It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I'm personally waiting til 7nm AMD comes out before I upgrade again unless its delayed til 2020. Then I will just upgrade my 1700 to a 2700X and wait it out. I have had both the 1st gen ryzen (1700, kid has a 1600X and other kid had a 1500X) and a coffee lake cpu(8600K). And to be honest, esp while streaming, the ryzen cpu felt a bit slower but much more consistent. If your goal is epeen highest fps on the block then go right ahead and buy that 9900K, esp if you play games that favor intel. If you want a decent gaming experiance, then buy the ryzen for half the money and be content with a chip that will run 15 other applications while you game with little to no fps hit.
I assume Intel's objective with the i9-9900K was to create the "fastest gaming" cpu and in doing so grab headlines. They managed it. Other faster cpus will come along but for they have the headline.
33% more cores/threads
If you've got a bunch of engineer employees who design chips for a living, but you can't have them build the 10 nm chips that you want because the process node isn't ready, then what do you do? You don't want to pay them to do nothing. If you ask them to take a year of unpaid leave, you'll have a lot less talent available once the process node is ready. Instead, you have them build what they can on the old process node.
33% more cores/threads
50% more cores/threads
I stopped reading comments when I heard 1080P testing is pointless when the whole point is to test the CPU and the Higher FPS on LOW res ramps up the CPU more great for testing those silly high numbers. At 2k, etc res your hardly going be capping your main core on the CPU unless the game was made to do so and most are not.
Damn this site gives me cancer.
Only the 9900 was reviewed but does that mean that the other 2 are good? I am going to be getting a new computer soon. My current is 8 years old. I just figure that I might go for something newer like this since it might be 8 more years before I get another computer.
But then again..do we need i9 realy,,.games are still stock on i5 game engine since they know most of ther buyers are kidz with low end pc/laptops..so i9 will just be a " look at my porche" thing
The outlandish flash of the cash goes on the Core i9-9900K. The smart money ends up on the 9700K, 9600K, or the 2700X"
How come forum posters gets so tunnel vision when it comes to cores/processor speeds but rarely talk about cache capabilities? The article mentioned it. It does make a significant difference in processing calculations.
I bought a 9900k to play Diablo 2. Tell me, how do you feel about that?
Cleffy said:You may think that running it on the lowest settings would mean that you are only pushing the CPU, but you are also throwing completely different computations at the CPU and using a smaller memory buffer.