AMD Ryzen 2 vs. Intel 9th Gen Core: Which CPU Deserves Your Money?

[DavidDisciple]

Quote
"So you stepped down from the top Intel chip to compare prices with top tier AMD chip, where as you could have compared the Core i5 to maybe the Ryzen 5 chips, like the 2600, which would enable consumers to use the money saved to buy the next tier GPU, which would make it a better gaming value."

Now those words I like, and that is kind of the point I am attempting to make. Once you reach a certain frame rate in gaming, anything beyond that is a moot point and there really is NO WINNER after that when it comes to gaming performance, because your eyes cannot notice the difference. Now, when you begin to lag below 60 FPS (which Intel and AMD did) then you have something to compare to, but all the newest high-end processors did very well in all the gaming benchmarks except AotS: 1920X1080 which IMHO, Intel and AMD did horribly. Give me a processor that does 60 FPS in ALL gaming benchmarks, because after that, your eyes will not visually detect anything or much anything beyond that. If someone wants to declare a processor that does 1,000 FPS in gaming (tongue in cheek) a winner over one that does 900 FPS, a difference you could never visually detect, I guess the numbers makes it a good read, but that's the ONLY thing that makes it a good read.

 

[DavidDisciple]

Wins what?? More frame rates that your eye can't see?? Like I said, there are bullets that are faster than others, but can you see them come out of a gun?? Try to visually discern between 100 FPS and 200 FPS. You can't. There comes a point in FPS where it just doesn't matter to the eye and once you are at that point, FPS means nothing except saying "Hey, I get more FPS even though I visually can't see the difference." Wow, that's a winner alright. A winner of nothing that visually makes a difference. Oh, BTW, you better make sure you have a monitor that is able to take advantage of all those FPS, at least better than 60 Hz or all those FPS stop right there at your video port, whatever you use. But, I guess if you want to drive a Corvette to Church on Sunday, that's your choice. Have fun blowing your money on more FPS you will never notice.

Well you have summed it up in the 'if you want to drive a Corvette' comment which makes it clear you have a real problem with how other people spend there money...Of course you have never bought anything in your life that functionally works but costs more...a watch tells the time, do you use the sun to tell time?....it is cheaper after all!!!!

 

[DavidDisciple]

LOL. People are free to spend as much money as they want on anything they want and if they can buy something nice, more power to them and to you, but in this article there is definitely a cost versus performance ratio mentioned by the author more than once, but I don't see you saying anything about what their opinion is about that, and you are absolutely wrong that I have never bought anything in my life that costs more that functionally works-you don't even know me! If someone wants to buy a knife made of gold to slice bread versus a knife made of stainless steel, that's their prerogative, but guess what, the gold knife doesn't slice bread any better than than the stainless steel one, and a table with wooden legs holds a loaf of bread the same as a table with silver legs, they both hold up bread the same way. So , should I or anyone spend $1500 for knife made of gold and buy a table made with silver legs for $2500 just to slice a loaf of bread? When I could buy a stainless steel knife and a wooden table for about $200 and save $4800 and buy a new living room suite, new watch, new refrigerator, and a whole lot more with all that money I saved for getting the same performance out of a steel knife and wooden table, and that too is commented more than once here and also by the author , but I didn't see you chide any of those people. Why?

 

[vMax]

LOL. People are free to spend as much money as they want on anything they want and if they can buy something nice, more power to them and to you, but in this article there is definitely a cost versus performance ratio mentioned by the author more than once, but I don't see you saying anything about what their opinion is about that, and you are absolutely wrong that I have never bought anything in my life that costs more that functionally works-you don't even know me! If someone wants to buy a knife made of gold to slice bread versus a knife made of stainless steel, that's their prerogative, but guess what, the gold knife doesn't slice bread any better than than the stainless steel one, and a table with wooden legs holds a loaf of bread the same as a table with silver legs, they both hold up bread the same way. So , should I or anyone spend $1500 for knife made of gold and buy a table made with silver legs for $2500 just to slice a loaf of bread? When I could buy a stainless steel knife and a wooden table for about $200 and save $4800 and buy a new living room suite, new watch, new refrigerator, and a whole lot more with all that money I saved for getting the same performance out of a steel knife and wooden table, and that too is commented more than once here and also by the author , but I didn't see you chide any of those people. Why?

Couple of points, one, of course I mentioned the cost as you must have missed my earlier post where I mentioned the 2700X is the best bang for buck CPU...Also the cost was represented in the article and made clear that the CPU's in question and predominantly the 9900K is way more than expensive...and an opinion is definitely given by this:

Quote:

If you’re looking for the best home-use processor that money can buy, and the price tag is of no concern to you, then Intel’s Core i9-9900K is the obvious answer. No other processor exists today in the mainstream market that offers the same level of performance as Intel’s new i9. But you must pay a significant sum for the privilege of sporting the fastest CPU on the market. Not only are the new i9 and i7 CPUs pricey, so are the supporting components, like the motherboards and coolers you'll need if you want to overclock.

For the rest of us mortals who are restricted by limited budgets, it really depends what you want to do with your PC. Both AMD and Intel offer compelling processor options for consumers. If you want gaming performance above all else, go with an Intel Core processor. If you want a mixture of gaming and productivity, Ryzen 7 2700X is a good jack-of-all-trades option.

End Quote...

Is there something I am missing?

And on your second point on whether one wants to buy a table with silver legs or a knife blade made of gold. Thankfully this is still allowed...whether it holds the table up or doesn't cut the bread is not the point...we do after all live in free countries and provided you A - want the item and B - have the money to pay for the item...whether it does what you want but worse than a cheaper item is completely a moot point!!!! Or have we got to a point where we have to justify our spend to any and all? I for one would hate to live in a world where we did not have a choice...which is after all what you are advocating for..

Lets just look at the facts in the article that seems to hurt so many...The 9900K is faster and performs better than the Ryzen 2700X across the board...The 9900K costs twice as much as the 2700X and the 2700X provides the best bang for buck...what exactly is the problem here? For some people that extra 10 to 20% performance is worth the price to others just having the best is worth the price regardless of price to performance...or is it that you just don't like people who spend so much on a CPU? or you just hate Intel? or just think AMD are the second coming? or the colour red should be blue and blue should be red?..boy we could go on and on but still come back to the same place which also happens to be the facts of the article..the 9900K is faster and performs better than the 2700X and the 2700X cost half as much as the 9900K and provides stellar price to performance..oh crud we are back here again...

It's like we are back in kindergarten...mine's better than yours...no mine is better than yours...when the real facts are that we have a great choice at all price points thanks to AMD bringing back competition to the CPU market in Ryzen and Threadripper...we should all just be happy with that...

 

[Karadjgne]

So many have no idea what TDP really is. Thermal Design Power is the wattage used, averaged, from a specific set of pretty mediocre benchmarks at stock clocks. Because the thermal wattage pretty closely runs equitable to the power wattage used, it's an assumed adoption of being the same, but can actually range 10°C ± from power used. That's got nothing to do with max power used or thermal wattage at max power. Top out power on a i9-9900k I believe is closer to 250w than it's 95w rating. With all cores, all threads run at 100% loads you could very well expect closer to that 430w claim, thermally, even if power wattage was only ~250w.

The i9's are not the first Intel cpu to put out considerably more thermal watts than is used, the Pentium 4 was also a monster in that respect.

 

[PapaCrazy]

So many have no idea what TDP really is. Thermal Design Power is the wattage used, averaged, from a specific set of pretty mediocre benchmarks at stock clocks. Because the thermal wattage pretty closely runs equitable to the power wattage used, it's an assumed adoption of being the same, but can actually range 10°C ± from power used. That's got nothing to do with max power used or thermal wattage at max power. Top out power on a i9-9900k I believe is closer to 250w than it's 95w rating. With all cores, all threads run at 100% loads you could very well expect closer to that 430w claim, thermally, even if power wattage was only ~250w.

The i9's are not the first Intel cpu to put out considerably more thermal watts than is used, the Pentium 4 was also a monster in that respect.

A CPU using 250w it outputting no more than 250w of heat energy. For it to do otherwise would break the first law of thermodynamics. Watts are a measure of the rate at which energy is used. It can be applied to mechanical work or electricity, i.e. 1 watt=1 Newton metre. An electrical motor that uses 10 watts of power and produces 5 Nm of force would be operating at 50% efficiency. The rest becomes heat/friction. So a watt is a measurement of work done, or the rate at which energy was used. Likewise, a 9900k can demand more and more wattage as it increases clock (creating more heat as its efficiency curve steepens) but it cannot produce more energy (heat) than was put into originally. If the 9900k were able to achieve this miracle it might solve all of the worlds energy problems. No, the 9900k is simply an extremely inefficient chip that requires a disproportionate amount of wattage to get its work done. As TomsHardware mentioned in their original review, the heat may also be adding to the efficiency problems because of electron migration - so the heat problem is adding the efficiency problem which is again adding to the heat problem.

 

[Redneck5439]

LOL. People are free to spend as much money as they want on anything they want and if they can buy something nice, more power to them and to you, but in this article there is definitely a cost versus performance ratio mentioned by the author more than once, but I don't see you saying anything about what their opinion is about that, and you are absolutely wrong that I have never bought anything in my life that costs more that functionally works-you don't even know me! If someone wants to buy a knife made of gold to slice bread versus a knife made of stainless steel, that's their prerogative, but guess what, the gold knife doesn't slice bread any better than than the stainless steel one, and a table with wooden legs holds a loaf of bread the same as a table with silver legs, they both hold up bread the same way. So , should I or anyone spend $1500 for knife made of gold and buy a table made with silver legs for $2500 just to slice a loaf of bread? When I could buy a stainless steel knife and a wooden table for about $200 and save $4800 and buy a new living room suite, new watch, new refrigerator, and a whole lot more with all that money I saved for getting the same performance out of a steel knife and wooden table, and that too is commented more than once here and also by the author , but I didn't see you chide any of those people. Why?

Couple of points, one, of course I mentioned the cost as you must have missed my earlier post where I mentioned the 2700X is the best bang for buck CPU...Also the cost was represented in the article and made clear that the CPU's in question and predominantly the 9900K is way more than expensive...and an opinion is definitely given by this:

Quote:

If you’re looking for the best home-use processor that money can buy, and the price tag is of no concern to you, then Intel’s Core i9-9900K is the obvious answer. No other processor exists today in the mainstream market that offers the same level of performance as Intel’s new i9. But you must pay a significant sum for the privilege of sporting the fastest CPU on the market. Not only are the new i9 and i7 CPUs pricey, so are the supporting components, like the motherboards and coolers you'll need if you want to overclock.

For the rest of us mortals who are restricted by limited budgets, it really depends what you want to do with your PC. Both AMD and Intel offer compelling processor options for consumers. If you want gaming performance above all else, go with an Intel Core processor. If you want a mixture of gaming and productivity, Ryzen 7 2700X is a good jack-of-all-trades option.

End Quote...

Is there something I am missing?

And on your second point on whether one wants to buy a table with silver legs or a knife blade made of gold. Thankfully this is still allowed...whether it holds the table up or doesn't cut the bread is not the point...we do after all live in free countries and provided you A - want the item and B - have the money to pay for the item...whether it does what you want but worse than a cheaper item is completely a moot point!!!! Or have we got to a point where we have to justify our spend to any and all? I for one would hate to live in a world where we did not have a choice...which is after all what you are advocating for..

Lets just look at the facts in the article that seems to hurt so many...The 9900K is faster and performs better than the Ryzen 2700X across the board...The 9900K costs twice as much as the 2700X and the 2700X provides the best bang for buck...what exactly is the problem here? For some people that extra 10 to 20% performance is worth the price to others just having the best is worth the price regardless of price to performance...or is it that you just don't like people who spend so much on a CPU? or you just hate Intel? or just think AMD are the second coming? or the colour red should be blue and blue should be red?..boy we could go on and on but still come back to the same place which also happens to be the facts of the article..the 9900K is faster and performs better than the 2700X and the 2700X cost half as much as the 9900K and provides stellar price to performance..oh crud we are back here again...

It's like we are back in kindergarten...mine's better than yours...no mine is better than yours...when the real facts are that we have a great choice at all price points thanks to AMD bringing back competition to the CPU market in Ryzen and Threadripper...we should all just be happy with that...

I can agree with a lot of what you are saying, to a point. That point is this article was biased to make the i9 9900K look even better than it actually is. First and foremost, yes the i9 9900K is the fastest cpu listed in this article, outperforming everything else. The biggest points of contention that I had in this article are giving pricing that makes absolutely no sense as one can easily Google the processor and see the pricing is totally wrong, and pitting the wrong processors against each other to show "value" for the i9s when "value" isn't there. Don't get me wrong, performance is there without a doubt, but at the price points we are looking at value just isn't there.

The i9 9900K is actually selling for over $100 more than the list price in this article, and you have to add an additional $100 on to that because that would be its entry level cooler that doesn't come with it. So just for processor and cooler the 9900K is at least $700 compared to the R7 2700X at $309 and you pay that for 10 - 20% greater performance. Comparing the i9 9700K to the the R7 2700X the numbers could be considered worse with the processor coming in at $409 it will also require a $100 cooler, of course not included, so it comes in at $509 vs $309 for the 2700X and in overall productivity the 2700X will dominate it with double the threads. An overclocked R7 2700 would be even better cost ratios in these examples.

In the article it claims the i9 9600K is a great value because it can get better performance in several games when compared to the 2700X. If someone is buying a gaming only CPU why would they buy the 2700X? Answer: they wouldn't, they would buy the R5 2600X or even better the R5 2600. In that case the i9 9600K would come in at $280 dollars, need at lease a $30 aftermarket cooler, so real price is $310 vs $150 for the R5 2600. The 2600 overclocked to 4.2Ghz is the gaming equal in most games to the 2700X and would be 10 - 20% slower gaming than the 9600 which costs literally 100% more than the 2600. If you do any productivity at all the 2600 will outperform the 9600K as the 2600 has 12 threads and the 9600K only has 6. Again performance is there, but value isn't which is what the article claimed.

I feel its important to call such errors on the carpet because people read these reviews and don't understand a lot of times just how close in performance these processors are and just how much more Intel will cost them. I've even seen other sites claiming that a brand new i9 9900K build is only $30 more than a brand new R7 2700X build with the same supporting hardware and its total bullsh*t. As stated above the processor and cooler alone for the 9900K will run you $400 more. When any article is written giving bad numbers, be it benchmarks or pricing, we have to call them on the carpet for it.

 

[omischon]

Top binned Intel chips are desirable. Everything below that is damaged ware that needs to be underclocked to perform. There are very few top end chips available and very few of those can be oc. Intel would rather sell topend chips than have to mark down their damaged chips. The shortage points to Q deficiencies in dev, engineering and production. That is always a sign that management is not getting it right. Their topend chip is now completely maxed out and still only does marginally better than a topend Ryzen and in most everyday multitasks will not even come close to a Ryzen at even double the energy expenditure. Threadrippers are in their own league and - if you ignore all the heavyhanded IT crowd shoppers - who insist on corporate channel Intel - a formidable chip.

 

[horribledicto]

Deciding on a new cpu these days is difficult. On my part I would really like to see the i9 9900k compete against i9 7900x in a review. I am having a hard time choosing platform since I find it difficult to let go of the PCE-E lanes and Im therefor evaluating getting the 7900x. Its a more expensive alternative but with the high price for the 9900 the gap is slowly closing. I really dont understand why they cant have more PCE-E lanes on such an expensive alternative.

 

[toesis]

Deciding on a new cpu these days is difficult. On my part I would really like to see the i9 9900k compete against i9 7900x in a review. I am having a hard time choosing platform since I find it difficult to let go of the PCE-E lanes and Im therefor evaluating getting the 7900x. Its a more expensive alternative but with the high price for the 9900 the gap is slowly closing. I really dont understand why they cant have more PCE-E lanes on such an expensive alternative.

Threadripper 2 will have 64 PCIe lanes

 

[vMax]

LOL. People are free to spend as much money as they want on anything they want and if they can buy something nice, more power to them and to you, but in this article there is definitely a cost versus performance ratio mentioned by the author more than once, but I don't see you saying anything about what their opinion is about that, and you are absolutely wrong that I have never bought anything in my life that costs more that functionally works-you don't even know me! If someone wants to buy a knife made of gold to slice bread versus a knife made of stainless steel, that's their prerogative, but guess what, the gold knife doesn't slice bread any better than than the stainless steel one, and a table with wooden legs holds a loaf of bread the same as a table with silver legs, they both hold up bread the same way. So , should I or anyone spend $1500 for knife made of gold and buy a table made with silver legs for $2500 just to slice a loaf of bread? When I could buy a stainless steel knife and a wooden table for about $200 and save $4800 and buy a new living room suite, new watch, new refrigerator, and a whole lot more with all that money I saved for getting the same performance out of a steel knife and wooden table, and that too is commented more than once here and also by the author , but I didn't see you chide any of those people. Why?

Couple of points, one, of course I mentioned the cost as you must have missed my earlier post where I mentioned the 2700X is the best bang for buck CPU...Also the cost was represented in the article and made clear that the CPU's in question and predominantly the 9900K is way more than expensive...and an opinion is definitely given by this:

Quote:

If you’re looking for the best home-use processor that money can buy, and the price tag is of no concern to you, then Intel’s Core i9-9900K is the obvious answer. No other processor exists today in the mainstream market that offers the same level of performance as Intel’s new i9. But you must pay a significant sum for the privilege of sporting the fastest CPU on the market. Not only are the new i9 and i7 CPUs pricey, so are the supporting components, like the motherboards and coolers you'll need if you want to overclock.

For the rest of us mortals who are restricted by limited budgets, it really depends what you want to do with your PC. Both AMD and Intel offer compelling processor options for consumers. If you want gaming performance above all else, go with an Intel Core processor. If you want a mixture of gaming and productivity, Ryzen 7 2700X is a good jack-of-all-trades option.

End Quote...

Is there something I am missing?

And on your second point on whether one wants to buy a table with silver legs or a knife blade made of gold. Thankfully this is still allowed...whether it holds the table up or doesn't cut the bread is not the point...we do after all live in free countries and provided you A - want the item and B - have the money to pay for the item...whether it does what you want but worse than a cheaper item is completely a moot point!!!! Or have we got to a point where we have to justify our spend to any and all? I for one would hate to live in a world where we did not have a choice...which is after all what you are advocating for..

Lets just look at the facts in the article that seems to hurt so many...The 9900K is faster and performs better than the Ryzen 2700X across the board...The 9900K costs twice as much as the 2700X and the 2700X provides the best bang for buck...what exactly is the problem here? For some people that extra 10 to 20% performance is worth the price to others just having the best is worth the price regardless of price to performance...or is it that you just don't like people who spend so much on a CPU? or you just hate Intel? or just think AMD are the second coming? or the colour red should be blue and blue should be red?..boy we could go on and on but still come back to the same place which also happens to be the facts of the article..the 9900K is faster and performs better than the 2700X and the 2700X cost half as much as the 9900K and provides stellar price to performance..oh crud we are back here again...

It's like we are back in kindergarten...mine's better than yours...no mine is better than yours...when the real facts are that we have a great choice at all price points thanks to AMD bringing back competition to the CPU market in Ryzen and Threadripper...we should all just be happy with that...

I can agree with a lot of what you are saying, to a point. That point is this article was biased to make the i9 9900K look even better than it actually is. First and foremost, yes the i9 9900K is the fastest cpu listed in this article, outperforming everything else. The biggest points of contention that I had in this article are giving pricing that makes absolutely no sense as one can easily Google the processor and see the pricing is totally wrong, and pitting the wrong processors against each other to show "value" for the i9s when "value" isn't there. Don't get me wrong, performance is there without a doubt, but at the price points we are looking at value just isn't there.

The i9 9900K is actually selling for over $100 more than the list price in this article, and you have to add an additional $100 on to that because that would be its entry level cooler that doesn't come with it. So just for processor and cooler the 9900K is at least $700 compared to the R7 2700X at $309 and you pay that for 10 - 20% greater performance. Comparing the i9 9700K to the the R7 2700X the numbers could be considered worse with the processor coming in at $409 it will also require a $100 cooler, of course not included, so it comes in at $509 vs $309 for the 2700X and in overall productivity the 2700X will dominate it with double the threads. An overclocked R7 2700 would be even better cost ratios in these examples.

In the article it claims the i9 9600K is a great value because it can get better performance in several games when compared to the 2700X. If someone is buying a gaming only CPU why would they buy the 2700X? Answer: they wouldn't, they would buy the R5 2600X or even better the R5 2600. In that case the i9 9600K would come in at $280 dollars, need at lease a $30 aftermarket cooler, so real price is $310 vs $150 for the R5 2600. The 2600 overclocked to 4.2Ghz is the gaming equal in most games to the 2700X and would be 10 - 20% slower gaming than the 9600 which costs literally 100% more than the 2600. If you do any productivity at all the 2600 will outperform the 9600K as the 2600 has 12 threads and the 9600K only has 6. Again performance is there, but value isn't which is what the article claimed.

I feel its important to call such errors on the carpet because people read these reviews and don't understand a lot of times just how close in performance these processors are and just how much more Intel will cost them. I've even seen other sites claiming that a brand new i9 9900K build is only $30 more than a brand new R7 2700X build with the same supporting hardware and its total bullsh*t. As stated above the processor and cooler alone for the 9900K will run you $400 more. When any article is written giving bad numbers, be it benchmarks or pricing, we have to call them on the carpet for it.

At least you have put a credible argument forward as to why you see a bias in the article and I can understand exactly where you are coming from. I think this is a problem of perception. For me reading the article, I came away with an understanding, that Intel has completely lost the value argument...no getting around that and that is made clear, especially in the case of the 9900K and the 9700K...With regards to the 9600K, there still is a smaller value prop for those that want to game at 1080P, high refresh rate which again Intel wins across the board but more so on the value end at the 9600K...It is not as absurdly priced as the 9700K or 9900K and will ultimately provide the best gaming experience at 1080P high refresh rate and that's the key as this is not a productivity measure but just a gaming measure...Lets be honest, it beats the 2600 and 2700 and 2700X handily...yes it still costs a lot more than the 2600 but wins out in the gaming use case and this was pointed out in the article:

Quote:

but Intel’s Core i5-9600K ($263/£229.99) is a great buy for gamers.

End Quote

And it is a great buy for gamers wanting the absolute best frame rates...As I said, I can more than understand the value argument but has the article said anything wrong? I think not if you place things into context...

 

[cmi86]

The elephant in the room that is never addressed is that Intel has serious production issues with both 8th and now 9th gen chips as 14nm +++++++++++ is beyond tapped out and both releases have barely resulted in more than a glorified paper launch as availability has always been an issue and driven retail prices for limited stock far above MSRP which tanks the value proposition even more. Meanwhile AMD's Ryzen chips have have constantly been so widely available since launch that average retail prices are often significantly less than MSRP. It's really hard to give Intel a lot of credit for pushing out chips than they can't really sustain production on just so they can say that they have competitive parts. The fact of the matter is that Intel hit the snooze button on development for far too long when there wasn't any competition, and now that there is anything they are releasing is just a rushed last ditch effort to not be completely passed by. The 14nm process has been pushed to it's limits in every conceivable way and the supply issues will continue for intel until a new process is adopted. The problem is that AMD has functioning 7nm silicon and is on track for 2nd gen Ryzen launch and Intel is nowhere near getting anything out of 10nm and will likely entirely abandon the process before any progress is made.. Soon Intel will be doing battle with 7nm 8c/16t desktop skus that are likely packing large IPC gains and somewhere around 50w with 4ghz + base clocks. These releases are a band aid, Intel is in serious process trouble and AMD is about to leap frog them big time.

 

[dorsai]

I'd say the biggest issue for 97% of people for deciding what to buy is total cost.

Looking at todays prices for the same money you can either go for a 2700x built and a 1080Ti card...or a 9900k plus required cooler and a 1060 for around the same price.

 

[Redneck5439]

LOL. People are free to spend as much money as they want on anything they want and if they can buy something nice, more power to them and to you, but in this article there is definitely a cost versus performance ratio mentioned by the author more than once, but I don't see you saying anything about what their opinion is about that, and you are absolutely wrong that I have never bought anything in my life that costs more that functionally works-you don't even know me! If someone wants to buy a knife made of gold to slice bread versus a knife made of stainless steel, that's their prerogative, but guess what, the gold knife doesn't slice bread any better than than the stainless steel one, and a table with wooden legs holds a loaf of bread the same as a table with silver legs, they both hold up bread the same way. So , should I or anyone spend $1500 for knife made of gold and buy a table made with silver legs for $2500 just to slice a loaf of bread? When I could buy a stainless steel knife and a wooden table for about $200 and save $4800 and buy a new living room suite, new watch, new refrigerator, and a whole lot more with all that money I saved for getting the same performance out of a steel knife and wooden table, and that too is commented more than once here and also by the author , but I didn't see you chide any of those people. Why?

Couple of points, one, of course I mentioned the cost as you must have missed my earlier post where I mentioned the 2700X is the best bang for buck CPU...Also the cost was represented in the article and made clear that the CPU's in question and predominantly the 9900K is way more than expensive...and an opinion is definitely given by this:

Quote:

If you’re looking for the best home-use processor that money can buy, and the price tag is of no concern to you, then Intel’s Core i9-9900K is the obvious answer. No other processor exists today in the mainstream market that offers the same level of performance as Intel’s new i9. But you must pay a significant sum for the privilege of sporting the fastest CPU on the market. Not only are the new i9 and i7 CPUs pricey, so are the supporting components, like the motherboards and coolers you'll need if you want to overclock.

For the rest of us mortals who are restricted by limited budgets, it really depends what you want to do with your PC. Both AMD and Intel offer compelling processor options for consumers. If you want gaming performance above all else, go with an Intel Core processor. If you want a mixture of gaming and productivity, Ryzen 7 2700X is a good jack-of-all-trades option.

End Quote...

Is there something I am missing?

And on your second point on whether one wants to buy a table with silver legs or a knife blade made of gold. Thankfully this is still allowed...whether it holds the table up or doesn't cut the bread is not the point...we do after all live in free countries and provided you A - want the item and B - have the money to pay for the item...whether it does what you want but worse than a cheaper item is completely a moot point!!!! Or have we got to a point where we have to justify our spend to any and all? I for one would hate to live in a world where we did not have a choice...which is after all what you are advocating for..

Lets just look at the facts in the article that seems to hurt so many...The 9900K is faster and performs better than the Ryzen 2700X across the board...The 9900K costs twice as much as the 2700X and the 2700X provides the best bang for buck...what exactly is the problem here? For some people that extra 10 to 20% performance is worth the price to others just having the best is worth the price regardless of price to performance...or is it that you just don't like people who spend so much on a CPU? or you just hate Intel? or just think AMD are the second coming? or the colour red should be blue and blue should be red?..boy we could go on and on but still come back to the same place which also happens to be the facts of the article..the 9900K is faster and performs better than the 2700X and the 2700X cost half as much as the 9900K and provides stellar price to performance..oh crud we are back here again...

It's like we are back in kindergarten...mine's better than yours...no mine is better than yours...when the real facts are that we have a great choice at all price points thanks to AMD bringing back competition to the CPU market in Ryzen and Threadripper...we should all just be happy with that...

I can agree with a lot of what you are saying, to a point. That point is this article was biased to make the i9 9900K look even better than it actually is. First and foremost, yes the i9 9900K is the fastest cpu listed in this article, outperforming everything else. The biggest points of contention that I had in this article are giving pricing that makes absolutely no sense as one can easily Google the processor and see the pricing is totally wrong, and pitting the wrong processors against each other to show "value" for the i9s when "value" isn't there. Don't get me wrong, performance is there without a doubt, but at the price points we are looking at value just isn't there.

The i9 9900K is actually selling for over $100 more than the list price in this article, and you have to add an additional $100 on to that because that would be its entry level cooler that doesn't come with it. So just for processor and cooler the 9900K is at least $700 compared to the R7 2700X at $309 and you pay that for 10 - 20% greater performance. Comparing the i9 9700K to the the R7 2700X the numbers could be considered worse with the processor coming in at $409 it will also require a $100 cooler, of course not included, so it comes in at $509 vs $309 for the 2700X and in overall productivity the 2700X will dominate it with double the threads. An overclocked R7 2700 would be even better cost ratios in these examples.

In the article it claims the i9 9600K is a great value because it can get better performance in several games when compared to the 2700X. If someone is buying a gaming only CPU why would they buy the 2700X? Answer: they wouldn't, they would buy the R5 2600X or even better the R5 2600. In that case the i9 9600K would come in at $280 dollars, need at lease a $30 aftermarket cooler, so real price is $310 vs $150 for the R5 2600. The 2600 overclocked to 4.2Ghz is the gaming equal in most games to the 2700X and would be 10 - 20% slower gaming than the 9600 which costs literally 100% more than the 2600. If you do any productivity at all the 2600 will outperform the 9600K as the 2600 has 12 threads and the 9600K only has 6. Again performance is there, but value isn't which is what the article claimed.

I feel its important to call such errors on the carpet because people read these reviews and don't understand a lot of times just how close in performance these processors are and just how much more Intel will cost them. I've even seen other sites claiming that a brand new i9 9900K build is only $30 more than a brand new R7 2700X build with the same supporting hardware and its total bullsh*t. As stated above the processor and cooler alone for the 9900K will run you $400 more. When any article is written giving bad numbers, be it benchmarks or pricing, we have to call them on the carpet for it.

At least you have put a credible argument forward as to why you see a bias in the article and I can understand exactly where you are coming from. I think this is a problem of perception. For me reading the article, I came away with an understanding, that Intel has completely lost the value argument...no getting around that and that is made clear, especially in the case of the 9900K and the 9700K...With regards to the 9600K, there still is a smaller value prop for those that want to game at 1080P, high refresh rate which again Intel wins across the board but more so on the value end at the 9600K...It is not as absurdly priced as the 9700K or 9900K and will ultimately provide the best gaming experience at 1080P high refresh rate and that's the key as this is not a productivity measure but just a gaming measure...Lets be honest, it beats the 2600 and 2700 and 2700X handily...yes it still costs a lot more than the 2600 but wins out in the gaming use case and this was pointed out in the article:

Quote:

but Intel’s Core i5-9600K ($263/£229.99) is a great buy for gamers.

End Quote

And it is a great buy for gamers wanting the absolute best frame rates...As I said, I can more than understand the value argument but has the article said anything wrong? I think not if you place things into context...

I can totally agree with you. If you have the budget the best overall gaming, and gaming only processor is the i5 9600K. Pair that with a 1070ti or 1080 and you will pretty much max out 1080p gaming. If however you are gaming on more of a budget your not giving up much at all by building a R5 2600 system with 1070 or 1070ti , you will still have a very good gaming experience. If you are gaming and also doing some productivity tasks the 2600 may also be a better buy as it can leverage 12 threads while the 9600K only has 6. The best part of all of this though is it use to be that gaming on a budget was just that, you gave up a lot of performance and were slotted to running games on medium settings. With these new Ryzen processors gaming on a budget is much better and you can max out the ultra setting and still get a fluid gaming experience. For gamers with a larger budget the 9600K will give you more FPS and is the top dog.

 

[vMax]

LOL. People are free to spend as much money as they want on anything they want and if they can buy something nice, more power to them and to you, but in this article there is definitely a cost versus performance ratio mentioned by the author more than once, but I don't see you saying anything about what their opinion is about that, and you are absolutely wrong that I have never bought anything in my life that costs more that functionally works-you don't even know me! If someone wants to buy a knife made of gold to slice bread versus a knife made of stainless steel, that's their prerogative, but guess what, the gold knife doesn't slice bread any better than than the stainless steel one, and a table with wooden legs holds a loaf of bread the same as a table with silver legs, they both hold up bread the same way. So , should I or anyone spend $1500 for knife made of gold and buy a table made with silver legs for $2500 just to slice a loaf of bread? When I could buy a stainless steel knife and a wooden table for about $200 and save $4800 and buy a new living room suite, new watch, new refrigerator, and a whole lot more with all that money I saved for getting the same performance out of a steel knife and wooden table, and that too is commented more than once here and also by the author , but I didn't see you chide any of those people. Why?

Couple of points, one, of course I mentioned the cost as you must have missed my earlier post where I mentioned the 2700X is the best bang for buck CPU...Also the cost was represented in the article and made clear that the CPU's in question and predominantly the 9900K is way more than expensive...and an opinion is definitely given by this:

Quote:

If you’re looking for the best home-use processor that money can buy, and the price tag is of no concern to you, then Intel’s Core i9-9900K is the obvious answer. No other processor exists today in the mainstream market that offers the same level of performance as Intel’s new i9. But you must pay a significant sum for the privilege of sporting the fastest CPU on the market. Not only are the new i9 and i7 CPUs pricey, so are the supporting components, like the motherboards and coolers you'll need if you want to overclock.

For the rest of us mortals who are restricted by limited budgets, it really depends what you want to do with your PC. Both AMD and Intel offer compelling processor options for consumers. If you want gaming performance above all else, go with an Intel Core processor. If you want a mixture of gaming and productivity, Ryzen 7 2700X is a good jack-of-all-trades option.

End Quote...

Is there something I am missing?

And on your second point on whether one wants to buy a table with silver legs or a knife blade made of gold. Thankfully this is still allowed...whether it holds the table up or doesn't cut the bread is not the point...we do after all live in free countries and provided you A - want the item and B - have the money to pay for the item...whether it does what you want but worse than a cheaper item is completely a moot point!!!! Or have we got to a point where we have to justify our spend to any and all? I for one would hate to live in a world where we did not have a choice...which is after all what you are advocating for..

Lets just look at the facts in the article that seems to hurt so many...The 9900K is faster and performs better than the Ryzen 2700X across the board...The 9900K costs twice as much as the 2700X and the 2700X provides the best bang for buck...what exactly is the problem here? For some people that extra 10 to 20% performance is worth the price to others just having the best is worth the price regardless of price to performance...or is it that you just don't like people who spend so much on a CPU? or you just hate Intel? or just think AMD are the second coming? or the colour red should be blue and blue should be red?..boy we could go on and on but still come back to the same place which also happens to be the facts of the article..the 9900K is faster and performs better than the 2700X and the 2700X cost half as much as the 9900K and provides stellar price to performance..oh crud we are back here again...

It's like we are back in kindergarten...mine's better than yours...no mine is better than yours...when the real facts are that we have a great choice at all price points thanks to AMD bringing back competition to the CPU market in Ryzen and Threadripper...we should all just be happy with that...

I can agree with a lot of what you are saying, to a point. That point is this article was biased to make the i9 9900K look even better than it actually is. First and foremost, yes the i9 9900K is the fastest cpu listed in this article, outperforming everything else. The biggest points of contention that I had in this article are giving pricing that makes absolutely no sense as one can easily Google the processor and see the pricing is totally wrong, and pitting the wrong processors against each other to show "value" for the i9s when "value" isn't there. Don't get me wrong, performance is there without a doubt, but at the price points we are looking at value just isn't there.

The i9 9900K is actually selling for over $100 more than the list price in this article, and you have to add an additional $100 on to that because that would be its entry level cooler that doesn't come with it. So just for processor and cooler the 9900K is at least $700 compared to the R7 2700X at $309 and you pay that for 10 - 20% greater performance. Comparing the i9 9700K to the the R7 2700X the numbers could be considered worse with the processor coming in at $409 it will also require a $100 cooler, of course not included, so it comes in at $509 vs $309 for the 2700X and in overall productivity the 2700X will dominate it with double the threads. An overclocked R7 2700 would be even better cost ratios in these examples.

In the article it claims the i9 9600K is a great value because it can get better performance in several games when compared to the 2700X. If someone is buying a gaming only CPU why would they buy the 2700X? Answer: they wouldn't, they would buy the R5 2600X or even better the R5 2600. In that case the i9 9600K would come in at $280 dollars, need at lease a $30 aftermarket cooler, so real price is $310 vs $150 for the R5 2600. The 2600 overclocked to 4.2Ghz is the gaming equal in most games to the 2700X and would be 10 - 20% slower gaming than the 9600 which costs literally 100% more than the 2600. If you do any productivity at all the 2600 will outperform the 9600K as the 2600 has 12 threads and the 9600K only has 6. Again performance is there, but value isn't which is what the article claimed.

I feel its important to call such errors on the carpet because people read these reviews and don't understand a lot of times just how close in performance these processors are and just how much more Intel will cost them. I've even seen other sites claiming that a brand new i9 9900K build is only $30 more than a brand new R7 2700X build with the same supporting hardware and its total bullsh*t. As stated above the processor and cooler alone for the 9900K will run you $400 more. When any article is written giving bad numbers, be it benchmarks or pricing, we have to call them on the carpet for it.

At least you have put a credible argument forward as to why you see a bias in the article and I can understand exactly where you are coming from. I think this is a problem of perception. For me reading the article, I came away with an understanding, that Intel has completely lost the value argument...no getting around that and that is made clear, especially in the case of the 9900K and the 9700K...With regards to the 9600K, there still is a smaller value prop for those that want to game at 1080P, high refresh rate which again Intel wins across the board but more so on the value end at the 9600K...It is not as absurdly priced as the 9700K or 9900K and will ultimately provide the best gaming experience at 1080P high refresh rate and that's the key as this is not a productivity measure but just a gaming measure...Lets be honest, it beats the 2600 and 2700 and 2700X handily...yes it still costs a lot more than the 2600 but wins out in the gaming use case and this was pointed out in the article:

Quote:

but Intel’s Core i5-9600K ($263/£229.99) is a great buy for gamers.

End Quote

And it is a great buy for gamers wanting the absolute best frame rates...As I said, I can more than understand the value argument but has the article said anything wrong? I think not if you place things into context...

I can totally agree with you. If you have the budget the best overall gaming, and gaming only processor is the i5 9600K. Pair that with a 1070ti or 1080 and you will pretty much max out 1080p gaming. If however you are gaming on more of a budget your not giving up much at all by building a R5 2600 system with 1070 or 1070ti , you will still have a very good gaming experience. If you are gaming and also doing some productivity tasks the 2600 may also be a better buy as it can leverage 12 threads while the 9600K only has 6. The best part of all of this though is it use to be that gaming on a budget was just that, you gave up a lot of performance and were slotted to running games on medium settings. With these new Ryzen processors gaming on a budget is much better and you can max out the ultra setting and still get a fluid gaming experience. For gamers with a larger budget the 9600K will give you more FPS and is the top dog.

I more than agree....

 

[Redneck5439]

I'd say the biggest issue for 97% of people for deciding what to buy is total cost.

Looking at todays prices for the same money you can either go for a 2700x built and a 1080Ti card...or a 9900k plus required cooler and a 1060 for around the same price.

Very much agree, and in your example its clear what the better setup would be. Believe me I know, the main thing holding back my gaming experience right now is the my old overclocked R9 290 Sapphire Vapor X. The 1060 in your example is only marginally better than my 290 and I can tell you from experience that it will be a big limiting factor. The R7 2700X won't bottleneck the 1080Ti, however the 1060 card will handicap the gaming potential of the i9 9900K. Overall in this example you will get much better gaming performance with the 2700X and 1080Ti

 

[nobspls]

If you want to get the best gaming performance for the dollar you would not use Ryzen, nor would you waste boatloads of money on a 9900K. You don't spend $700 or more on a 1080ti or 2080 just to gimp them with Ryzen either. You get a 8600K or 8700K which is roughly the same price as a 2700x and get that extra 5-20 fps more than a 2700x. This is the reality. The 2700x is not priced low enough to keep people from going that route.

See:
https://www.microcenter.com/product/486089/core-i5-8600k-coffee-lake-36-ghz-lga-1151-boxed-processor

https://www.microcenter.com/product/505632/ryzen-7-2700x-37ghz-8-core-am4-boxed-processor-with-wraith-prism-cooler

https://www.microcenter.com/product/486088/core-i7-8700k-coffee-lake-37-ghz-lga-1151-boxed-processor

 

[stdragon]

If you want to get the best gaming performance for the dollar you would not use Ryzen, nor would you waste boatloads of money on a 9900K. You don't spend $700 or more on a 1080ti or 2080 just to gimp them with Ryzen either. You get a 8600K or 8700K which is roughly the same price as a 2700x and get that extra 5-20 fps more than a 2700x. This is the reality. The 2700x is not priced low enough to keep people from going that route.

I wouldn't say that. Right now AMD is the better buy, and it's more future proof in expandibility. Meaning, you don't have to swap the MB out as often with each new generation as you do with Intel.

If you really want a gaming CPU, you'll pay extra for it and go Intel. But as others have pointed out, going AMD with a 10xx series nVidia card truly is the best value at the moment.

That all said, I'm personally an Intel fan. But Intel really missed the boat (several in fact) and needs to get their act together. If "I" was build a new gaming system TODAY, then no doubt I would be going AMD this time around.

 

[Sajuuk06]

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html

you're welcome

 

[redgarl]

<snip>
....
Words have meaning. That's why I pointed to the actual words in the article.
The message of the article is not "just buy Intel."
....

You can not speak the truth to the AMD partisans on these forums. They get mad and rage if anything indicates their beloved AMD is the NOT only winner in every case. What is with the false self-indignation? It is like someone called their baby ugly or something.

As much as hate Intel getting away with bloody murder on pricing. Th 2700x is still way overpriced. Especially since you can get an R5 1600 for essesntially $100. (get a $30 mobo discount) See:
https://www.microcenter.com/product/478826/ryzen-5-1600-32ghz-6-core-am4-boxed-processor-with-wraith-spire-cooler

This here is real value. Overclock the 1600 to 4.0Ghz and it more than adequate for any budget build. If people are going to spend more than $500 on a video card/GPU, and going all out, it does not make any sense to cut corners on the CPU to get a mediocre build and gimp the expensive GPU.

Seriously, Intel core 9900k winning in Value is plain satire. That chip is anything but value oriented. It is the best performer, but at a disturbing premium over AMD offering that doesn't justify the money difference.

 

[logainofhades]

The 9900k is going for $580, on newegg, right now, and is out of stock. You can get a 2700x, motherboard, and 16gb ram, for a similar cost. The performance difference doesn't justify the increased cost.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel - Core i9-9900K 3.6GHz 8-Core Processor ($579.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $579.99
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2018-11-04 15:37 EST-0500

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 7 2700X 3.7GHz 8-Core Processor ($309.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: Gigabyte - X470 AORUS ULTRA GAMING ATX AM4 Motherboard ($137.87 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill - Ripjaws V 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3600 Memory ($139.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $587.85
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2018-11-04 15:39 EST-0500

Shop around a bit, and you could get the AMD rig for even less.

 

[stdragon]

The 9900k is going for $580, on newegg, right now, and is out of stock.

And it will remain out of stock for the foreseeable future. If you must get a 9900k, expect to bid on them with a running price between $800 and $1,000 US dollars. Unless you're extremely lucky, it's guaranteed that you pay way above MSRP for one of those.

 

[emeralds1000000]

The funny thing about this bs comparison is that almost all the readers agree it is BS lol...

Intel is losing.

The bias and FUD is simply breathtaking...let's take the 'Intel is losing' comment. Intel just released there Q4 results:

Record fourth-quarter revenue was $17.1 billion and record full-year revenue was $62.8 billion.

I hope you can understand what 'record' results actually mean...

I am not one to favour one company over another, just whatever tech suits my specific budget for my use case, and in this scenario around CPU's, I have gone from Intel, to AMD and back to Intel. I am more than happy AMD have returned with a great set of CPU products with Ryzen and Threadripper once again bringing much needed competition to this market...lest we forget that sad state of affairs for the last 7 odd years with Bulldozer and Piledriver which certainly was not Intel's fault...Lets also give them a pass for stating that Vega would blow everything out of the water only for it to beaten badly by Nvidia...Thus the sad state of affairs in the GPU market...But these are business and I think a lot of people, especially us so called enthusiasts who seem to live in a blinding bubble can't seem to understand the concept of business and seem to think these companies are either really good or really evil which of course is so far from the truth that it isn't even funny anymore......

Those that buy the 9900K are not, I repeat not making a bad decision, just a buying decision that they are happy with (and there is nothing wrong with that) and as to so called value for money and the higher cost of the 9900K, why do people buy better cars, watches, fridges, sneakers etc. etc...ad infinitum...It is because we have a choice...funny thing that choice or would you prefer Intel die of and we have only one CPU manufacturer!

Rapping this around the Tom's article which only stated the truth!!! The 9900K is the best in it's class for both gaming and productivity and yes it costs double that of the 2700X...so! That does not make the 2700X less of a processor and in fact for the value argument, of course it makes the 2700X the better buy..the 2700X is a great CPU for the money...

If you think that intel profit comes from gaming CPU then you are the one needs further education not me.

we are talking about gaming CPU here and intel is losing in it. OFC they are making billions from servers and other products

 

[vMax]

The funny thing about this bs comparison is that almost all the readers agree it is BS lol...

Intel is losing.

The bias and FUD is simply breathtaking...let's take the 'Intel is losing' comment. Intel just released there Q4 results:

Record fourth-quarter revenue was $17.1 billion and record full-year revenue was $62.8 billion.

I hope you can understand what 'record' results actually mean...

I am not one to favour one company over another, just whatever tech suits my specific budget for my use case, and in this scenario around CPU's, I have gone from Intel, to AMD and back to Intel. I am more than happy AMD have returned with a great set of CPU products with Ryzen and Threadripper once again bringing much needed competition to this market...lest we forget that sad state of affairs for the last 7 odd years with Bulldozer and Piledriver which certainly was not Intel's fault...Lets also give them a pass for stating that Vega would blow everything out of the water only for it to beaten badly by Nvidia...Thus the sad state of affairs in the GPU market...But these are business and I think a lot of people, especially us so called enthusiasts who seem to live in a blinding bubble can't seem to understand the concept of business and seem to think these companies are either really good or really evil which of course is so far from the truth that it isn't even funny anymore......

Those that buy the 9900K are not, I repeat not making a bad decision, just a buying decision that they are happy with (and there is nothing wrong with that) and as to so called value for money and the higher cost of the 9900K, why do people buy better cars, watches, fridges, sneakers etc. etc...ad infinitum...It is because we have a choice...funny thing that choice or would you prefer Intel die of and we have only one CPU manufacturer!

Rapping this around the Tom's article which only stated the truth!!! The 9900K is the best in it's class for both gaming and productivity and yes it costs double that of the 2700X...so! That does not make the 2700X less of a processor and in fact for the value argument, of course it makes the 2700X the better buy..the 2700X is a great CPU for the money...

If you think that intel profit comes from gaming CPU then you are the one needs further education not me.

we are talking about gaming CPU here and intel is losing in it. OFC they are making billions from servers and other products

Not sure if you even read the Intel Q3 report but:

'The world’s biggest maker of PC chips said third quarter revenue was $19.2 billion, up 19 percent from the previous quarter, while the PC portion of revenue was up 16 percent.'

'PC-centric revenue was up 16 percent on continued strength in the commercial and gaming segments. Good operating margin leverage and a lower tax rate drove record earnings.'

Compared to AMD, there PC side of the business is massive and yes, Intel have a range of huge portfolios across Data, PC and Memory and IOT....And this during a decline in the desktop PC market over many years...

Oh and the do make Billions on there PC side of the business with $10.2 billion this quarter alone..

https://www.intc.com/investor-relations/investor-education-and-news/investor-news/press-release-details/2018/Intel-Reports-Third-Quarter-2018-Financial-Results/default.aspx

'In the third quarter, Intel achieved growth in every business segment. The PC-centric business (CCG) delivered record revenue, up 16 percent on continued strong demand for Intel's performance-leading products and strength in commercial and gaming.'

I mean at least try and be honest and put the AMD blinkers down for a moment...

 

[jdlech2]

Recall that overclocking was originally a way to take advantage of the way Intel used to test their processors. A 35MHz processor was simply one that failed at 50Mhz. And nobody knew what a 50MHz processor was capable of.
So overclocking your 9900K might not be as advantageous as OCing your 9700K for a lesser price. And there's still that uncertainty about stability from chip to chip. You still might get a chip you can't OC much at all... or one that OCs beyond anyone's expectations. The K designation just means you can - not how far you can take that particular chip.