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

[rbk123]

Since when is calling people fanboys a legitimate answer to anything? It's just smearing people who have different opinions than your own.

I suggest you reread it again. He quoted someone who called himself a fanboy, obviously meaning he's biased which explains the behavior. Try again.

 

[Zucker2k]

I suggest you reread it again. He quoted someone who called himself a fanboy, obviously meaning he's biased which explains the behavior. Try again.

So that's what you both took from everything I said? Do you both have a counter to anything I said in that post?

 

[Abwx]

Sometimes price/performance goes Intel's way, sometimes AMD's. As long as we're consistent there is no problem with using this "age old argument". It actually makes sense to use it.

In Germany :

https://geizhals.de/?o=4


9900K = 2700X + MB + 32GB RAM + 512GB SSD..

Does it make sense..?

 

[rbk123]

So that's what you both took from everything I said? Do you both have a counter to anything I said in that post?

Nope. I'm just clarifying Rainy's intent.

 

[Kenmitch]

Since when is calling people fanboys a legitimate answer to anything? It's just smearing people who have different opinions than your own.

He called himself one...Self proclaimed in post #668.

 

[epsilon84]

In Germany :

https://geizhals.de/?o=4


9900K = 2700X + MB + 32GB RAM + 512GB SSD..

Does it make sense..?

So does a 2920X. Then you need to spend $300+ on a X399 mobo. Does that mean the 2920X makes no sense? Price performance is well in favour of a 2700X. 2700X + B450 = $400 vs 2920X + X399 = $1000. Is the 2920X 2.5x the performance of the 2700X? No, not even close. Does that invalidate the 2920X as a legitimate choice, despite poorer price/performance relative to the 2700X? Of course not.

Or we can go the other way and say a 2700X = 2600 + B450 MB + 512GB SSD. 2700X = ripoff?!

Price/performance doesn't always go up in a perfectly linear curve. The 9900K is definitely overpriced right now due to supply issues, but if people get one I understand why they might. It's a niche market, but there are people who simply want 'the best' desktop CPU, regardless of cost.

 

[mattiasnyc]

lol

 

[Ottonomous]

So does a 2920X. Then you need to spend $300+ on a X399 mobo. Does that mean the 2920X makes no sense? Price performance is well in favour of a 2700X. 2700X + B450 = $400 vs 2920X + X399 = $1000. Is the 2920X 2.5x the performance of the 2700X? No, not even close. Does that invalidate the 2920X as a legitimate choice, despite poorer price/performance relative to the 2700X? Of course not.

Or we can go the other way and say a 2700X = 2600 + B450 MB + 512GB SSD. 2700X = ripoff?!

Price/performance doesn't always go up in a perfectly linear curve. The 9900K is definitely overpriced right now due to supply issues, but if people get one I understand why they might. It's a niche market, but there are people who simply want 'the best' desktop CPU, regardless of cost.

For clarity, at 1080p
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i9_9900K/13.html

2600 + B450 + 512GB SSD = 2700x - vs 9900K perf? 90.4% of it for 43.8% of price of 9900K, or processor only - 22.3% of price (and with a cooler)
2700x + MB + 512GB SSD + 32GB = 9900K - vs 9900K? 92.7% for near equal price, or for 43.8% of it again for that performance

Both have coolers

9900K vs 2720X you have a point, but unlike Intel, AMD gives you the possibility of replacing it with a 16-core 1st gen threadripper for MT (newegg has it at 680), or any future options within that price range (2950X), whereas 9900K is most likely End of Chipset, but I may be wrong

 

[TheGiant]

well with this logic buy ebay used sandy bridge with 16GB ram, you get 75% of performance for 40% of the price....the deal
OMG do we really need to discuss this on AnandTech forum?

 

[AtenRa]

For gaming get the AMD Ryzen desktop or Intel 8600/8700 and 9700.

For professional get the AMD HEDT TR4s platform or Intel HEDT 2066 platform.

There is only a very very small niche that the 9900K with its current price will serve.

 

[Ottonomous]

well with this logic buy ebay used sandy bridge with 16GB ram, you get 75% of performance for 40% of the price....the deal
OMG do we really need to discuss this on AnandTech forum?

Sandy Bridge isn't being marketed right now as new, and only i7 versions (and Ivy) can ensure (to an extent) that absence of a bottleneck. You happily compared it to HEDT and now you're angry we compared it to mainstream?

 

[TheGiant]

Sandy Bridge isn't being marketed right now as new, and only i7 versions (and Ivy) can ensure (to an extent) that absence of a bottleneck. You happily compared it to HEDT and now you're angry we compared it to mainstream?

I responded to the logic of something being better price /performance wise. Epsilon84 already made the example. Buying 2950X for ~1000EUR with 300 EUR board and 4 CH RAM (2 kits) wont grant you 3,5x the performance of 2700X with B450 board. That doesn't mean it is useless. The same 9900K.

Please can we make this little less side based? can we use the same principles in argumentation for both companies. Not using it when it fits my preffered side better? It devaluates pretty much every discussion here.

 

[Ottonomous]

I responded to the logic of something being better price /performance wise. Epsilon84 already made the example. Buying 2950X for ~1000EUR with 300 EUR board and 4 CH RAM (2 kits) wont grant you 3,5x the performance of 2700X with B450 board. That doesn't mean it is useless. The same 9900K.

Please can we make this little less side based? can we use the same principles in argumentation for both companies. Not using it when it fits my preffered side better? It devaluates pretty much every discussion here.

Not every argument for value is an attack on your beloved product, I simply responded to the value argument (rightfully) against HEDT with mainstream comparisons because the value argument itself isn't proportionate.

Using HEDT to enhance the value aspect of the 9900K while wilfully ignoring the mainstream competitors is a bit cheeky, because how many buy processors of each?

 

[Ottonomous]

Just admit that its horrendous value and designated for a select few of buyers, but mainly because it is simply the best gaming processor, and all-round CPU. Hence the strategic timing and pricing, and if any competition crops up with AMD's mainstream offerings next year, and might see a price cut rendering it a far more value-based buy for people.

Edit: At the stated MSRP, the 9700K is an excellent CPU and depending on where you live, a very good prospect alongside the 2700X and depending on your priorities

 

[TheELF]

For clarity, at 1080p
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i9_9900K/13.html

2600 + B450 + 512GB SSD = 2700x - vs 9900K perf? 90.4% of it for 43.8% of price of 9900K, or processor only - 22.3% of price (and with a cooler)
2700x + MB + 512GB SSD + 32GB = 9900K - vs 9900K? 92.7% for near equal price, or for 43.8% of it again for that performance

Both have coolers

9900K vs 2720X you have a point, but unlike Intel, AMD gives you the possibility of replacing it with a 16-core 1st gen threadripper for MT (newegg has it at 680), or any future options within that price range (2950X), whereas 9900K is most likely End of Chipset, but I may be wrong

You miss typed something there,for clarity anything above a i3-8300, that's 4 cores at 3.7Ghz ,get's you 86.6% of the performance...(while a pentium already gives you 72% )
Yeah everybody knows that the 9900k isn't supposed to be a gaming ONLY cpu,it's the cpu you get to run anything you want in the background,I mean look at the CPU test on the same page you linked at, the 9900k is 28% faster then the 2700x, that's 28% more headroom for streaming and doing whatever else you want to do.
If you need it the 9900k is awesome, if you don't need it there is the i3 or the pentium for gaming.

 

[epsilon84]

For clarity, at 1080p
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i9_9900K/13.html

2600 + B450 + 512GB SSD = 2700x - vs 9900K perf? 90.4% of it for 43.8% of price of 9900K, or processor only - 22.3% of price (and with a cooler)
2700x + MB + 512GB SSD + 32GB = 9900K - vs 9900K? 92.7% for near equal price, or for 43.8% of it again for that performance

Both have coolers

9900K vs 2720X you have a point, but unlike Intel, AMD gives you the possibility of replacing it with a 16-core 1st gen threadripper for MT (newegg has it at 680), or any future options within that price range (2950X), whereas 9900K is most likely End of Chipset, but I may be wrong

I think you misunderstood my point. It was to illustrate that there are options either side of the 2700X that differ in price/performance but that doesn't make those products any less 'legitimate'. The 9900K is most definitely overpriced as it is, but at or near MSRP (if and when it gets there) it would be a better buy, especially for people with 2080 Tis or whatever who still want some productivity grunt. Not saying a 2700X or TR can't drive a 2080 Ti, you just simply get higher fps on the 9900K and that might be important to some, especially if you're already spending $2000+ on a gaming PC with a 144Hz+ monitor.

I actually do know someone with such a build, and it's entirely for gaming. I asked him why he didn't just get the 8700K since that is in stock and basically just as fast. His justification of the 9900K? He earns the difference in a matter of hours (he has a high paying job) and he simply wants 'the best gaming CPU'. He spends way more on modding his cars than a measly couple of hundred dollars on the difference between a 8700K and 9900K, so as I alluded to earlier, there is a niche of enthusiasts or gamers which the 9900K is suited for. For 99% of people, it probably doesn't make sense to get a 9900K, but for the 1% that it does, fair game to them.

 

[TheGiant]

Not every argument for value is an attack on your beloved product, I simply responded to the value argument (rightfully) against HEDT with mainstream comparisons because the value argument itself isn't proportionate.

Using HEDT to enhance the value aspect of the 9900K while wilfully ignoring the mainstream competitors is a bit cheeky, because how many buy processors of each?

I don't have a beloved product. I am looking for a replacement of 6600K from 2015 and found only 3 that are faster in 4 threads than the 6600K @4.4GHz and offer significant upgrade for general usage. And that are either 8700K,9700K or 9900K. Nothing else on the market.
Value is not proportionate going up but also going down. Doesnt matter if its value, mainstream, top desktop, HEDT, HEDT + or more ++.
Look what you can buy now on the market. Thanks to AMD at ~150 EUR price point there are 2600 6C/12T cpus widely usable for the general crowd.
But that doesn't mean the 9900K doesn't have its value. For me at 450EUR (not atm with the insanity )it is the best price performance on the market. Nothing else provides the top single, 2C,4C,8C,12T,16T performance on the market in one chip.
But that is the niche % who can use them. And no, I am not the cinebench whole day runner.
And the thread says AMD's response.
IMO they need to be in 10% range of a single,2,4,8,16Thread performance of 9900K with the new Ryzen. And if it has the low power of 7nm, I am buying one. Until then, when the insanity about 9900K stops, I am getting the 9900K. at 4,5-4,7GHz with proper voltage it can be pretty efficient.

 

[epsilon84]

I think people that solely focus on the (albeit inflated) price of the 9900K are forgetting what kind of build this CPU is likely to go into, and that is either high end gaming machines with expensive GPUs or a mixed use productivity / gaming PC.

It's somewhat misleading to use CPU price alone to determine its 'true value' because its only a part of the system cost. Yes, a 2600 is 25% the cost of a 9900K using current prices and can still deliver acceptable gaming performance, but would I pair it with a 2080 Ti? No way, because if I'm spending $1000+ on a GPU I'd want the fastest CPU driving it, or at least a 8700K/9700K if not a 9900K, simply for the 5GHz clockspeeds and high gaming IPC.

For example, just looking at the 'value' proposition of the 9900K in my friends high end gaming build, I believe it costs him close to $2500 and thats not even including the cost of his gaming monitor which he already has, if you include that then the cost balloons to over $3000. Even if you substitute the 9900K for a 2700X, you may save $200 or even $300, but the system is still going to cost well over $2000, and you potentially end up with this situation in games, even at 'CPU bound' 1440P:

Now, show these results to a high end gamer spending $2000+ on a gaming PC, and try to convince them that a 2700X (or 2600) is the 'better' choice, even if it saves them a few hundred dollars. What is the point of getting a 144Hz monitor if your CPU is going to bottleneck it to closer to 100 - 110fps avg in certain games? Granted, not even the 9900K can avg 144fps in AC:O, but it gets a lot closer than the 2700X does. Maybe that's of more 'value' to hardcore gamers than saving a few hundred dollars, especially if they are playing in a competitive environment?

I don't mean this in a trolling way, but AMD's Ryzen 2000 chips perform like a 4 year old 4790K in games according to the charts above - which still isn't bad, mind you, but it's clearly a tier or two below 9900K level (or 8700K/9700K or even 8600K level) and its gonna be a tough sell to convince high end gamers that the AMD is the 'better value' if they value outright performance more than a few % higher price/performance. Not to mention that most high end gamers are probably upgrading from a 4790K/6700K/7700K era machines that are a few years old, and if you are telling them that they will be taking a sidegrade or even a downgrade in CPU gaming performance just to get 'more cores for less' with Ryzen, I think that's going to be an incredibly hard sell as well.

If given the choice, I'd take a $2500 9900K + 2080 Ti gaming machine over a $2100 R5 2600 + 2080 Ti config, but the sensible part of me would probably just opt for the 8700K or 9700K instead, since they basically perform like the 9900K in games, unlike the Ryzen parts.

In a nutshell, the 9900K is essentially an attempt at a 'no compromise' all round desktop CPU that has leading gaming and productivity performance, but its going to cost you a pretty penny. If you can afford one, power to you, but for people that can't, there are plenty of cheaper alternatives to choose from.

Now, maybe, just maybe, people can judge the 9900K on its merits and intended audience, because the 'ZOMG its $600, twice a 2700X!!!' type comments are getting tiresome - it's not like anybody here doesn't realise the cost of these chips, but for its intended market (high end desktop / gaming) its a legitimate choice, at least IMO. As I said earlier, its probably not for 99% of buyers, but for that 1% niche it probably makes perfect sense.

 

[coercitiv]

If given the choice, I'd take a $2500 9900K + 2080 Ti gaming machine over a $2100 R5 2600 + 2080 Ti config, but the sensible part of me would probably just opt for the 8700K or 9700K instead, since they basically perform like the 9900K in games, unlike the Ryzen parts.

If 12 months ago someone had attempted to justify the existence of a premium mainstream CPU by diluting the cost aside a Titan card, people would have laughed pretty hard. Gotta adjust to the new reality I guess, or at least do so until the brains behind this market shift get their "no" from consumers.

 

[epsilon84]

If 12 months ago someone had attempted to justify the existence of a premium mainstream CPU by diluting the cost aside a Titan card, people would have laughed pretty hard. Gotta adjust to the new reality I guess, or at least do so until the brains behind this market shift get their "no" from consumers.

I'm not trying to justify the 9900K or its price, in fact I wish it was closer to $400 than $600, but it is what it is. The performance figures are all there, as is its price.

People who want it are are still going to pay for it. It's not for everyone, in fact its not the right CPU for the vast majority, as I've stated many times, but thats OK. Theres always the 2600, 2700X, 8700K, Threadripper, whatever.

Find the CPU that best suits your budget, and your uses. Simple, right?

 

[mattiasnyc]

my point. It was to illustrate that there are options either side of the 2700X that differ in price/performance but that doesn't make those products any less 'legitimate'.

And I don't think anyone was trying to say a product wasn't "legitimate" (I know that was your word). The point at least I was making was that when we make comparisons we need to decide on an approach and stick to it.

If we want to compare CPUs from a users perspective then you're obviously right that if money is no object is a key parameter then whatever CPU performs the best at the desired task is the best CPU for that type of user. That's obvious.

It is however a completely different thing to suggest that a CPU is the best CPU generally speaking at this time, while disregarding price, availability and potential use-cases/users. That's what at least I was objecting to.

The 9900K is most definitely overpriced as it is, but at or near MSRP (if and when it gets there) it would be a better buy, especially for people with 2080 Tis or whatever who still want some productivity grunt. Not saying a 2700X or TR can't drive a 2080 Ti, you just simply get higher fps on the 9900K and that might be important to some, especially if you're already spending $2000+ on a gaming PC with a 144Hz+ monitor.

Sure. For people who don't care about the money it's a good buy. At MSRP at will be a better buy for more people. Currently it's not even a buy to some because it's sold out, and once it'll show up it'll likely be a fair amount above MSRP. So, the conversation now if we take price into account should be about the price right now.

It's a caveat that can't be ignored, especially sine AMD might counter with a price drop to match to tie them over to the Zen 2 launch.

 

[mattiasnyc]

I think people that solely focus on the (albeit inflated) price of the 9900K are forgetting what kind of build this CPU is likely to go into, and that is either high end gaming machines with expensive GPUs or a mixed use productivity / gaming PC.

show these results to a high end gamer spending $2000+ on a gaming PC, and try to convince them that a 2700X (or 2600) is the 'better' choice,

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....

Now, maybe, just maybe, people can judge the 9900K on its merits and intended audience, because the 'ZOMG its $600, twice a 2700X!!!' type comments are getting tiresome

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...

 

[epsilon84]

And I don't think anyone was trying to say a product wasn't "legitimate" (I know that was your word). The point at least I was making was that when we make comparisons we need to decide on an approach and stick to it.

If we want to compare CPUs from a users perspective then you're obviously right that if money is no object is a key parameter then whatever CPU performs the best at the desired task is the best CPU for that type of user. That's obvious.

It is however a completely different thing to suggest that a CPU is the best CPU generally speaking at this time, while disregarding price, availability and potential use-cases/users. That's what at least I was objecting to.

Sure. For people who don't care about the money it's a good buy. At MSRP at will be a better buy for more people. Currently it's not even a buy to some because it's sold out, and once it'll show up it'll likely be a fair amount above MSRP. So, the conversation now if we take price into account should be about the price right now.

It's a caveat that can't be ignored, especially sine AMD might counter with a price drop to match to tie them over to the Zen 2 launch.

So what standard are we using to compare it with then? Price/performance based off CPU price alone? Because if that is the how we measure 'value' then the 2600 at $150 is the winner by a country mile. Its half the price of the 2700X and provides 80% the overall performance, or a quarter of the price of the 9900K and provides ~66% the overall performance. Everyone should just go get the 2600 right? It's not that simple of course.

Right now, as it stands, you can pre-order the 9900K for $580. I think that is overpriced, considering the MSRP. As I said earlier, if and when it actually sells at or close to MSRP, it'll be a better buy. I can't justify the current pricing, and I think most people can't either. The ones that do will have their reasons to do so, as I provided an example of earlier.

 

[coercitiv]

So what standard are we using to compare it with then? Price/performance based off CPU price alone?

No, we acknowledge the 9900k as the undisputed king of the gaming hill, but we draw the line at price/performance and pure productivity setups. Both Intel and AMD have arguably better offers in those respective areas.

Problem is this doesn't seem to be enough, so we repeat the same comparisons again and again and again, somehow expecting different results.

 

[mattiasnyc]

So what standard are we using to compare it with then? Price/performance based off CPU price alone? Because if that is the how we measure 'value' then the 2600 at $150 is the winner by a country mile. Its half the price of the 2700X and provides 80% the overall performance, or a quarter of the price of the 9900K and provides ~66% the overall performance. Everyone should just go get the 2600 right? It's not that simple of course.

Right now, as it stands, you can pre-order the 9900K for $580. I think that is overpriced, considering the MSRP. As I said earlier, if and when it actually sells at or close to MSRP, it'll be a better buy. I can't justify the current pricing, and I think most people can't either. The ones that do will have their reasons to do so, as I provided an example of earlier.

If you re-read your very first question to me above, and then you read that second paragraph, don't you see how you apply price as a parameter yourself?

All I'm saying is that as we evaluate products we decide on what parameters are important to us and then we compare the different products using those parameters. We shouldn't move the goal posts wantonly.

Now, when you do this you undoubtedly end up in some areas where we'll simply have to discuss whether a parameter is relevant or not. You made a case for some situations where price doesn't matter, and I absolutely agree with that. What some of us were pointing out before though was that IF you are going to say that some people will use the CPU of choice for for example content creation and gaming, where the latter is less important, then IF we take price into account the 9900K ends up in a peculiar place NOW since for that money you can get more lanes and more memory channels etc by going HEDT. Is it a good content creation CPU? Yes, absolutely. So are the x299/x399 CPUs. So... which parameters matter?

And if we're going to make a blanket statement, which parameters matter when we do so?