Speculation: i9-9900K is Intel's last hurrah in gaming

[Arkaign]

Yeah, properly tuned Coffee Lake @ 5Ghz is a beast. Of course it needs 2080TI and fast memory to shine. Sadly AMD seems to have ~same IPC, but clock deficit is just too large to reign in gaming.

Real question about new chips is -> can AMD improve things with new AGESA versions and can faster, highly tuned DRAM ( talking 3600CL15 stuff ) help recover some of that gap.

So my conclusion is the same, for any OCed 8700K/9700K/9900K owner out there is no need to move anywhere, unless they really need more threads for content creation. In that case 3900x and 3950x will shine.

Personally i am a bit sad, i was sceptical, but the hype about the clocks was so easy to believe into. 4.6-4.7 would have put these chips in real good position vs Intel.

Yeah. For OEM type systems where people will run stock, the results are really close. Enthusiasts though with unlocked CPUs and big air coolers (like me), the gap between them in gaming is sometimes enormous.

I mean Hitman is like ~100 to ~140 FPS, or close to it in just one example, and for a 144Hz Freesync/Gysnc panel, that's a generational divide. I'm not going to call anyone out really, but can you imagine if Zen2 was beating Intel 140 to 100fps in a major title? We'd see a LOT of hype about that kind of performance, and for good reason.

I get it, Intel has been a stagnant, arrogant bag of BS for eons now, with overpriced nonsense and arbitrary socket changes. I want them kicked in the kneecaps a pretty good bit to get them going, as nothing but good competition will do so. As it happens, Zen2 is HANDS DOWN the best all-purpose desktop CPU lineup out there. It's just extremely disappointing for gamers, a definite sector of desktop computing that has really helped the health and technology for the industry. Without PC gaming, I think we'd see a lot less variety and progress to be seen.

I'm lucky because I have both a 2700X and 8086k desktops, for wildly differing uses. I'll probably hold out for a 3950X to replace the 2700, and hope some of the issues are ironed out. As it stands, the 'unlocked' Zen2 looks like a complete waste of money, why not just choose the 3600 or 3700 vanilla and get basically the identical thing for less. *shrug*.

 

[Zucker2k]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1147888734047756289

Sure is.

According to the Stilt:

The overclocking capabilities

Essentially, if we're talking about the higher-end SKUs, there is basically none.
Based on my experience, the best case of scenario on 6C CCDs (3600, 3600X and 3900X) is around 4.25GHz, at relatively safe voltage levels.
In case of 3900X, given that you can cool the chip with two of those 6C CCDs. SKUs with 8C CCDs (3700X, 3800X and 3950X) the best case is around 4.15GHz. The 3950X is expected to be thermally limited, as a whole.
The biggest limit is the intensity (heat per area), secondly the voltage you can safely feed to the silicon. For example, the 9900K which has a reputation of being an inferno, has theoretical intensity of ~1.15W/mm² when operating at 5.0GHz (200W @ 174mm²).
Meanwhile Matisse can easily reach intensity of > 1.5W/mm² (120W+ @ 74mm²). The second issue is, that beyond ~3.8GHz the V/F curve becomes extremely steep. According to FIT, the safe voltage levels for the silicon are around 1.325V in high-current loads
and up to 1.47V in low-current loads (i.e ST), depending on the silicon characteristics. Because the stock boost operation is already limited by the silicon voltage reliability, the only way to eke out every last bit of all-core performance is using OC-Mode. Like on previous Ryzen generations, entering OC-Mode also means that you will loose the turbo boost (all cores operate at same frequency). On the higher-end SKUs, the single threaded performance penalty will be massive from doing so. For example on 3900X, you'd be trading additional ~100MHz all-core frequency to a loss of up to 450MHz in ST frequency by doing so. Personally, I advice against overclocking the higher-end SKUs at all, and instead increasing the power limits and trying your luck with the "Auto OC" feature (which most likely isn't beneficial).

The V/F testing was done using full resource utilization (FRU), meaning the stability was tested using 256-bit workloads.
Unlike Intel designs, Matisse does not feature an offset for 256-bit workloads. This means that to ensure the stability of the CPU cores in every scenario, they must be tested using this kind of a workload.
On Matisse, the delta in power consumption between the scalar and 256-bit vector instructions is massive, as expected (37%). That being said, there seems to be other design related factors limiting the maximum achievable frequency.
Despite significantly lower power consumption and therefore also lower temperatures, stability even in pure scalar workloads could not be achieved at much higher frequencies, compare to FRU scenario.

I believe Der8auer pointed this out in his delidding video as well. Essentially, manual overclocking is dead on AMD because you give up so much in single core boost for next to no gain in all core clocks. In some cases, you may even achieve clock regression in manual overclocking.

Also, PBO is not borked, it seems, from the link above. The problem is there's no {power) headroom. Ryzen 2 has been ready to ship for a couple of months now. There's no improvement, if any, coming anytime soon.

My expectations have been met, because they were set within reasonable limits. Essentially, ipc parity, less clocks due to silicon limitations (called it), lower power consumption. Intel remains strong in single/few core usage scenarios and gaming, which is basically the majority use case among casuals and gamers alike.
Too bad the 3800x is missing in action; not that it matters that much anyway. The 3900x sits all alone in that corner where desktop and HEDT conjoin and provides unmatched value as well as pushing up the performance scale of general desktop computing in multithreaded scenarios. Perhaps, more than anything else, this is were the real story is - revolutionary desktop performance at a reasonable price tag.

Well done, AMD!

 

[Arkaign]

According to Tom's:

"Due to time constraints, we tested the Ryzen 9 3900X and Ryzen 7 3700X with both automated overclocking features activated instead of with a manual all-core overclock. Several motherboard vendors have told us that overclocking headroom is extremely limited on the Ryzen 3000 processors, and that exceeding the boost clocks, or even meeting them, isn't possible for all-core overclocking. Our resident overclocking expert Allen 'Splave' Golibersuch has also spent time with early Ryzen 3000 samples and was unable to break the 4.1 GHz barrier without sub-ambient cooling.

In either case, the combination of PBO and AutoOC yielded improvements in some applications, but wasn't as impressive with the Ryzen 7 3700X as it was with the Ryzen 9 3900X. In some cases, the boost confers no benefit for the Ryzen 7 3700X in our application testing, and on a few occasions, we see performance regressions in lightly-threaded workloads compared to the stock configuration. We tested with multiple motherboards and met with the same result, which could boil down to the quality of our sample or motherboard firmwares. As with most processor launches, motherboard firmwares are still a work in progress, so there is hope that the situation will improve. We'll update our results when a fix becomes available, but we did encounter this issue the night before NDA lift, so hopefully a fix will come soon.

We regularly observed our Ryzen 9 3900X maintaining an all-core 4.1 GHz during our testing, while the Ryzen 7 3700X often peaked at 4.125 GHz."

Kinda sounds like PBO and AutoOC were borked. 4.1Ghz all-core is right about what the last gen 2700X did with PBO and XFR. And the fact that performance regressed in some cases when PBO and AutoOC were activated is a huge red flag.

We've seen from all sides that there is nearly zero headroom on these things. But if there are problems where the thing can suddenly run actually worse than stock, I mean seriously? That's a really rough launch, to go with the lengthy NDA, some kind of AGESA delay, not letting people really see what they were in for in time to decide whether to order one or not. By the time you could read reviews, they were largely sold out, so you had to gamble blindly.

Content creator/heavy MT/DC, it's mind-bogglingly good at least.

 

[Dave3000]

I'm strongly considering upgrading to a i9-9900k instead of an Ryzen 3800x since I saw this review that shows that the i7-9700k and 9900k are beating the Ryzen 3900x and 3700x in X-Plane 11. http://www.comptoir-hardware.com/ar...0-a-ryzen-7-3700x-ryzen-9-3900x.html?start=14 I can't find any reviews on the 3800x which is the CPU I was looking forward due to the higher rating TDP meaning possibly a higher all-core turbo boost than the 3700x. Would a 3800x be somewhere in between a 3700x and 3900x in X-Plane 11? Also would an i7-4930k be around the performance of an Ryzen 1800x in X-Plane 11?

I right now I have a i7-4930k. I mainly want to upgrade to improve X-Plane 11 performance. I'm sure that a CPU that performs well in X-Plane 11 will perform well in other games as well anyways.

 

[Panino Manino]

@Zucker2k
I know that Ryzen "can't overclock" since the first generation and I don't care. I was pointing AdoredTV of all people talking about "fairy-tales and unicorns".

 

[DrMrLordX]

@Dave3000

I would wait for reviewers to retest since we're dealing with buggy UEFI revisions right now. That being said, X-Plane 11 still seems to heavily favor Coffee Lake over everything else. Why? I don't know. It may be one of those odd niches where Intel is still relevant.

 

[Arkaign]

@Zucker2k
I know that Ryzen "can't overclock" since the first generation and I don't care. I was pointing AdoredTV of all people talking about "fairy-tales and unicorns".

LOL I know, the ironing is so thick you can practically smell the starch haha.

 

[Markfw]

I'm strongly considering upgrading to a i9-9900k instead of an Ryzen 3800x since I saw this review that shows that the i7-9700k and 9900k are beating the Ryzen 3900x and 3700x in X-Plane 11. http://www.comptoir-hardware.com/ar...0-a-ryzen-7-3700x-ryzen-9-3900x.html?start=14 I can't find any reviews on the 3800x which is the CPU I was looking forward due to the higher rating TDP meaning possibly a higher all-core turbo boost than the 3700x. Would a 3800x be somewhere in between a 3700x and 3900x in X-Plane 11? Also would an i7-4930k be around the performance of an Ryzen 1800x in X-Plane 11?

I right now I have a i7-4930k. I mainly want to upgrade to improve X-Plane 11 performance. I'm sure that a CPU that performs well in X-Plane 11 will perform well in other games as well anyways.

I can't read that review, as after a few seconds, the screen wipes, and the screen says something in french that I can't understand.

That said, with only beta bios and not a full range of reviews (not to mention that most sites have not applies all the meltdown/spectre patches) I would seriously consider the Ryzen 3000 series, 3800 or 3900x in your case.

Be a little more patient, as early reviews still have Ryzen 3000 doing very well, even in games.

 

[Arkaign]

I'm strongly considering upgrading to a i9-9900k instead of an Ryzen 3800x since I saw this review that shows that the i7-9700k and 9900k are beating the Ryzen 3900x and 3700x in X-Plane 11. http://www.comptoir-hardware.com/ar...0-a-ryzen-7-3700x-ryzen-9-3900x.html?start=14 I can't find any reviews on the 3800x which is the CPU I was looking forward due to the higher rating TDP meaning possibly a higher all-core turbo boost than the 3700x. Would a 3800x be somewhere in between a 3700x and 3900x in X-Plane 11? Also would an i7-4930k be around the performance of an Ryzen 1800x in X-Plane 11?

I right now I have a i7-4930k. I mainly want to upgrade to improve X-Plane 11 performance. I'm sure that a CPU that performs well in X-Plane 11 will perform well in other games as well anyways.

What are you running your 4930k at? If stock, grab a Noctua DH15U and ram it up to ~4.6-4.7Ghz. You'll have performance on par with stock 9700k with all core 4.7Ghz on that platform. Always cheaper to keep your platform if you can.

 

[epsilon84]

I can't read that review, as after a few seconds, the screen wipes, and the screen says something in french that I can't understand.

That said, with only beta bios and not a full range of reviews (not to mention that most sites have not applies all the meltdown/spectre patches) I would seriously consider the Ryzen 3000 series, 3800 or 3900x in your case.

Be a little more patient, as early reviews still have Ryzen 3000 doing very well, even in games.

It shows the 9700K/9900K running at 53-54fps compared to 46-47fps on the 3700X/3900X.

Highly doubt any BIOS will bridge that gap, it just seems to be one of those games where Intel runs a lot better. Most other games don't show this kind of margin, thankfully.

 

[Hitman928]

Xplane's graphics engine is horribly outdated, it doesn't surprise me that it doesn't run as well on Ryzen CPUs.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Sigh, so 3rd-Gen Ryzen CPU is not the Intel-killer that we all hoped that it would be, for gaming. For everything else, thankfully, Ryzen 3rd-Gen really mops the floor with Intel. (Per the TechSpot review.)

So, I'm not a heavy gamer anymore, so I might consider one of the new Ryzen 3rd-Gen CPUs for general number-crunching / DC work. But I've been running into power issues with running my PCs and my A/C at the same time (old breakers), so I may hold off any new rigs. I can't even run my 2700 @ 4.0Ghz / 1.350V rig, without throwing the breaker after a little while, when I have my window A/C running. Sigh.

At the rate my power issues are going, I may have to stop crunching altogether, and just use my laptops for browsing.

 

[Dave3000]

see post below

 

[Dave3000]

What are you running your 4930k at? If stock, grab a Noctua DH15U and ram it up to ~4.6-4.7Ghz. You'll have performance on par with stock 9700k with all core 4.7Ghz on that platform. Always cheaper to keep your platform if you can.

I'm running my 4930k at stock settings. I overclocked it to 4.4 GHz at 1.245v (LLC off) before for a short time period and gained about 20% performance in X-Plane 11. I don't think I would be able to get it higher without going insane on the vcore, and core temperature have hit 80C when running Prime 95 (small FFTs) at 4.4 GHz at 1.245 vcore. I'm using a Hyper EVO 212 with a CM Blademaster (stock fan didn't cool as well as this one) fan attached to it for CPU cooling. However, I reverted the CPU back to stock settings because besides gaming I also do work at home with this PC.

 

[Arkaign]

I'm running my 4930k at stock settings. I overclocked it to 4.4 GHz at 1.245v (LLC off) before for a short time period and gained about 20% performance in X-Plane 11. I don't think I would be able to get it higher without going insane on the vcore, and core temperature have hit 80C when running Prime 95 (small FFTs) at 4.4 GHz at 1.245 vcore. I'm using a Hyper EVO 212 with a CM Blademaster (stock fan didn't cool as well as this one) fan attached to it for CPU cooling. However, I reverted the CPU back to stock settings because besides gaming I also do work at home with this PC.

Ah, I love the 212, but it's seriously underpowered for cooling a 4930k (or any S2011 hex) deep into the 4s.

There is a direct correlation between cooling capacity and voltage efficiency. When chips get too hot, it takes more power to remain stable, which of course is a self-sustaining feedback loop of pain.

For reference, my 212+ Evo with push/pull Noctua fans topped out at 4.9Ghz on my 8086k all-core with mid to high 70s @ load. Going DH15U pushed me to 5.2Ghz with the same voltage, and temps stay at 63-65 load, usually in the high 40s for most gaming and average use.

Anyway, a better air cooler and you should be good with 4.6 given you got 4.4 on a drastically undermatched HSF. And that 4930k will absolutely love it, it will run cooler than your average stock CPU with stock cooler at stock settings. Your 4930k has a soldered IHS as well, so improving your air cooler is way more effective than the TIM CPUs usually see without a delid.

4930k @ 4.6 all-core will be 24/7 stable and by far the best $/perf option you have. 2011 mobos are typically extremely well made, you already have your OS, software, cabling, Ram, etc in place.

 

[Dave3000]

Ah, I love the 212, but it's seriously underpowered for cooling a 4930k (or any S2011 hex) deep into the 4s.

There is a direct correlation between cooling capacity and voltage efficiency. When chips get too hot, it takes more power to remain stable, which of course is a self-sustaining feedback loop of pain.

For reference, my 212+ Evo with push/pull Noctua fans topped out at 4.9Ghz on my 8086k all-core with mid to high 70s @ load. Going DH15U pushed me to 5.2Ghz with the same voltage, and temps stay at 63-65 load, usually in the high 40s for most gaming and average use.

Anyway, a better air cooler and you should be good with 4.6 given you got 4.4 on a drastically undermatched HSF. And that 4930k will absolutely love it, it will run cooler than your average stock CPU with stock cooler at stock settings. Your 4930k has a soldered IHS as well, so improving your air cooler is way more effective than the TIM CPUs usually see without a delid.

4930k @ 4.6 all-core will be 24/7 stable and by far the best $/perf option you have. 2011 mobos are typically extremely well made, you already have your OS, software, cabling, Ram, etc in place.

Coffee Lake is soldered as well.

 

[tamz_msc]

Just run Linux if you're going to play X-Plane. It uses Vulkan and runs much better than the Windows version that uses OpenGL.

 

[DrMrLordX]

X-Plane 11 uses OpenGL? Why would anyone want to use that today?

 

[Zucker2k]

I'm strongly considering upgrading to a i9-9900k instead of an Ryzen 3800x since I saw this review that shows that the i7-9700k and 9900k are beating the Ryzen 3900x and 3700x in X-Plane 11. http://www.comptoir-hardware.com/ar...0-a-ryzen-7-3700x-ryzen-9-3900x.html?start=14 I can't find any reviews on the 3800x which is the CPU I was looking forward due to the higher rating TDP meaning possibly a higher all-core turbo boost than the 3700x. Would a 3800x be somewhere in between a 3700x and 3900x in X-Plane 11? Also would an i7-4930k be around the performance of an Ryzen 1800x in X-Plane 11?

I right now I have a i7-4930k. I mainly want to upgrade to improve X-Plane 11 performance. I'm sure that a CPU that performs well in X-Plane 11 will perform well in other games as well anyways.

My understanding is that X-Plane is ALL ABOUT high single thread performance. The higher you can clock your 4930k the better - as you've confirmed below with your 4.4GHz overclock. Consider what @Arkaign said and invest in better cooling and save $$.

@Zucker2k
I know that Ryzen "can't overclock" since the first generation and I don't care. I was pointing AdoredTV of all people talking about "fairy-tales and unicorns".

I was replying to the "can't overclock" bit. AMD outdid themselves with this release. I don't even understand why they're selling 'unlocked' chips anymore, to be frank.

 

[Arkaign]

Coffee Lake is soldered as well.

Afaik, it's split, 8000 TIM, 9000 Solder (for the K series, no idea on the locked stuff, but for that it probably doesn't matter much either way). Conductonaut was part of the magic of getting to 5.2Ghz on air for me.

 

[guachi]

Sigh, so 3rd-Gen Ryzen CPU is not the Intel-killer that we all hoped that it would be, for gaming. For everything else, thankfully, Ryzen 3rd-Gen really mops the floor with Intel. (Per the TechSpot review.)

If it eeked out even a 1% victory it'd end all relevant discussions completely.

As it is, I still can't imagine buying an Intel processor for any reason, even if I were a gamer. If I did nothing but game AAA games I might as well play a console and if I did anything useful on my PC I'd get a Ryzen chip.

 

[epsilon84]

If it eeked out even a 1% victory it'd end all relevant discussions completely.

As it is, I still can't imagine buying an Intel processor for any reason, even if I were a gamer. If I did nothing but game AAA games I might as well play a console and if I did anything useful on my PC I'd get a Ryzen chip.

I agree, if buying new, AMD all the way. Intel wouldn't even be a consideration unless they lowered their prices by at least 30% on all relevant SKUs.

But what is a 8700K owner like me to do? I'm really itching for something new to play with, but the lack of overclocking headroom kind of spoils it for me. I know I should get my head around overclocking being 'dead', I'm just old school I guess! Overclocking was half the fun for me when getting a new chip, now it's just about efficiency and more cores.

I know I'm sounding picky here, Ryzen 3K are great chips, just not so much 'fun' for old school tweakers like myself unfortunately.

 

[CHADBOGA]

I agree, if buying new, AMD all the way. Intel wouldn't even be a consideration unless they lowered their prices by at least 30% on all relevant SKUs.

But what is a 8700K owner like me to do? I'm really itching for something new to play with, but the lack of overclocking headroom kind of spoils it for me. I know I should get my head around overclocking being 'dead', I'm just old school I guess! Overclocking was half the fun for me when getting a new chip, now it's just about efficiency and more cores.

I know I'm sounding picky here, Ryzen 3K are great chips, just not so much 'fun' for old school tweakers like myself unfortunately.

Wait for Zen 3 or 4.

 

[TheGiant]

I'm running my 4930k at stock settings. I overclocked it to 4.4 GHz at 1.245v (LLC off) before for a short time period and gained about 20% performance in X-Plane 11. I don't think I would be able to get it higher without going insane on the vcore, and core temperature have hit 80C when running Prime 95 (small FFTs) at 4.4 GHz at 1.245 vcore. I'm using a Hyper EVO 212 with a CM Blademaster (stock fan didn't cool as well as this one) fan attached to it for CPU cooling. However, I reverted the CPU back to stock settings because besides gaming I also do work at home with this PC.

IMO if you are obsessed with that game go buy 9600K and OC it to 5GHz+
cheapest Intel gaming CPU

 

[TheGiant]

I agree, if buying new, AMD all the way. Intel wouldn't even be a consideration unless they lowered their prices by at least 30% on all relevant SKUs.

But what is a 8700K owner like me to do? I'm really itching for something new to play with, but the lack of overclocking headroom kind of spoils it for me. I know I should get my head around overclocking being 'dead', I'm just old school I guess! Overclocking was half the fun for me when getting a new chip, now it's just about efficiency and more cores.

I know I'm sounding picky here, Ryzen 3K are great chips, just not so much 'fun' for old school tweakers like myself unfortunately.

IMO nothing from 8700K
that Icelake looks excellent, but we wont see S parts IMO
the 8700K,9700K and 9900K parts at 5GHz+ are still the kings
what bothers me we are stagnating, 8700K is here since q4 2017!!, that is more than 1,5 years
IMO Apple will soon laugh at all the x86 crap wars