i9-9900k, Ryzen 9 3900X or..?

[Tommi Ylén]

There is a bundle offer of both, pricing

999€ for
- Asus PRIME X570-PRO
- AMD Ryzen 9 3900X, AM4, 3.8GHz, 12-core
- Kingston 16GB (2 x 8GB) HyperX Fury, DDR4 3200MHz, CL16, 1.35V
- Samsung 500GB 970 EVO SSD, M.2 2280, PCIe 3.0 x4, NVMe, 3400/2300 MB/s

919€ for
- Intel Coffee Lake Core i9-9900K, LGA1151, 3.60 GHz, boxed
- Asus ROG STRIX Z390-F GAMING
- Kingston 16GB (2 x 8GB) HyperX Fury, DDR4 3200MHz, CL16, 1.35V, musta
- Samsung 500GB 970 EVO SSD, M.2 2280, PCIe 3.0 x4, NVMe, 3400/2300 MB/s
- This bundle also has Asus AX200 wlan/bt adapter for free (I'd like to get rid of wlan cable)

I haven't had AMD in more than 10years, back then I had not so good experience of them. Now I read that Intel has many problems for example i9-9900k overheating, also not being much faster, if at all than i7-9700k(some benchmarks even show 9700k faster). I would probably pick i7-9700k if it was any cheaper than the options above, but with all the parts it adds up to same pricing than the two bundles.

AMD being an option too, but its single core performance is slower than Intel's. That means the current simulation games(AC,ACC,RF2) runs slower with it(?). Also there was so much instability issues back in the day and drivers never was good with AMD, I've learned to hate them. No idea how they are nowadays.

My current PC is Sabertooth P67 with i5 2500k and GTX1070. CPU is bottlenecking the GPU very much.
I'm trying to find a CPU that will last long and I can atleast once or twice upgrade my GPU without having to worry about bottlenecking.

The competition of Intel and AMD is very confusing these days, all the opinions are welcome. Thanks!

 

[robt100]

AMD being an option too, but its single core performance is slower than Intel's. That means the current simulation games(AC,ACC,RF2) runs slower with it(?). Also there was so much instability issues back in the day and drivers never was good with AMD, I've learned to hate them. No idea how they are nowadays.

To clarify the 'single core performance' being slower. Clock for clock (IE: both locked at 4ghz) the AMD is actually faster with better IPC, but intel can clock around 500-800mhz faster so overall has faster single core performance. But with a GTX1070 you wont notice any difference between the two as you will be GPU bottlenecked by that point.

Is it just gaming its being used for? And are you wanting the ability to upgrade the CPU later?
If only gaming - 9900K
If mixed or upgrading later - 3900X as AMD will have new CPUs out towards the end of this year that will fit the same socket.

Hope some of that helps!

 

[Tommi Ylén]

To clarify the 'single core performance' being slower. Clock for clock (IE: both locked at 4ghz) the AMD is actually faster with better IPC, but intel can clock around 500-800mhz faster so overall has faster single core performance. But with a GTX1070 you wont notice any difference between the two as you will be GPU bottlenecked by that point.

Is it just gaming its being used for? And are you wanting the ability to upgrade the CPU later?
If only gaming - 9900K
If mixed or upgrading later - 3900X as AMD will have new CPUs out towards the end of this year that will fit the same socket.

Hope some of that helps!

Yes for gaming only, racing simulations are the priority. I'll most likely upgrade my GPU once new nvidia generation comes out. I'll be having a lot more out of the GTX1070 meanwhile though.

I'm trying to seek for the best option for future, meanwhile having the most out of todays racing simulations. I've seen 9900k have much better average fps on games than 3900x, probably because games are not supporting all 12cores yet?

I'm just hoping that the 9900k won't suddenly get old because there are AMD 7nm CPUs with more cores and intel probably trying to go that path soon. Hard to predict the future..

So far I'm leaning towards 9900k, thanks

 

[RobertR1]

Sims barely use more than 4cores and prefer max frequency so Intel platforms win easily on this. You can get a 9900k, disable hyperthreading and max out the overclock and it’ll be the best option for sims.


https://www.racedepartment.com/thre...nt-and-ram-scaling-in-acc-ac1-and-r3e.172320/ spend 10mins reading this thread. It’ll be clear after.

 

[Trebormoore84]

AMD has higher IPC than intel so you cannot compare clock speeds.

You should really compare the 9900k with the 3800x and 3700x as they are comparable 8 core chips, 3700x wins hands down as by far the best value. The 3800x doesnt quite have the single core performance but it really isnt far off especially if you tune it properly. Ive got mine running triple ultrawide 1080p at 120-160fps in rf2 with high settings on a 2080ti. Not too bad of a bottleneck if i'm honest.

3900x is really a cpu for creators who need lots of cores and it really should be compared to a 12 core intel X299. But it just happens to compete single core wise with the 9900k just a few percent lower. But because the cost is comparable gamers get confused i think. Don't get drawn into the stupid moar cores argument. Its a confusion of product stack comparisons.

AMD have been very clever with their stack as they are saying you dont need HEDT anymore unless you really need it, it has completely tripped Intels marketing strategy. They have ripped out intels jugular at the high end and its impressive.

Also remember the 9900k is on z390 which is a dead end platform, the next gen 10900k due out needs a new motherboard with a new 1200 pin socket. And that MB is not still not going to support pcie 4.0.

amd X570 by contrast still has at least one more generation to upgrade to plus it has pcie 4.0 which is far more future proof, potentially offering HEDT level PCIE bandwidth if you know what you are doing.
I. E. If you want to do silly things like SLI next gen nvidia will potentially have pcie 4.0 and you could theoretically install sli with no bandwidth bottleneck on x570. But this will depend on what happens there with Nvidia they might close that door to spite AMD.

So to me AMD is the smart choice, but i do agree for high end simracing specifically 9900k is the best choice right now if you want to have a cpu that will not bottleneck a single 2080ti or the next gen gpus. Just be aware of the compromises and features you loose out on long term.

 

[Terry Rock]

I'd go for that AMD bundle with a few exceptions.
Like Trebormoore84 said...I'd go with the 3700....swap out the RAM for good 3600 MHz stuff and go for a 1TB drive instead of the 500GB.
The cost savings would be huge and I can personally tell you, the performance is absolutely incredible...even in VR.
It is not only about the peak framerate the 9900k can offer....its about the overall experience.
I hear guys complaining all the time about micro-stutter..even on 9900k processors.
Augment that 3700 with great cooling and the experience is second to none.

 

[maelstrom]

AMD has higher IPC than intel so you cannot compare clock speeds.

That's exactly why you should compare clock speeds. Yes, the IPC of something like the 3800x is slightly better than the 9900k at the same clock speed. However, the 9900k has a higher default boost speed and is capable of being overclocked higher which, for gaming with the right GPU, more than cancels out the IPC advantage the 3800x has. There's no arguing that the AMD CPUs are probably the best all round processors and the performance difference when gaming is not that much, but it is there. That said, unless you're running with something like the RTX 2080 Ti, the difference between the 2 processors is negligible.

 

[Trebormoore84]

It is not only about the peak framerate the 9900k can offer....its about the overall experience.
I hear guys complaining all the time about micro-stutter..even on 9900k processors

Interesting, I was on a 7700k and I switched over to a 3600 as a stop gap just to try it out and was amazed with the smoothness. They are about equal in single core performance but the 1% lows were much better. I've not tried a 9900k, but I don't think its supposed to be bad. See the many Gamers Nexus benchmarks.

However, the 9900k has a higher default boost speed and is capable of being overclocked higher which, for gaming with the right GPU, more than cancels out the IPC advantage the 3800x has

Yes agreed. That's pretty much what I said at the end of my last post, 9900k is the best in a very specific use case to get the most out of high end GPUs to achieve the highest possible refresh rates, though only when you are CPU limited at 1080p resolutions, the closer you get being GPU limited at say 1440p and 4k the less impact it has.
All I was saying was don't be fooled by AMD's seemingly low clock speeds. 4.3ghz overclock on a 3800x gives excellent performance. But yes its still around 10% slower than a 9900k @ 5ghz. But then 3800x is far cheaper. 3700x is like 40% cheaper.

Personally I am done with Intel after having to delid my 7700k just to get it to run at normal temps. That and all the overpriced HEDT parts they are not having any more of my cash until they sort themselves out and actually design a new architecture that isn't 10 generations old.

I'm interested where the 4600x, 4700x and 4800x sit when they come out later this year, supposed to be another decent jump in IPC, there is a rumour that its going to be as much as a 17% uplift, that would bring parity / surpass the 9900k.
This is achieved with an update in architecture design and a better 7nm+ process.
Intel on the other hand can only match this with more overclocking and higher TDP watts on its aging 14nm process.

Anyway Gamers Nexus review makes sense of the differences here:

 

[Terry Rock]

I own the 3600x and it is fast and smooth as glass.
It didn't break the bank either.
I use it for every sim I own...which is all of them sans PCars and IRacing. I also use VR for every title that currently supports it...not a single issue.
It also crunches through video transcoding projects in short order.
Best $249 I've ever spent for a CPU.

 

[Tommi Ylén]

I'm coming to conclusion that it might be the worst time to upgrade anything yet, maybe I'll wait until the end of this year.

Maybe for now just go with much cheaper choice and make this PC just a system without bottlenecks, just something to match the GTX1070. Later on upgrade the whole PC at once..

 

[RobertR1]

I'm coming to conclusion that it might be the worst time to upgrade anything yet, maybe I'll wait until the end of this year.

Maybe for now just go with much cheaper choice and make this PC just a system without bottlenecks, just something to match the GTX1070. Later on upgrade the whole PC at once..

Yes. The 9900k and the 2080ti are both 1.5 years old almost.

EOY will have new gens for AMD, Intel and nvidia.

 

[Tommi Ylén]

I own the 3600x and it is fast and smooth as glass.
It didn't break the bank either.
I use it for every sim I own...which is all of them sans PCars and IRacing. I also use VR for every title that currently supports it...not a single issue.
It also crunches through video transcoding projects in short order.
Best $249 I've ever spent for a CPU.

I'm most likely going the same path. There is bundle for 3600 but not 3600x. Is there much difference between them, more than the base clock and wattage?

 

[Terry Rock]

I'm most likely going the same path. There is bundle for 3600 but not 3600x. Is there much difference between them, more than the base clock and wattage?

No real big difference I can see from the various benchmarks.
The Ryzen 3000 series is best with a good cooling solution, while letting it self boost.
I went with the 'X' sku for that reason.
I was interested in getting on track and driving...not sitting behind a PC tweaking clocks.
Having now become aware of the CPU' characteristics, If I had to do it over again I'd probably elect to go for just the regular 3600.
The 200 MHz base and boost clock seem negligible.
That GTX1070 will absolutely compliment a 3600 also.
I just recently sold mine to a co-worker who got hooked on Star Citizen.
It served me well and was only sold because another co-worker offered me an 'insanely' good deal on one of his GTX1080Ti after getting out of the cryptomining business.
I'd forgo the X570 motherboard as well for a good X470 board and save the extra cash.
I run an MSI X470 Gaming Plus which has great VRM and was only $109 at time of purchase.
It hasn't missed a beat....'rock' solid.
Go look at my YT channel under Saabjock at some of the videos I've posted there.
You'll get a good Idea of what the setup is capable of.

 

[Tommi Ylén]

I'm going back and forth with the options, but I might go with a little bit of future proofing with the new setup.

This is for 719euro.
Asus PRIME X570-PRO + AMD Ryzen 7 3700X + Kingston 16GB (2x8GB) HyperX Fury DDR4 3200MHz.

As lga1151 is a dead end, I have to forget Intel totally.
As long as the motherboard mentioned is good and future proof, I'll probably end up buying this bundle as it's relatively cheap too.

 

[Tommi Ylén]

This is interesting, https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-3700x/16.html
Even i5 9600k beat ryzens in most cases. I would save 200euros with i5 9600k compared to ryzen 7 3700x setup.

The only problem is that lga1151 doesn't support pcie 4.0 so that would definitely be the end of upgrading this computer if I go that route. With AMD I would still have the possibility to have atleast one more upgrade with the gpu. Then again I could have this pc as secondary one, closing it up for good.

 

[RobertR1]

PCI-4.0 will only benefit faster storage for the foreseeable future. 3.0 bandwidth is not even close to being saturated by a 2080ti.

 

[Tommi Ylén]

PCI-4.0 will only benefit faster storage for the foreseeable future. 3.0 bandwidth is not even close to being saturated by a 2080ti.

But the new upcoming nvidia generation probably have 4.0 already? If I choose to have 3.0 supporting lga1151 I would not get the possibility to upgrade to the new nvidia generation, which pretty much ends my upgrading.

E: Understood the PCI all wrong, nevermind. So even I buy lga1151 motherboard it would not have issues to support the new cards?

 

[RobertR1]

But the new upcoming nvidia generation probably have 4.0 already? If I choose to have 3.0 supporting lga1151 I would not get the possibility to upgrade to the new nvidia generation, which pretty much ends my upgrading.

PCI-E is backwards compatible. You can run a 2080ti on a PCI-E 2.0 setup. I know personally as I was running it with a 2600k for a bit while waiting on my 9900k to arrive!

 

[Tommi Ylén]

Good to know, thanks. This leads to three options;

720€ Asus PRIME X570-PRO + AMD Ryzen 7 3700X + Kingston 16GB (2x8GB) HyperX Fury DDR4 3200MHz

719€ Asus ROG Strix Z390-F GAMING + Intel Core i7-9700K + Kingston 16GB DDR4 3200MHz

549€ Asus ROG Strix Z390-F GAMING + Intel Core i5-9600K + Kingston 16GB DDR4 3200MHz

I can't find a simple sure answer to this, none of them feels "right", yet waiting with the bottlenecking i5 2500k is like throwing my current gpu to trash while I could still have something out of it when it's somewhat relevant.

 

[RobertR1]

Buying at the beginning of a gen is usually works out the best but you're mid gen so it's a bit of a compromise.

Intel will give you best gaming performance today but Ryzen will have an upgrade path towards the end of the year. That's basically where you're at.

A 9th gen 9700k/9900k oc'd to 5.2ghz or so doesn't have an equal.