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

[TheGiant]

But there is a catch. If someone wanted a top of the line productivity setup and a gaming setup, until recently that meant 2 separate systems. Now you don't have to make that distinction. A 3900x and probably 3950x too, can make "the best" productivity and gaming system. 2 in 1.

my opinion too
the 3600 is a bloody deal
3700 is a mixed bag
3900X is THE signal - simply no weakness
90% good enough of 9900K in gaming, 130% good enough in apps etc- makes TR and SKL-X obsolete
3900X- the Obsoleter

 

[Abwx]

https://www.kitguru.net/components/...en-9-3900x-ryzen-7-3700x-zen-2-cpu-review/10/
much higher resolution of the kitguru, which reduces the CPU dependancy vs 1080p

here on the same site https://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/amd-ryzen-9-3900x-ryzen-7-3700x-zen-2-cpu-review/8/

1080P as better CPU testing

yeah, based on site....

Higher res.?..

I linked the very link you posted, the pic in my post is the 1080P..

Notice that both KG and TR run the Intel setting outspecced RAM speed wise by 20%, at this rate why not do the same with the AMD setting, or only Intel can be overclocked in something vs stock AMD and still be called stock settings..?.

 

[TheGiant]

Higher res.?..

I linked the very link you posted, the pic in my post is the 1080P..

Notice that both KG and TR run the Intel setting outspecced RAM speed wise by 20%, at this rate why not do the same with the AMD setting, or only Intel can be overclocked in something vs stock AMD and still be called stock settings..?.

your pic didnt render well on my firefox, dont know why, thus I clicked on the link below which is https://www.kitguru.net/components/...en-9-3900x-ryzen-7-3700x-zen-2-cpu-review/10/ 1440p
thats why
about that memory settings, please just dont use your tech knowledge to this....
otherwise send an email to all the reviewers of r1 and r2 lineups for last 2 years of using overclocked tuned mem
ryzen 1 and 2 lineup especially gaming performance is BASED on memory ocing and tuning
keep this discussion on some level please

I will post scores when my 3900X arrives

 

[epsilon84]

Higher res.?..

I linked the very link you posted, the pic in my post is the 1080P..

Notice that both KG and TR run the Intel setting outspecced RAM speed wise by 20%, at this rate why not do the same with the AMD setting, or only Intel can be overclocked in something vs stock AMD and still be called stock settings..?.

Are you suggesting the 9900K should ONLY be run with DDR4-2666 because that is the 'official' spec? Who buys a $500 CPU to gimp it with slow memory, especially since DDR4-3200 isn't really that much more expensive these days? You're literally paying $10 - $20 more for a 3200 kit instead of 2666, for a ~10% increase in performance on a $500 CPU, thats a no brainer. So Im not really buying that argument. If anything, I would think that most 9900K owners (and 3900X as well) would be running high end RAM kits with 3600 or even 4000 speeds. If you're gonna go high end you go high end with ALL components, not super expensive CPU with dirt cheap RAM.

 

[exquisitechar]

Interestingly, Tech Report, Techspot and who knows who else also ran the Intel parts with liquid cooling and the Ryzen with the stock Wraith Prism. I've read that even turning the Wraith Prism setting to "high" increases performance a bit on the 3900x so it seems like that isn't quite an apples to apples comparison, but I'm not sure how much of a difference it would make if the Ryzen CPUs were liquid cooled as well.

Also, some dude on reddit apparently compiled average FPS@1080p results across 10 reviews and 28 games, and the 3900x is only 5% behind the 9900k stock vs stock.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cb0p79

 

[epsilon84]

Interestingly, Tech Report, Techspot and who knows who else also ran the Intel parts with liquid cooling and the Ryzen with the stock Wraith Prism. I've read that even turning the Wraith Prism setting to "high" increases performance a bit on the 3900x so it seems like that isn't quite an apples to apples comparison, but I'm not sure how much of a difference it would make if the Ryzen CPUs were liquid cooled as well.

Also, some dude on reddit apparently compiled average FPS@1080p results across 10 reviews and 28 games, and the 3900x is only 5% behind the 9900k stock vs stock.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cb0p79

5% sounds about right for 1080P, depending on the review and games tested the differences can be anywhere from almost nothing to close to 10% on average, such as in the Techspot/Hardware Unboxed review:

I will say this again though, that doesn't mean Ryzen 3000 has 'caught up' to Intel clock for clock in gaming. It basically means that its 'close enough' that at 1080P Ultra settings (which are still quite GPU dependant in many games) the differences between the CPUs basically becomes negligible on a lot of titles.

I can guarantee you that if you were a competitive gamer looking for constant 144fps+ performance (and thus lowering detail settings) the gap is wider than 5% between a 3900X and 9900K (except maybe in CS:GO where AMD might get 410fps to Intels 400fps, hey a win is a win! ) However, most of us aren't competitive gamers, and we buy expensive GPUs to crank up the IQ, so in reality, with GPU limitations in mind, the 3900X is very close to a 9900K overall in games.

 

[Vattila]

Ok — so Zen 2 has not so far managed to leap into the indisputable gaming lead. However, considering the poll question, there are still 5+ months left of the year, and the big beast of the Ryzen 3000 line-up, the 16-core Ryzen 3950 with an extra +100 MHz boost, will be coming in September. Will that be enough? It seems doubtful it will make much difference. But, assuming it should surprise — with its binned dies, and perhaps with further tuning of the whole line-up — will the lead be lost again to i9-9900KS in Q4?

Assuming i9-9900K/KS clings to the lead this year, is there room for further silicon and firmware improvements for Zen 2 to get into the lead by 2020-03-06, which marks the 20-year anniversary for the 1 GHz Athlon? If I am not mistaken, there is a rumour that AMD has something planned.

Or, do you think we will have to wait for Zen 3 on 7nm+ to see further meaningful progress in gaming performance?

 

[Vattila]

How much more frequency, in absolute and percentage terms, does Zen 2 need on the active cores throughout the benchmarks, to tilt the balance?

https://imgur.com/gaw2WDj

 

[epsilon84]

Ok — so Zen 2 has not so far managed to leap into the indisputable gaming lead. However, considering the poll question, there are still 5+ months left of the year, and the big beast of the Ryzen 3000 line-up, the 16-core Ryzen 3950 with an extra +100 MHz boost, will be coming in September. Will that be enough? It seems doubtful it will make much difference. But, assuming it should surprise — with its binned dies, and perhaps with further tuning of the whole line-up — will the lead be lost again to i9-9900KS in Q4?

Assuming i9-9900K/KS clings to the lead this year, is there room for further silicon and firmware improvements for Zen 2 to get into the lead by 2020-03-06, which marks the 20-year anniversary for the 1 GHz Athlon? If I am not mistaken, there is a rumour that AMD has something planned.

Or, do you think we will have to wait for Zen 3 on 7nm+ to see further meaningful progress in gaming performance?

16 cores really won't do anything for gaming, we're already well in diminishing returns territory with anything beyond 6C/12T currently (or even 6C/6T in many titles). Extra 100MHz? The 9900KS is 300MHz faster than the 9900K, so if anything Intel might extend its lead ever so slightly in games. Tomshardware and Gamers Nexus both have reviews with the 9900K overclocked to 5GHz as well, so we already know exactly how a 9900KS will perform in games. I highly doubt AMD will catch Intel with the current iteration of Zen 2, but if Intel's struggles with 10nm desktop are really as bad as has been reported, then AMD possibly can catch Intel next year with Zen 2+, that's my prediction anyway, in keeping with the spirit of this thread

 

[rbk123]

Sure, you can make the argument that the 3900X has the 'gaming crown' with an outlier review.

But there are 20 others out there with a differing view.

Nope. You said "more or less match the 9900K" and "can hang with" - your words not mine. More than 1 review shows the 3900X winning, but ignoring them, far more clearly show the 3900X "more or less matches", and definitely "can hang with" the 9900k.

 

[mopardude87]

So given Ryzen 3000 series is here, the short answer is nope its not the last hurrah in gaming. With the 9900KS out sometime this year, yeah that one MAYBE the last hurrah. Unless your a 144hz 144fps chaser then i guess depending on your titles there isn't gonna be a good enough cpu for you fps snobs . I sit happily knowing that for every title Techspot covered, the 8700 beats the Ryzen 3000 series and its delivering well over 60fps minimums.

I guess if a game breaks my 8700 non k in the future with any luck a 9900k/ks could perhaps drop into my mobo and i would be alright.

 

[Vattila]

The 9900KS is 300MHz faster than the 9900K, so if anything Intel might extend its lead ever so slightly in games. […] I highly doubt AMD will catch Intel with the current iteration of Zen 2, but if Intel's struggles with 10nm desktop are really as bad as has been reported, then AMD possibly can catch Intel next year with Zen 2+

That makes sense. I've changed my vote in acceptance.

I guess AMD would have to lift effective clocks 5-10% to leap into the lead. That is probably beyond what is achievable with binning. Refinements of the die might do it, i.e. Zen 2+, but that would require time and a refresh of the product line-up, so will unlikely arrive this year — but may be achievable perhaps before the GHz anniversary?

 

[exquisitechar]

Intel will do fine in keeping a not-so-big lead in gaming with a small clock bump across the stack with Comet Lake S and mostly everything else will be fine if they stop disabling HT on almost everything, aside from the high end CPUs. Just imagine if something like a 9400f was 6c/12t. There's a somewhat fishy leak of the CML lineup that implies that that will be the case.

Too bad Comet Lake seems to be late...the time between Zen 2 and Comet Lake's release might end up being similar to the gap between Comet Lake's and Zen 3's release (assuming it releases in ~July like Zen 2 - Milan has been reconfirmed to be coming mid-2020, desktop will hopefully not lag far behind).

 

[epsilon84]

Nope. You said "more or less match the 9900K" and "can hang with" - your words not mine. More than 1 review shows the 3900X winning, but ignoring them, far more clearly show the 3900X "more or less matches", and definitely "can hang with" the 9900k.

You're really clutching at straws here. More or less means exactly that - in fact often a 9700K at the same clocks as a 9900K can outperform it in games due to the nature of HT/SMT and how games react to a high amount of threads:

Oh wow, the 9700K actually outperforms the 9900K in the 0.1% and 1% lows! Shock horror! Maybe I should have said 'potentially outperform' rather than 'more or less', my fault for not accurately wording my thoughts!

Again, check the GN numbers, specifically the 9600K and 9700K at 5.1GHz - there is almost no difference to the 9900K @ 5.1GHz in most titles. The 9900K is an overpriced CPU for gaming, despite the 'fastest gaming CPU' tag, that is my whole point. No need to get all defensive, it really wasn't about AMD at all.

 

[Markfw]

5% sounds about right for 1080P, depending on the review and games tested the differences can be anywhere from almost nothing to close to 10% on average, such as in the Techspot/Hardware Unboxed review:

I will say this again though, that doesn't mean Ryzen 3000 has 'caught up' to Intel clock for clock in gaming. It basically means that its 'close enough' that at 1080P Ultra settings (which are still quite GPU dependant in many games) the differences between the CPUs basically becomes negligible on a lot of titles.

I can guarantee you that if you were a competitive gamer looking for constant 144fps+ performance (and thus lowering detail settings) the gap is wider than 5% between a 3900X and 9900K (except maybe in CS:GO where AMD might get 410fps to Intels 400fps, hey a win is a win! ) However, most of us aren't competitive gamers, and we buy expensive GPUs to crank up the IQ, so in reality, with GPU limitations in mind, the 3900X is very close to a 9900K overall in games.

What I disagree with, is that the 3900x comes with a decent cooler, and the 9900k comes with NOTHING, but they don;t add a decent cooler price before they calculate those numbers. NOT FAIR !

 

[epsilon84]

What I disagree with, is that the 3900x comes with a decent cooler, and the 9900k comes with NOTHING, but they don;t add a decent cooler price before they calculate those numbers. NOT FAIR !

Yeah that's a fair point Mark, though I think a lot of 3900X owners may forego the stock HSF and go with an AIO anyway (or simply already own one)

In this market / price range almost everyone already has some sort of aftermarket cooling in place, lets be realistic. I own about 3 or 4 spare HSFs myself from all my years of overclocking and doing various builds. I don't think the lack of a cooler is as big a deal at the $500 price point as it would be at say, $200.

 

[Vattila]

So given Ryzen 3000 series is here, the short answer is nope its not the last hurrah in gaming. With the 9900KS out sometime this year, yeah that one MAYBE the last hurrah.

Yeah. Kudos to Intel engineers for fine-tuning the Skylake architecture and 14nm process to such a degree to be able to keep 7nm Zen 2 at bay. Really impressive stuff!

PS. That said, as a programmer, I think there is a good portion of software optimisation to this state of affairs as well. Due to Intel's dominance, I guess most PC game code has been written on Intel computers for Intel users, and I doubt that for much of it any resources have been spent on tuning it for AMD CPUs. That should change going forward though.

 

[Markfw]

Yeah that's a fair point Mark, though I think a lot of 3900X owners may forego the stock HSF and go with an AIO anyway (or simply already own one)

In this market / price range almost everyone already has some sort of aftermarket cooling in place, lets be realistic. I don't think the lack of a cooler is as big a deal at the $500 price point as it would be at say, $200.

True also, but at least they have to be fair with the numbers. I already have a 240 AIO in the case my 3900x is going in, so I may sell my cooler.

 

[mopardude87]

Yeah. Kudos to Intel engineers for fine-tuning the Skylake architecture and 14nm process to such a degree to be able to keep 7nm Zen 2 at bay. Really impressive stuff!

Yikes yeah.

Oh i love how this thread went into hibernation on the 20th of June and on the 7th it was like the thread got a command to wake. The topic of stock coolers is interesting right now but every person getting a 3900X has to be considering some sort of overclocking. I accepted the fact my 8700 non k needed a aftermarket everyone else should accept the fact the 3900X is as bad off as a 9900K when you consider overclocking.

 

[epsilon84]

Yikes yeah.

Oh i love how this thread went into hibernation on the 20th of June and on the 7th it was like the thread got a command to wake. The topic of stock coolers is interesting right now but every person getting a 3900X has to be considering some sort of overclocking. I accepted the fact my 8700 non k needed a aftermarket everyone else should accept the fact the 3900X is as bad off as a 9900K when you consider overclocking.

I was patiently waiting for actual reviews, I mean everything that could have been said and speculated up to that point had already been done and dusted, right?

I feel a little silly for falling for the hype again (I never learn, maybe I'm just an eternal optimist haha) but yeah ultimately I expected a little more from Zen 2 in the gaming department, and I think I'm not alone in this line of thinking. They're still amazing CPUs overall though, credit to AMD, I'm just a gamer dude who wants something to upgrade from his 8700K but is annoyed I have to keep waiting another year for any potential gains in gaming performance.

As for overclocking a 3900X, isnt that rather pointless? PBO gets you 99% there anyway, and you don't lose the higher single core boosts either.

In fact, it seems the best thing to do for a 3900X isn't to overclock it, it's to get a better cooler on it and let PBO do its thing.

 

[rbk123]

You're really clutching at straws here. More or less means exactly that - in fact often a 9700K at the same clocks as a 9900K can outperform it in games due to the nature of HT/SMT and how games react to a high amount of threads: Oh wow, the 9700K actually outperforms the 9900K in the 0.1% and 1% lows! Shock horror! Maybe I should have said 'potentially outperform' rather than 'more or less', my fault for not accurately wording my thoughts!

Again, check the GN numbers, specifically the 9600K and 9700K at 5.1GHz - there is almost no difference to the 9900K @ 5.1GHz in most titles. The 9900K is an overpriced CPU for gaming, despite the 'fastest gaming CPU' tag, that is my whole point. No need to get all defensive, it really wasn't about AMD at all.

You sure like to cherry pic your reviews; and throw in a lot of sideways nonsense which has nothing to do with the very simple point I'm debating. Shock - I agree the 9700 "more or less" competes with the 9900. Horror - I agree the 9600 "can hang with" the 9900. However so can the 3900X. Zoinks! Jinkies!

 

[mopardude87]

. They're still amazing CPUs overall though, credit to AMD, I'm just a gamer dude who wants something to upgrade from his 8700K but is annoyed I have to keep waiting another year for any potential gains in gaming performance.

I welcome the staying power of the 8700, given i game at 4k and enjoy it i can focus 100% of my funds for the next 5 years at least into any and all gpus i so choose. That and maybe if i get bored i could just slap in a M.2 ssd. :d

 

[Vattila]

Oh i love how this thread went into hibernation on the 20th of June and on the 7th it was like the thread got a command to wake.

The launch obviously reenergised the thread with additional data, on which we can ponder and pontificate the question of the thread poll. I deliberately set the deadline of the poll to the end of the year to be able to continue to gauge the AMD vs Intel dynamics in gaming in this process cycle. At the moment, though, the consensus seems to be that 14nm Skylake/CFL is Intel's last hurrah for the foreseeable future (unless magic happens at 10nm), with ample opportunity for AMD to get into the gaming lead with Zen 2/3 and 7nm/7nm+, before the next cycle beyond Intel's 10nm allows a possible comeback by Intel.

 

[epsilon84]

You sure like to cherry pic your reviews; and throw in a lot of sideways nonsense which has nothing to do with the very simple point I'm debating. Shock - I agree the 9700 "more or less" competes with the 9900. Horror - I agree the 9600 "can hang with" the 9900. However so can the 3900X. Zoinks! Jinkies!

LOL how am I cherry picking when I specifically referenced GN and was using it as my source for my argument? Think about that for a sec, please. I've said many times in this thread that the 3900X is very close to a 9900K in gaming, but that should be obvious to everyone already.

However, if you actually had to rank the CPUs in terms of their gaming performance, then IMO the 9900K/9700K is 'tier 1' due to the higher stock clocks, and the 8700K/3900X just slightly lower at 'tier 2' mainly due to the lower clocks. If you overclock then the 9900K/9700K/8700K basically all perform the same since the clockspeed ceiling is about 5.0 - 5.1GHz for all these chips, and at this point there is a clear distinction between it and say a 3900X (or any 3000 series Ryzen chip) that is limited to around 4.3GHz.

 

[Elfear]

LOL how am I cherry picking when I specifically referenced GN and was using it as my source for my argument? Think about that for a sec, please. I've said many times in this thread that the 3900X is very close to a 9900K in gaming, but that should be obvious to everyone already.

However, if you actually had to rank the CPUs in terms of their gaming performance, then IMO the 9900K/9700K is 'tier 1' due to the higher stock clocks, and the 8700K/3900X just slightly lower at 'tier 2' mainly due to the lower clocks. If you overclock then the 9900K/9700K/8700K basically all perform the same since the clockspeed ceiling is about 5.0 - 5.1GHz for all these chips, and at this point there is a clear distinction between it and say a 3900X (or any 3000 series Ryzen chip) that is limited to around 4.3GHz.

You're correct that the Intel 9000/8000 series maintain a small overall lead in gaming. That lead is exacerbated at very low res (720p) and with the most powerful GPU but starts to disappear at 1080p and is basically sixes at 1440p and higher. For anyone gaming on a high refresh FHD monitor and with a decent GPU, the Intel offerings would probably make more sense (assuming no productivity work).

For everyone else running < a 2080Ti and at >= 1440p, AMD has effectively closed the gap in gaming.