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.
Money wise it seems that 8th gen 6 core 12 threads one is where the sweet spot is. If you really need 8 cores 16 threads then 9900 is there but expensive.
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
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
Well for many games it's about that per core performance honestly yes depending what your playing. Like me I will play Factorio, Fortress Craft, X Rebirth, X4, Heavy Modded Tech Minecraft Packs with lots of automation and much more.
So to answer your question yes the i9 has that slight gain in performance per core that is great. Will we use all 8 cores 16 threads. Not right away. But also I will in streaming, recording, etc. I have other uses not everyone does but some do.
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.
There are reviews of the other two on well known sites e.g.
Other sites as well. You can use them to compare to AMD products, check out prices etc.
As I said above I suspect it will be the i5 that grabs the limelight. As Anandtech put it:
"When Intel’s own i5-9600K is under half the cost with only two fewer cores, or AMD’s R7 2700X is very competitive in almost every test, while they might not be the best, they’re more cost-effective.
The outlandish flash of the cash goes on the Core i9-9900K. The smart money ends up on the 9700K, 9600K, or the 2700X"
However there are new cpus coming out - as ever - and there is always the question of how powerful a cpu does one need! The much bigger question for gamers - you? - is what graphics card to choose.
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.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
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.
It usually gets folded into a comparison between architectures. L1 and L2 caches are per core for recent CPUs, so that doesn't differ from one CPU to the next for a given architecture. It's only L3 cache that varies, and the marginal benefit of each extra MB of L3 cache tends to get less and less as the cache gets larger.
I think using a CPU under it's intended workload is the most ideal way of testing. For instance if you intend to run the CPU with a nVidia RTX 2080 at 4k resolution, then you should test it under that scenario. Anyone who looks at production/professional hardware will want to see how something performs under their usage case since architectures can wildly vary results. 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. For instance something fetching from the L2 cache may be fetching from the L3 cache with higher graphical settings. Or the memory bandwidth limitation of a CPU may be exposed.
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.
Framebuffers are on the GPU and the CPU never sees them. Unless a game is built such that a higher resolution gives you a wider field of view or longer view distances, the monitor resolution has often negligible and sometimes literally zero impact on the computational load to draw a given frame.
Just noticed he is using the AMD R7 2700x , and if you really think about price to performance, the i9900k looks like a real pile of poop. HTHe review dar enot throw a threadripper up because intel would look like clowns at this point. imho.
Essentially what the Anandtech review said in its conclusion: "The outlandish flash of the cash goes on the Core i9-9900K. The smart money ends up on the 9700K, 9600K, or the 2700X."
It runs ridiculously hot,impeding overclocking,a feature that would set is back when compared to the price.
The price is also TOO steep for the bit of performance boost.You need expensive high end cooling systems.
What time has shown me over the years is that "benchmarks" are just a garbage way of seeing your VALUE in the purchase.
You have to spark up your games and then see if it is THAT much better to first warrant the price and secondly,did you even need to make this purchase.Over many years,i have almost NEVER seen the same performance boost in my purchases as the benchmarks and advertising show us.If you are playing Wow,then your an idiot if you buy something like this.Better yet,what are you needing this chip for...anything at all?
People are idiots because they buy expensive fast cars when there are speed limits everywhere around.
Comments
SNIP
So to answer your question yes the i9 has that slight gain in performance per core that is great. Will we use all 8 cores 16 threads. Not right away. But also I will in streaming, recording, etc. I have other uses not everyone does but some do.
SNIP
Anandtech
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-review
Tomshardware
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-9900k-9th-gen-cpu,5847.html
Other sites as well. You can use them to compare to AMD products, check out prices etc.
As I said above I suspect it will be the i5 that grabs the limelight. As Anandtech put it:
"When Intel’s own i5-9600K is under half the cost with only two fewer cores, or AMD’s R7 2700X is very competitive in almost every test, while they might not be the best, they’re more cost-effective.
The outlandish flash of the cash goes on the Core i9-9900K. The smart money ends up on the 9700K, 9600K, or the 2700X"
However there are new cpus coming out - as ever - and there is always the question of how powerful a cpu does one need! The much bigger question for gamers - you? - is what graphics card to choose.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
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. For instance something fetching from the L2 cache may be fetching from the L3 cache with higher graphical settings. Or the memory bandwidth limitation of a CPU may be exposed.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
People are idiots because they buy expensive fast cars when there are speed limits everywhere around.
Dude, please just don't.