Speculation: AMD's response to Intel's 8-core i9-9900K

[Panino Manino]

If you want to consider as many factors as possible then you have to consider budgets.
Like I said in another occasion, my money isn't infinite.
Yes, there'll always be enthusiasts that will pay any price, but those people aren't a minority? Also, aren't they decreasing? If they only had to buy a super expensive GPU, ok, they can deal with that. But a super expensive GPU AND a super expensive CPU (and cooling)? How many can sustain those consumer habits?

Before you could say that it was a "conscientious" decision to buy Ryzen, to feed the competition and force Intel to lower their prices. But now with Intel becoming even more expensive, isn't just "smarter" to buy Ryzen now? In the long run the current line may not be enough for what future games will demand, but by then you can just buy another CPU for the same mobo and will end paying the same or maybe even lower than what you would initially have to pay for the Intel setup. I say that people are already doing that, look at the lists of top selling CPUs this past month.
In two hours AMD will reveal Zen 2. If the architecture meet their expectations and TSMC doesn't disappoint, AMD may in fact and without doubt be the better choice. Pay less for the mobo and CPU now, use the difference to buy the top of the top the line GPU, and wait another year to buy a Ryzen 3000 with discount that will perform as well as any Intel high end CPU.

Do you understand?
Remember how not always the better product succeeds and is what the consumer needs?

 

[epsilon84]

Again, that wasn't the point. The point was that it's a question about whether or not it's just generally a better buy for the user.

"Gamers" are a subset of all users.
"High end gamers" are a subset of a subset.

Nobody is disputing absolute numbers in gaming.

I would as a non-gamer question at what point users are able to distinguish different fps numbers in real life, and I suspect reality to be far different from what users think they're capable of. I base this on perception bias I've noticed in the field of audio and I see absolutely no reason why it wouldn't apply to gaming. But it's neither here nor there, just an aside....



Sorry you're getting tired of it, but I really do think those comments are a reaction to less than nuanced pronouncements of how superior this product is, in general, for anyone... or so it seems...

PS: Case in point; it apparently "crushed" the competition in encoding, until reading the supplied link which barely showed any significant difference, at which point we got the 'look over there' reply. That is tiresome to me...

So how do we decide whether the 9900K is a 'good buy'? By asking ourselves what kind of machine would actually benefit from this CPU.

Productivity? Sure, but there is plenty of competition in this bracket, not just from the 2700X but also from the HEDT chips as well.

Gaming? Sure, but only if you aren't GPU limited, which is why I stipulated high end gamers. You're not going to tell the difference between a 9900K and a R5 2600 with a GTX 1060 or even 1070, for that matter.

As for distinguishing between fps numbers, that is of course subjective based on the skill level of the player, or even our own perception of 'smoothness'. I thought my old 60Hz panel was 'smooth' for gaming until I got a 144Hz panel. It's hard to describe in words, it's not like 60Hz is 'laggy', but 144Hz is simply more fluid? If that makes sense.

Of course, not everyone can tell the difference between 100fps and 140fps, which is about as big of a gap as you will see between Ryzen and a 9900K in a gaming scenario, as I posted earlier with the GN figures. I would probably notice the higher minimums rather than the higher avg fps, to be honest.

Finally, let me clarify what I was 'tired' about. Its basically the double standard to which the 9900K is being held to, based simply on its price. I get it, its expensive, and it isnt for everyone. We all know the 2700X is practically half the price. I don't see the point in people pointing that out ad nauseum. The 2600 is also half the price of the 2700X. Do we see constant ridiculing of the 2700X for costing twice as much as the 2600 for a 20% overall performance improvement?

The same goes for Intels lineup too. If we go by MSRP the 9700K is $370 and the i5 8400 is $180. You're paying over twice as much and you're most definitely not getting twice the performance.

Which leads me back to my original point, that price/performance of CPUs isn't a linear curve, and never has been. The 9900K just happens to be at the top of that curve, which means it is probably too costly for most people. Most, but not all...

 

[LTC8K6]

9900K is absolutely not a "good buy" under any normal circumstance.

It's the top of the line item, which is nearly always a poor value.

 

[epsilon84]

9900K is absolutely not a "good buy" under any normal circumstance.

It's the top of the line item, which is nearly always a poor value.

Again, it depends how you perceive value. If the higher price also allows for higher long term productivity, does that still make it a poor value? Of course, this doesn't just apply for the 9900K only, it applies for the HEDT chips as well.

What about if you are a professional streamer earning revenue, and you want the best possible experience for yourself, and also the viewer? https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwrevie...paste-delid-gaming-benchmarks-vs-2700x/page-3

Thats what the additional 'headroom' in the 9900K gets you, at least from the streamers side. In fact, you can crank up the stream settings and still get a much better gaming experience than the 2700X using lower bitrates. Then there is the matter of less skipped frames from the 9900K for the viewer, especially at higher settings.

Is that worth it? Maybe not as a casual streamer, but if you're actually earning money from streaming? Then I'd argue it would be money well spent, as a better quality stream, as well as better quality gameplay from the streamer will invariably lead to more subscribers, which means more revenue.

 

[coercitiv]

What about if you are a professional streamer earning revenue, and you want the best possible experience for yourself, and also the viewer? https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwrevie...paste-delid-gaming-benchmarks-vs-2700x/page-3

Thats what the additional 'headroom' in the 9900K gets you, at least from the streamers side.

Tell the full story at least:

We want to emphasize that the 2700X is still perfectly good for streaming and gaming simultaneously, you’d just want to keep it to 10Mbps and Fast. Intel can maintain higher quality settings, but it may be an unnecessary level of quality – it just depends on how serious you are about streaming. Ultimately, a secondary system would still improve low-end frametimes.

Unexpected development, if you want to maximize FPS, minimize input lag and offer the best experience to your viewers, you can use a secondary system. Good thing money is not an issue, here comes the second 9900k build!

 

[LTC8K6]

I said "under any normal circumstance"...

Can you find a niche or three where it's worth the money, sure.

I suspect that many people saying the high price of the CPU and cooler are a good buy, haven't thought the whole thing through.

Of course, if you just want the top desktop CPU, then yes, it's the top desktop CPU and you will pay for that.

I suspect the new 9800X will be interesting.

 

[epsilon84]

Tell the full story at least:

Unexpected development, if you want to maximize FPS, minimize input lag and offer the best experience to your viewers, you can use a secondary system. Good thing money is not an issue, here comes the second 9900k build!

Full story? Yes, a second system is what some streamers use, but not all. How about you stop being condescending for once and try to see the point I'm trying to make? A 9900K is more than enough for streaming at medium quality bitrates *without* the need for a secondary system, something that a 2700X isn't able to achieve, at least not without dropping significant frames and with a choppy gaming experience for the streamer. You need to lower the bitrate, and the streamer side performance is still subpar compared to the 9900K at higher settings. I think that feat alone is impressive, but go ahead, keep talking about unlimited funds

 

[coercitiv]

How about you stop being condescending for once and try to see the point I'm trying to make? A 9900K is more than enough for streaming at medium quality bitrates *without* the need for a secondary system

You said we should consider the case of the professional streamers earning revenue who want to offer the best possible experience for both themselves and the viewers. Best means best, does it not? If there's room for improvement, why not go there?

 

[LTC8K6]

Again, it depends how you perceive value. If the higher price also allows for higher long term productivity, does that still make it a poor value? Of course, this doesn't just apply for the 9900K only, it applies for the HEDT chips as well.

What about if you are a professional streamer earning revenue, and you want the best possible experience for yourself, and also the viewer? https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwrevie...paste-delid-gaming-benchmarks-vs-2700x/page-3

Thats what the additional 'headroom' in the 9900K gets you, at least from the streamers side. In fact, you can crank up the stream settings and still get a much better gaming experience than the 2700X using lower bitrates. Then there is the matter of less skipped frames from the 9900K for the viewer, especially at higher settings.

Is that worth it? Maybe not as a casual streamer, but if you're actually earning money from streaming? Then I'd argue it would be money well spent, as a better quality stream, as well as better quality gameplay from the streamer will invariably lead to more subscribers, which means more revenue.

How well do you think a 9800X will do at this task? The price of it has got to be in the ballpark of a 9900K system.

 

[mattiasnyc]

So how do we decide whether the 9900K is a 'good buy'? By asking ourselves what kind of machine would actually benefit from this CPU.

Productivity? Sure, but there is plenty of competition in this bracket, not just from the 2700X but also from the HEDT chips as well.

Gaming? Sure, but only if you aren't GPU limited, which is why I stipulated high end gamers. You're not going to tell the difference between a 9900K and a R5 2600 with a GTX 1060 or even 1070, for that matter.

Ok. Cool. So you agree then that we either choose parameters or we don't, and if we do we need to be consistent, right?

Finally, let me clarify what I was 'tired' about. Its basically the double standard to which the 9900K is being held to, based simply on its price. I get it, its expensive, and it isnt for everyone. We all know the 2700X is practically half the price. I don't see the point in people pointing that out ad nauseum. The 2600 is also half the price of the 2700X. Do we see constant ridiculing of the 2700X for costing twice as much as the 2600 for a 20% overall performance improvement?

You lost me.

Who is "ridiculing" here? Nobody is.

Secondly, people are saying that the 2600 is a better value for a lot of gamers. So where is the "double standard"? My point was simply that if we take what you say above as being correct, then it's not a given that the 9900K is the best buy or best value for someone who aims for content creation. How is that a double standard if I don't talk about the 2600 for gaming if we're talking about certain productivity?

So, we pick the relevant parameters and then we compare fairly and evenly for all relevant products. If price matters for someone who is doing content creation, or if connectivity does, we may end up with preferred options other than the 9900K. Just to piggy-back on coervive's last comment: We can't argue that the 9900K is the best option for content creation and worth the money despite being the most pricey non-HEDT CPU AND say it's because money is of no big concern for that group because if money is of no concern then they'd go for a higher-end HEDT from Intel or AMD. And if money is tight then we're back to price/performance.

 

[epsilon84]

You said we should consider the case of the professional streamers earning revenue who want to offer the best experience for both themselves and the viewers. Best means best, does it not? If there's room for improvement, why not go there?

Professional doesn't mean unlimited funds though, does it? Neither does buying a 9900K imply unlimited funds, as you suggested. Obviously 'best' in the context that I was making was about a single box system. Maybe that wasn't clear enough for you. Well, it should be now.

I actually know someone who is planning to create a twitch channel with the aim of earning profit, and he is in the process of building his PC as we speak. He asked about the CPU and if the 8700K was a good choice, since basically everyone knows that is the 'best' gaming CPU prior to the 9900K release. I explained to him that streaming involves a lot of additional CPU overhead and that he is better off with a higher core/thread count CPU like the 9900K if funds permitted, or 2700X if the 9900K was too expensive. I actually don't know what he ended up choosing since we haven't spoken on Discord for the past few days, even if he wanted the 9900K he probably wouldn't be able to get one in stock currently.

 

[epsilon84]

How well do you think a 9800X will do at this task? The price of it has got to be in the ballpark of a 9900K system.

It should also do well, but I suspect the higher latency mesh bus would mean the 9900K should come out ahead, especially from the streamer side of things in terms of in game fps. Skylake-X is not much better per clock at gaming than Ryzen, unlike CFL.

 

[coercitiv]

Obviously 'best' in the context that I was making was about a single box system. Maybe that wasn't clear enough for you. Well, it should be now.

I probably already abused my sarcasm allowance for today, so I'll just say this: I acknowledge the 9900K is the best gaming CPU and the best CPU for single-box streamers playing at high refresh & low latency.

 

[ub4ty]

Amazing that this thread is still going...
AMD's response to Intel's 8-core i9-9900K :
Answer : An Already cheaper and better value 8 core processor that is more than enough performance.
If that isn't enough, a 12 core processor, 16 core processor, 24 core processor, and 32 core processor.
If that's not enough, up to a 64 core processor with Zen 2.

Full story? Yes, a second system is what some streamers use, but not all. How about you stop being condescending for once and try to see the point I'm trying to make? A 9900K is more than enough for streaming at medium quality bitrates *without* the need for a secondary system, something that a 2700X isn't able to achieve, at least not without dropping significant frames and with a choppy gaming experience for the streamer. You need to lower the bitrate, and the streamer side performance is still subpar compared to the 9900K at higher settings. I think that feat alone is impressive, but go ahead, keep talking about unlimited funds

This is what capture cards and devices are for... To offload your CPU and far more efficiently do a basic task such as encode video.
There's not a use case on earth where an average user is maxing out an 8 core. The PC industry has become infected by spec sheet enthusiast far more than it has power users with legitimate use cases that now how to precisely spec a build. If your 'streaming' is so important to you and you're not using dedicated hardware in the form of either an asic/fpga pci-e card to do so, you're not a professional streamer or serious user.

When there's an offering of an 8 core, 12 core, 16 core, 32 core on up to 64 core and people are ranting about being a power user on 8 core w/ high clocks, you have completely lost the narrative and don't know how to spec a PC build. When there are a slew of hardware accelerated PCI-E cards and devices to offload your CPU and far more power efficiently run a workload yet you continue to try to slam a CPU, you are not a power user or a smart computer user/builder.

Were headed to 7nm, PCIE 4.0 and next generation CPUs. 9900k and the rest of Intel's processors are yester-year's news.
If you are a computer user that likes pissing away money to boost a spec sheet, that's what you are .. not a power user... Not a person who knows how to spec a build... And I don't think anyone frankly cares about the Ferrari you drive 5mph under the speed limit to get groceries...

Also, there is far too much junk on the internet and youtube as it is. I miss the days when there was a barrier to what could end up on the net.. Far less junk to wade through.

 

[Campy]

A 9900K is more than enough for streaming at medium quality bitrates *without* the need for a secondary system, something that a 2700X isn't able to achieve

I think a 2700X is more than capable of streaming and gaming simultaneously. Gamersnexus' test is using bitrates of 10-12mbit and fast/medium settings. Twitch recommends up to 6mbit bitrate for 1080p60 streaming, and many if not most streamers, especially those who are not professional, stay at or below that point, and with "fast" or "faster" encoder preset.

GN turn up the stream settings to what I would call unrealistic levels, especially for those who don't make a living streaming, in order to highlight the difference between the CPUs. That doesn't mean that everything below a 9900K is incapable.
Even professional streamers with dedicated streamboxes often stream at 6mbit for 1080p60, I don't know a single one who streams at 10mbit on Twitch yet, as I don't think it's allowed. Even if it were allowed it's definitely not necessary when you can stream at 6mbit and have a stream that looks really good, or you stream as a hobby and have a stream that looks fine at 3-6mbit.

There are very many capable CPUs for hobbyist streamers, though I would probably not recommend below 8c16t for someone building a system with the purpose of streaming games.

If you're a professional streamer however, you will always want a separate streaming computer because you want to have the best possible gameplay experience while your viewers have the best possible viewing experience, and when it's how you make your living saving 1-2k dollars is irrelevant.

 

[rbk123]

So how do we decide whether the 9900K is a 'good buy'? By asking ourselves what kind of machine would actually benefit from this CPU.

Dude - you really need to give it a rest. You're not convincing anyone other than Zucker, The Elf, and Peter that it's a good buy, and they were already convinced.

 

[PeterScott]

Dude - you really need to give it a rest. You're not convincing anyone other than Zucker, The Elf, and Peter that it's a good buy, and they were already convinced.

I never said it's a good buy. It's more for the enthusiasts focused on top performance, rather than perf/$ and there are plenty of those.

I was just arguing with the detractors who want to paint it as a "gaming only" CPU, when it really is a gaming Plus everything else CPU.

It's the top dog for gaming, and pretty near the equal of Intel/AMD 10-12 core HEDT parts in other tasks.

 

[Zucker2k]

Dude - you really need to give it a rest. You're not convincing anyone other than Zucker, The Elf, and Peter that it's a good buy, and they were already convinced.

Don't forget to add all those who have the 9900k on preorder even though they could buy the 2700x right now for half the price. May the Lord forgive them from this abomination for they must not know what they really want or need. May the Lord also take away all their money for they are too rich for their own good, and the wealth has gone to their head. May the Lord forgive them for they are anti-progressive for buying something so outrageously expensive and hot, and hardly faster than the competition. In fact, they are so blinded by their wealth they don't even care about the value of HEDT compared to the 9900k. These people need to be saved from themselves and the AMDarmy is here to help, free of charge!
/s

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

Not even the Lord can save 9900k buyers.

 

[mattiasnyc]

So how do we decide whether the 9900K is a 'good buy'? By asking ourselves what kind of machine would actually benefit from this CPU.

Dude - you really need to give it a rest. You're not convincing anyone other than Zucker, The Elf, and Peter that it's a good buy, and they were already convinced.

Dude - you really need to give it a rest. You're not convincing anyone other than Zucker, The Elf, and Peter that it's a good buy, and they were already convinced.

I never said it's a good buy. It's more for the enthusiasts focused on top performance, rather than perf/$ and there are plenty of those.

I was just arguing with the detractors who want to paint it as a "gaming only" CPU, when it really is a gaming Plus everything else CPU.

It's the top dog for gaming, and pretty near the equal of Intel/AMD 10-12 core HEDT parts in other tasks.

PeterScott=Epsilon84?

Am I confused? Is Peter confused?

Someone surely is.

 

[mattiasnyc]

Don't forget to add all those who have the 9900k on preorder even though they could buy the 2700x right now for half the price. May the Lord forgive them from this abomination for they must not know what they really want or need. May the Lord also take away all their money for they are too rich for their own good, and the wealth has gone to their head. May the Lord forgive them for they are anti-progressive for buying something so outrageously expensive and hot, and hardly faster than the competition. In fact, they are so blinded by their wealth they don't even care about the value of HEDT compared to the 9900k. These people need to be saved from themselves and the AMDarmy is here to help, free of charge!
/s

That was as witty as it was profound.

And A+ for accuracy.

All the hyperbole makes me think it's election-time or something.....

...... oh, wait....

 

[PeterScott]

PeterScott=Epsilon84?

Am I confused? Is Peter confused?

Someone surely is.

You? Read closer.

He named me in that post, presuming to speak for me, so I corrected him.

 

[mattiasnyc]

Sorry, I thought it was an encoding bar graph.

 

[dlerious]

I think a 2700X is more than capable of streaming and gaming simultaneously. Gamersnexus' test is using bitrates of 10-12mbit and fast/medium settings. Twitch recommends up to 6mbit bitrate for 1080p60 streaming, and many if not most streamers, especially those who are not professional, stay at or below that point, and with "fast" or "faster" encoder preset.

GN turn up the stream settings to what I would call unrealistic levels, especially for those who don't make a living streaming, in order to highlight the difference between the CPUs. That doesn't mean that everything below a 9900K is incapable.
Even professional streamers with dedicated streamboxes often stream at 6mbit for 1080p60, I don't know a single one who streams at 10mbit on Twitch yet, as I don't think it's allowed. Even if it were allowed it's definitely not necessary when you can stream at 6mbit and have a stream that looks really good, or you stream as a hobby and have a stream that looks fine at 3-6mbit.

There are very many capable CPUs for hobbyist streamers, though I would probably not recommend below 8c16t for someone building a system with the purpose of streaming games.

If you're a professional streamer however, you will always want a separate streaming computer because you want to have the best possible gameplay experience while your viewers have the best possible viewing experience, and when it's how you make your living saving 1-2k dollars is irrelevant.

Hardware Unboxed just did a video looking at GPU encoding. They'll have a second part looking at CPUs. Verdict so far seems to be 2nd box for pros.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pLXrvNOXG4

 

[rbk123]

Don't forget to add all those who have the 9900k on preorder even though they could buy the 2700x right now for half the price. May the Lord forgive them from this abomination for they must not know what they really want or need. May the Lord also take away all their money for they are too rich for their own good, and the wealth has gone to their head. May the Lord forgive them for they are anti-progressive for buying something so outrageously expensive and hot, and hardly faster than the competition. In fact, they are so blinded by their wealth they don't even care about the value of HEDT compared to the 9900k. These people need to be saved from themselves and the AMDarmy is here to help, free of charge!
/s

I rest my case.