current system in terms of tangible feeling, not just benchmarks?
I upgraded from a 6 core Xeon 5660 overclocked to a Ryzen 2600X running stock. And the improvement is very noticeable.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
18,948
6,272
136
Oh wow, I didn't realize that AMD was actually BETTER these days - I just thought they were a great budget option. Times change eh?

I can wait. So the Ryzen 3000 would be great for gaming AND video... and better than Intel? Support for 128gb RAM?

Will my PSU hold up?

How big is the performance jump from my current system in terms of tangible feeling, not just benchmarks?
If you go threadripper, the memory support is 2 or 4 terrabytes. Right now I think 128 gig is easy on that platform (somebody correct me if wring)

So, gaming aside (still good but not king) a threadripper 2950x, 2970wx or 2990wx would give you more power than you think, thats 16c/32t, 24c/48t, 32c/64t available today, and they are pretty low power for how many cores. With a 1080TI, you would probably go all the way ro 2990wx, but I personally recently fell in love with the 2970wx, as it cools with air cooling ! Your AX850 should handle that and the 1080ti at full load (stock, no OC) I get 3550 ghz full load on 48 threads. More than enough juice. Its draws (system power, not just CPU) 350 watts. The 1080ti does about 250 watts full load, to that would be 600 watts load with everything running.

I could go on... lots of PCIE lanes, 3 m.2 slots on the motherboard (super fast SSD's) and 64 PCIE lanes total.

Oh, and these are Ryzen 2, not the new 3's. Threadripper for Ryzen 3 will be motherboard compatible, but not out until way late this year or maybe a little later.
 

AnnoyedGrunt

Senior member
Jan 31, 2004
588
16
81
On the intel consumer platform the 9900k is about the fastest processor you can get for gaming and most office type tasks. The encoding stuff can use more cores and can benefit from the HEDT stuff. I’m not sure what the longevity is on Intel’s platforms because even though they have some of the fastest CPUs today, they seem to really be pushing their process limits. Not sure there is much room for growth.

On the AMD side you have the 2nd gen Ryzen stuff that tends to be slower than the intel stuff in high-frame rate gaming (CPU limited scenarios), but which will of course be similar in GPU limited cases. With your 1080ti, you would likely see a slight difference between CPUs on a 1080p or 1440p high refresh monitor. If you are on a 60 hz monitor, or running a4k display, you probably won’t notice much of a difference. With AMD you typically get a greater number of slower cores, so the programs that can use all the cores are quite fast on the AMD stuff. Also, AMD looks to be keeping their sockets more consistent so their is a greater possibility of good upgrades in the future, especially when the 3rd gen Ryzen stuff becomes available mid year.

Intel does have some advantages with adobe software that uses the iGPU to accelerate some processes.

I went from a i5 3570k to a Ryzen 2700x and am very happy. Looking forward to seeing what the next couple of AMD generations have to offer, and maybe swapping in a 4th gen in a few years if it will fit.

-AG
 

TheGiant

Senior member
Jun 12, 2017
610
237
86
if you need 64/128GB of RAM, current AMD platform isn't able to run it on high speeds and low latency, so you wont get the performance (especially gaming) that you see in the reviews and the effect is very big from memory tuning
if you really need that amount of RAM and you are gamer, my list:

  1. high fps/competitive gaming sensitive on 0,1,1% low FPS and not so much video encoding - 9900K
  2. high fps/competitive gaming sensitive on 0,1,1% low FPS and lots video encoding - nothing on the market in one machine
    1. intel skylake-x is slow on gaming
    2. amd tr 2950x is better, but still slow for high fps gaming
    3. keep your current machine for video and buy 9700K for gaming and put in there that 1080TI
    4. wait half year for ryzen 3 to come- may be good enough for both uses
  3. 60Hz gaming and not so much video encoding
    1. 2700X or 9900K (worse value)
  4. 60Hz gaming and lots of video encoding
    1. amd TR or skylake -x , buy which one you prefer, for modern codecs intel platform offers better performance because of AVX but also costs more
but either way, be prepared for some hefty cooling required ATM, it will very probably change with ryzen 3 since it is on 7nm

personal recommendation: wait for ryzen 3- lower power thanks to 7nm process ( I didn't buy 9900K as a replacement for 6600K oced to 4,4GHz not because mainly of the power, but the cooling required to get 10+% more single/low thread performance than that 6600K)
 
Last edited:

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
4,309
662
126
You didn't explictly mention it but I assume you are gaming at 4k? Then your current proccessor isn't holding you back that much, you could OC it to give it some new live. At 4k you are very much GPU limited. At 1080p the story would be very different, there you could probably double frame rate with a 9900k.

What system to buy greatly depends on what is more important and your budget (albeit as far as i understood budget isn't much of an issue). Gaming or video encoding? Current Threadripper due to it's memory topology isn't great for gaming. WIth Zen2 and Threadripper 3, this should change or at least will be coparable to the Ryzen 3000 platform, hence no more trade-off between many cores or good at gaming.

My suggestion would be to wait for Threadripper 3 late this year or early 2020. But that is the issue. We don't know when exactly it will release, how good it will perform and how much it will cost. I assume AMD won't raises prices per core so I would say you could probably get a 32-core CPU for $1800 or less (just the CPU!). That would be a huge increase if your software can use all the threads.
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
3,397
2,589
136
My thoughts for an upgrade are the following:

- Move from 64gb RAM to 128gb.
- Move from 6-core 3.2ghz to as many cores as I can and as fast as I can (12 core 4.5ghz??)
- Acquire new chip tech that better supports HEVC, h.265, 4K, HDR, 10-bit color, etc.
- Motherboard with all new features for easy use of PCI-E M.2 SSDs and lots of SATA ports, etc.

Will next year be good timing?
Good timing starts this summer/autumn.

- memory prices are coming down to reasonable levels
- SSD prices are at all-time low and expected to slowly go down throughout 2019, with fast NVME price premium mostly gone
- summer will mark a strong release from AMD and Intel is bound to respond (just pick what suits you)

The second half of this year will be a very good time for all-round desktop upgrades.
 

dsc106

Senior member
May 31, 2012
268
6
81
Great info all around, thank you!

So no one seems keen on the 10th gen intel offerings, which if I’m waiting till q4 2019 (or q1-q2 2020) should be out by then (they seemed to indicate ice lake by holiday 2019). Intel does seem to retain some advantages, no?

Is it all but certain the Ryzen will outperform ice lake?

From what I’ve read in 2018 intel is still king in the adobe suite...? Maybe they weren’t factoring in the ultra high core count, but, is this software really optimized to utilize so many AMD cores?

And why does intel hold the lead in adobe? Is it single thread performance due to adobe poor multi core optimization, or chipset instructions that are superior?

It is hard as gaming and video are my two primary concerns. But I’d probably have to choose work first. I do want to be on a new Architecture to keep pace with the next generation of consoles so I can keep up and just upgrade to an rtx 3080 ti down the road.

I have both a 4K pro photo monitor and 27” 2.7k 144hz IPS g sync monitor and I tend to favor the later for shooting games and the former for racing and strategy games.

Correct, budget is not as much a consideration. It always is, but it’s down the list. No need to blow cash on diminishing returns but I don’t mind paying for an optimal long term solution, or waiting a year for the next platform build.
 

maddie

Platinum Member
Jul 18, 2010
2,836
1,398
136
Great info all around, thank you!

So no one seems keen on the 10th gen intel offerings, which if I’m waiting till q4 2019 (or q1-q2 2020) should be out by then (they seemed to indicate ice lake by holiday 2019). Intel does seem to retain some advantages, no?

Is it all but certain the Ryzen will outperform ice lake?

From what I’ve read in 2018 intel is still king in the adobe suite...? Maybe they weren’t factoring in the ultra high core count, but, is this software really optimized to utilize so many AMD cores?

And why does intel hold the lead in adobe? Is it single thread performance due to adobe poor multi core optimization, or chipset instructions that are superior?

It is hard as gaming and video are my two primary concerns. But I’d probably have to choose work first. I do want to be on a new Architecture to keep pace with the next generation of consoles so I can keep up and just upgrade to an rtx 3080 ti down the road.

I have both a 4K pro photo monitor and 27” 2.7k 144hz IPS g sync monitor and I tend to favor the later for shooting games and the former for racing and strategy games.

Correct, budget is not as much a consideration. It always is, but it’s down the list. No need to blow cash on diminishing returns but I don’t mind paying for an optimal long term solution, or waiting a year for the next platform build.
The concept of a long term optimal solution might be slowly going extinct for the next few years. There are going to be faster advances in many fields over the next few years. Optane or like memory products, core count, PCIe specs, AI integration a la chiplet, etc. Early PC era had rapid advancement, then a decade of pretty slow growth outside of graphics, now a return to more rapid obsolescence is here.

Too many keep thinking the best now will be close in 5-8 yrs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: razvanm3

IEC

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Jun 10, 2004
13,772
3,242
136
Wait until this summer regardless of what you pick. The Ryzen 3000 series will launch in 2H 2019 and will force a response from Intel, meaning your bang for the buck will improve regardless of which one ends up being faster.

Also, there are some market trends which will work in your favor if you wait:
1) RAM prices are dropping and expected to drop another 20% or so in 2019
2) SSD prices are reaching all-time lows per GB and expected to fall further
3) PCIe 4.0 coming with X570/AMD's new processors (thanks scannall)
4) First 7nm gaming GPUs (Radeon VII notwithstanding) expected in 2H 2019

Ryzen 3000 series is expected to at least match the 9900K core for core in productivity workloads. Gaming performance remains to be seen. But there is definitely some anticipation that the difference, if any, will be in the single digits this time around.

7nm is the way to go if you want longevity. There won't be a significant leap like from 14nm to 7nm for at least 3-5 years. Probably longer, if how long we've been at ~14nm processes is any indication.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kenmitch

scannall

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2012
1,527
891
136
Wait until this summer regardless of what you pick. The Ryzen 3000 series will launch in 2H 2019 and will force a response from Intel, meaning your bang for the buck will improve regardless of which one ends up being faster.

Also, there are some market trends which will work in your favor if you wait:
1) RAM prices are dropping and expected to drop another 20% or so in 2019
2) SSD prices are reaching all-time lows per GB and expected to fall further
3) First 7nm gaming GPUs (Radeon VII notwithstanding) expected in 2H 2019

Ryzen 3000 series is expected to at least match the 9900K core for core in productivity workloads. Gaming performance remains to be seen. But there is definitely some anticipation that the difference, if any, will be in the single digits this time around.

7nm is the way to go if you want longevity. There won't be a significant leap like from 14nm to 7nm for at least 3-5 years. Probably longer, if how long we've been at ~14nm processes is any indication.
I would add to your list PCIe 4 shows up on Ryzen this June. I don't know about Intel, but I can't imagine they'll be far behind.
 

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
4,309
662
126
From what I’ve read in 2018 intel is still king in the adobe suite...? Maybe they weren’t factoring in the ultra high core count, but, is this software really optimized to utilize so many AMD cores?

have both a 4K pro photo monitor and 27” 2.7k 144hz IPS g sync monitor and I tend to favor the later for shooting games and the former for racing and strategy games.
AFAIK Adobe suit uses the iGPU on intel (additionally to the dGPU) for certain stuff.

See https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3310-adobe-premiere-benchmarks-rendering-8700k-gpu-vs-ryzen

For 144hz gaming, intel is still king, at least now but only on their consumer version chips. This might change with Ryzen 3000 series ut we don' t know that yet. So all you can do is wait. But anyway you will need to decide what is more important. Video encoding or gaming. A high core count cpu will always have lower clocks and hence worse gaming performance. (Unless AMD releases some form of gaming mode on their thread rippers that disables some cores and increases clocks).
 

PotatoWithEarsOnSide

Senior member
Feb 23, 2017
664
689
106
The general feeling is that AMD will hit parity with Intel in gaming with the release of the Ryzen 3000 series this year. On top of that is the realistic scenario of AMD offering twice as many cores as Intel at the same price points. The 7nm process will also significantly reduce power consumptions on a per core basis, though largely offset by the doubling of core count. You'll get PCIe4 compatibility, so running multiple SSDs won't see you get bandwidth limited as easily; currently just 2 SSDs is enough for the second one to operate well below advertised speeds.
Next gen Threadripper will come after the consumer Ryzen 3000 CPUs, and very little is known about it at this stage, just informed speculation based upon what we know sits above and below it; Ryzen 3000 and Epyc 2. Threadripper will come with at least quad-channel memory, and is very likely to be incredibly price competitive too.
On the Intel side it is really hard to say. They've had 10nm issues for sometime, and their 2019 on 10nm is likely to be mobile only. Who knows when we'll see top-end performance on the desktop from them at 10nm. The 9900K is a great all-rounder, but the general feeling is that is the last of its breed, and that it represents the high tide mark for Intel, though that the tide is going out and may not return for quite some time. It is a terrible value proposition, especially if gaming isn't your primary use. At 4k and 2.7k 144Hz, you'll likely end up GPU limited anyway, though the latter would favour a 9900K over anything AMD right now.

Either way, you are in a great position to be buying from. When Ryzen 3000 hits, that's your cue for making the serious decisions.
 

Thala

Senior member
Nov 12, 2014
849
197
116
Great info all around, thank you!
So no one seems keen on the 10th gen intel offerings, which if I’m waiting till q4 2019 (or q1-q2 2020) should be out by then (they seemed to indicate ice lake by holiday 2019). Intel does seem to retain some advantages, no?
Is it all but certain the Ryzen will outperform ice lake?
My expectation is, that Icelake/Sunny Cove will outperform Ryzen 3 for single threaded tasks and gaming. For multi-threaded tasks performance it is rather a function of core count. Therefore I would wait until the Intel offering is available before jumping to Ryzen.
 

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
4,565
775
126
My expectation is, that Icelake/Sunny Cove will outperform Ryzen 3 for single threaded tasks and gaming. For multi-threaded tasks performance it is rather a function of core count. Therefore I would wait until the Intel offering is available before jumping to Ryzen.
I think Intel will find a way to have the edge. You look at what they did with the W-3175X just to be able to claim victory there, and you know that they'll move heaven and earth to get the best gaming CPU no matter what.

However, AMD is going to be closer than they have anytime in recent memory and probably a much better value unless you really are interested in having the best possible CPU, no expenses spared.

If you're gaming at 4K or even 1440p with the best top-end graphics cards, the CPU choice isn't going to matter all that much. At 4K at 2C/4T G5400 is essentially as good as the 8C/16T 9900K: https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2268?vs=2263

Here's the average frame rates for the games at 4K for both the G5400 / 9900K since they're not conveniently arranged:

World of Tanks: 62.4 vs 62.9
Final Fantasy XIV: 43.1 vs 42.8
Shadow of War: 47.4 vs 47.7
Civilization 6: 60.6 vs 102.2
Car Mechanic Simulator 2018: 36.3 vs 36.1
Ashes Classic: 48.6 vs 68
Strange Brigade (DX12): 53 vs 53.5
GTA V: 23.4 vs 23.4
Far Cry 5: 45 vs 45
SotTR: 32.9 vs 33.2
F1 2018: 63.5 vs 62.7

The 9900K only has better results in 2 of the 11 titles and the rest are within the margin of error of each other.

A few of the games also had 1440p results

Car Mechanic Simulator 2018: 61.9 vs 60.8
Ashes Classic: 50.3 vs 90.3
Strange Brigade (DX12): 107.3 vs 107.4
GTA V: 66.4 vs 86.5

A slightly better showing for the 9900k, but even still, it doesn't matter for two titles. The 3.7 GHz 2C/4T CPU can deliver just as many FPS with a 1080 as the vastly more powerful 9900K.

Unless you care about bragging rights and benchmarks at resolutions you won't game it, it really doesn't matter what CPU you go with if you're running at the highest resolutions.

I'd just suggest getting whatever CPU has the best performance for the work-related tasks you need it for and realize that it's probably going to be fine for any gaming that you do and that you won't be able to notice any differences in most titles unless there's some bug that probably gets fixed within a few weeks of being discovered.
 

CHADBOGA

Golden Member
Mar 31, 2009
1,900
449
136
My expectation is, that Icelake/Sunny Cove will outperform Ryzen 3 for single threaded tasks and gaming. For multi-threaded tasks performance it is rather a function of core count. Therefore I would wait until the Intel offering is available before jumping to Ryzen.
Most people seem to think that Intel's direct counter to the 3000 series Ryzen's won't arrive for at least a year after Ryzen arrives and considering the 3000 Ryzen series is 5 to 7 months away, if someone took your advice, they would be hanging off for approx. 18 months or more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ehume

CHADBOGA

Golden Member
Mar 31, 2009
1,900
449
136
Am I the only one who is put off by Intel not yet having full Spectre/Meltdown fixes in hardware?

Even if the software fixes and partial hardware fixes on the Intel CPU's mean that there is no safety risk and Intel is still faster per core, it does put me off wanting to purchase an Intel processor at the moment.

Lucky for me, my i5 3570K @ 4.0Ghz, still serves me perfectly well, so I don't feel the need to upgrade right now, but if my motherboard blew up and I was forced to purchase today, I would be in quite the pickle, as currently no option particularly impresses me.

Once the 3000 Ryzen series is out, I suspect I would be leaning heavily towards getting one of them, even though I really don't need any more than 6 or 8 cores, and AMD will at best, only be a bit faster per core than Intel.

I long for a scenario where one can get a modest overclock to 5.0Ghz, without crazy temps or voltage and an IPC advantage over the current 9900, to the tune of 30 to 50%.

Perhaps I will have to wait for 5nm processors. o_O
 
  • Like
Reactions: ehume

krumme

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2009
5,825
1,421
136
Most people seem to think that Intel's direct counter to the 3000 series Ryzen's won't arrive for at least a year after Ryzen arrives and considering the 3000 Ryzen series is 5 to 7 months away, if someone took your advice, they would be hanging off for approx. 18 months or more.
Agree it's a long wait. When icelake is here Ryzen 4000 is here too. So it doesn't really matter.

The OP needs h265 support and Intel does that better atm. But Ryzen 3000 will surely be faster here with its double 256b wide fpu units and tons of cores have the needed avx2 support. I have no doubt it will stay the better value whatever Intel brings to market.

So o me it looks like it's either 9900k now or wait 6 months and get approx double the work performance for the $. So depends on the need. As he is running a sb now I guess budget matters so I would guess he will wait.
 

krumme

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2009
5,825
1,421
136
Am I the only one who is put off by Intel not yet having full Spectre/Meltdown fixes in hardware?

Even if the software fixes and partial hardware fixes on the Intel CPU's mean that there is no safety risk and Intel is still faster per core, it does put me off wanting to purchase an Intel processor at the moment.

Lucky for me, my i5 3570K @ 4.0Ghz, still serves me perfectly well, so I don't feel the need to upgrade right now, but if my motherboard blew up and I was forced to purchase today, I would be in quite the pickle, as currently no option particularly impresses me.

Once the 3000 Ryzen series is out, I suspect I would be leaning heavily towards getting one of them, even though I really don't need any more than 6 or 8 cores, and AMD will at best, only be a bit faster per core than Intel.

I long for a scenario where one can get a modest overclock to 5.0Ghz, without crazy temps or voltage and an IPC advantage over the current 9900, to the tune of 30 to 50%.

Perhaps I will have to wait for 5nm processors. o_O
Its okay safety for me but the patches make my 8700k noticable slower in productivity. So it's a mess. But I am getting old and slow too so I manage :)
 

CHADBOGA

Golden Member
Mar 31, 2009
1,900
449
136
Its okay safety for me but the patches make my 8700k noticable slower in productivity. So it's a mess. But I am getting old and slow too so I manage :)
It is interesting you say that, because supposedly the performance penalty is not meant to be much.

When it comes to the day to day stuff I use my computer for, I can't say I notice any difference from the patches, it is only if I run a benchmark I can see that I have lost 5 to 10% or whatever it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ehume

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
4,309
662
126
Am I the only one who is put off by Intel not yet having full Spectre/Meltdown fixes in hardware?
AFAIK 9 series has meltdown fixed in hardware and at least some forms of spectre.

But I don't really care much about these. After the browsers were fixed (reduce timing accuracy) these issues are a non-issue for consumers. The attacker needs to be able to locally execute code and if he can do that, there are much simpler and more harmful attacks. The issues is and always has been a cloud / Virtual machine problem. Per definition you can run all the code you want on your cloud instance and hence you can use Spectre to attack other instances using the same physical CPU as you are.
I still don't see this as a huge issue as no targeted attack is possible.
 

TheGiant

Senior member
Jun 12, 2017
610
237
86
I think Intel will find a way to have the edge. You look at what they did with the W-3175X just to be able to claim victory there, and you know that they'll move heaven and earth to get the best gaming CPU no matter what.

However, AMD is going to be closer than they have anytime in recent memory and probably a much better value unless you really are interested in having the best possible CPU, no expenses spared.

If you're gaming at 4K or even 1440p with the best top-end graphics cards, the CPU choice isn't going to matter all that much. At 4K at 2C/4T G5400 is essentially as good as the 8C/16T 9900K: https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2268?vs=2263

Here's the average frame rates for the games at 4K for both the G5400 / 9900K since they're not conveniently arranged:

World of Tanks: 62.4 vs 62.9
Final Fantasy XIV: 43.1 vs 42.8
Shadow of War: 47.4 vs 47.7
Civilization 6: 60.6 vs 102.2
Car Mechanic Simulator 2018: 36.3 vs 36.1
Ashes Classic: 48.6 vs 68
Strange Brigade (DX12): 53 vs 53.5
GTA V: 23.4 vs 23.4
Far Cry 5: 45 vs 45
SotTR: 32.9 vs 33.2
F1 2018: 63.5 vs 62.7

The 9900K only has better results in 2 of the 11 titles and the rest are within the margin of error of each other.

A few of the games also had 1440p results

Car Mechanic Simulator 2018: 61.9 vs 60.8
Ashes Classic: 50.3 vs 90.3
Strange Brigade (DX12): 107.3 vs 107.4
GTA V: 66.4 vs 86.5

A slightly better showing for the 9900k, but even still, it doesn't matter for two titles. The 3.7 GHz 2C/4T CPU can deliver just as many FPS with a 1080 as the vastly more powerful 9900K.

Unless you care about bragging rights and benchmarks at resolutions you won't game it, it really doesn't matter what CPU you go with if you're running at the highest resolutions.

I'd just suggest getting whatever CPU has the best performance for the work-related tasks you need it for and realize that it's probably going to be fine for any gaming that you do and that you won't be able to notice any differences in most titles unless there's some bug that probably gets fixed within a few weeks of being discovered.
here is how it looks like when you don't benchmark average of averages

https://www.techspot.com/review/1754-battlefield-5-cpu-multiplayer-bench/

https://www.computerbase.de/thema/prozessor/rangliste/#diagramm-performancerating-frametimes - select the gaming chart and frametimes (99th percentile)

CPU is still most important when when it comes to the most intensive combat/boss fight scenes, where GPU defines the overall performance at selected resolution

IMO we wont see much improvement in this area (even with ryzen 3000) unless sunny cove architecture derivates come to the market...

why can't Intel byuy fab capacity at TSMC 7nm for their products....meh
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY