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

[Redneck5439]

I think we can basically put this whole topic to bed right now:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA6KX8CU0933&Description=i9%209900K&cm_re=i9_9900K-_-19-117-957-_-Product

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B005404P9I/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all

The benchmarks have already shown that at true "stock" factory setting from Intel enforcing a 95W limit the 9900K breaks even with the R7 2700X in workstation based tasks. Only when overclocking to some degree or another does it pull away from the 2700X. We all know that for pure gaming the best total gaming dominance processor would be the i7 8700K or the i5 9600K as 99% of games can't use more than 6 cores and overclock them as high as possible.

And from the above links we finally have a the true asking prices for this processor- $950 - $1000!!! Who now could possibly recommend this processor to anyone? What I find telling is that on Amazon they already have "used" processors available. People who got their pre-orders and realized their expensive mistake?

Hi, lets just be honest as on the productivity workloads tests. The 9900K at 95w only loses out on 3 tests namely the 7 Zip file manger 32MB test, Handbreak 4K encode and the Adobe CC encode Cuda test..It wins to varying degrees in the other workload tests and in pretty much every gaming test at 1080p and above that the GPU takes over and levels the field...

All I am saying is at least lets be honest... As to asking price it is readily available here for £569.99...which includes our absurd VAT (TAX on goods) in the UK..still too much but at least it is available and has been available from day 1....not at the absurd $950 to $1000 being touted over the pond, which somehow makes you very happy...go figure!....And again who buys a 9900K to run at 95w....an absurdity in itself...

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/intel-core-i9-9900k-3.6ghz-coffee-lake-socket-lga1151-processor-oem-cp-65k-in.html

Its kind of a moot subject as there is only one motherboard manufacture that will run the i9 9900K at its actual stock specifications and that is Asus. It is a slight of hand and can be dangerous for unwary or uninformed buyers. If you were to buy an aftermarket heat sink at a retailer and all you could remember was its a new processor and has a 95W TDP well there are a lot of entry class cheap heat sinks that will fit that bill. You would more than likely be very surprised when you try running your shiny new machine and find that its hotter than blazes because its actually running out of the box with a 60W 700Mhz overclock. Getting motherboard manufactures to slightly default overclock the processor is shady to begin with, but getting them to do it at ~60W over the specification is another thing all together and at best is being very deceptive.

The fact remains that at stock speeds (95W limit enforced) the i9 9900K at nearly twice the cost of the 2700X is nearly identical in overall workstation performance, it may edge it but not by all that much in overall workstation performance. It only truly shines when it is overclocked past it 95W limit.

It should be the buyers decision if he or she is going to overclock the processor, it shouldn't be Intel deciding for you through its motherboard partners in a huge slight of hand trick. Would Intel even honor their warranty if somehow a chip got damaged being overclocked by default by the motherboard? After all they say "overclocking voids warranty" and by definition what these motherboards are doing (with Intel's blessing) is overclocking by 700Mhz and ~60 additional watts. Overclocking should be the buyers decision and believe it or not, not everyone who buys a "K" series processor plans to overclock it, I've seen some surveys that put it as high as 40% never intend to overclock. These customers are more interested in the "K" series because they are better binned and a lot of times they want to be able to run the processor at the least amount of voltage possible at stock speeds which the better binning on the "K" series is very good at.

It's would be so much easier for you to just say...I hate Intel, why are they making Billions? why are people buying there products dammit? they are the devil incarnate and anyone who buys Intel should be shot or better yet I need to save them and convert them to Christianity...opps I meant AMD'ianity...I know you want to. Just let it out...It will make you feel better...

I don't hate Intel, I don't like some of their marketing and tricks, but I don't hate them. We can look at Intel and say they set their prices too high and they are just "evil" or some such nonsense. The simple fact remains that without Intel AMD would be setting absurdly high prices and we would all be sitting with crappy Bulldozer type processors. Believe me that's not a reality any of us would want to live in!! We as buyers need Intel just as much as we need AMD. If either ones were the only game in town we would be stuck with expensive crap and there would be no need to improve on that crap. My only problem, really ever with Intel was the marketing tricks to make themselves look better than they actually were at that time. But believe me, I might use AMD in my own personal builds and I love my Ryzen build, but I know that without Intel AMD would be huge a$$holes.

Right now I'm looking at the 9900K and just wondering how I should sell it to customers in custom builds as "stock" can vary wildly depending on your definition. Saying Intel has now done this with the i7 8700K and now their 9th gen refresh, its pretty safe to assume going forward its going to be like this for most if not all new Intel processors. That is why I think overclocking should be left to the actual consumer and not something done as a slight of hand though a partner motherboard manufacturer. That's where I'm coming from.

Just in case you missed it...

You got a nice warm fuzzy feeling as pointed out by not one, but two emojis!!!! when you 'mock horror' railed against the prices of the 9900K at $950 to $1000 only for the rage to build again when you found out you were wrong and even then your excuses came a tumbling out...What you seem to fail to understand is that buying any product, is as you would put it a buyers decision and buying AMD Ryzen is a great decision all around, especially if price to performance is key and buying Intel is also a great decision for those that want to and can afford too...absolutely nothing wrong with there choices, as the operative word here is 'choice'. Harping on about TDP is so pointless and you know it at the price range of the 9900K. people buy it because, guess what, they want one....I personally think the 9900K is not worth it at all...

And finally, you claiming 'wondering how you can sell it to customers' c'mon really, after what you have said!!!! It should be a simple, no don't buy this because it's crap....unless you don't believe yourself and want to lie to your customers. As I said, just be honest...I promise you, it's a lot easier than having to justify your stand on this...

On the 'Marketing tricks' really? AMD, Intel Nvidia, Samsung et all.. and I could go on and on, on some of the terrible marketing BS spouted by all companies. They are business, they are not in it for us....they are in the business to make money for share holders...If they make good products and we see through the marketing BS all the better, but they all do it...

While I believe the i9 9900K doesn't really fulfill any purpose well- the 8700K and 9600K are just as good at gaming, and as a workstation there are Threadripper builds that are going to come to around the same cost yet perform much better. Both of those are true, its also true that at ~$600 or so its overpriced. However the i6 9600K is a very good no compromise gaming processor, either it or the i7 8700K is what I would say is the top dog no compromise gaming processor. Not best bang for the dollar, but very best performance over all else crushing the FPS. If the i9 9900K comes down in price I could easily say its a great all around performer (because it is- its just priced at a point that doesn't make sense). It can crush games and turn around and do quite well as a workstation its just its current price point that makes it have no place. I also don't believe in default overclocking, I wish all motherboard manufactures would stop doing it or at least give you the choice when you first boot - do you want it or not.

You can go back and read past posts. I stand by I don't hate Intel, I hate marketing tricks (when anyone does them) however I firmly believe that Intel is very much needed. If only AMD were around prices would be sky high for stagnated technology. A world where Bulldozer is the most powerful processor isn't a world anyone would want to live in. AMD needs to have the challenge of competing with Intel and Intel needs to be pushed forward by a resurgent AMD.

I farm all spring and summer and I board horses. that's my main summer work. When the snow comes there's no major repairs or upgrading being done on the farm and I fall back exclusively on building custom rigs. I more than anyone can appreciate the need for Intel and AMD to both be great or else no one would ever need to upgrade to a new rig. In my opinion the i9 9900K would have been a great processor if released in high enough numbers, the price was set at $400 - $450, and they would have released it with the 95W limit enforced as its stock configuration across all motherboards. They could rightfully claim gaming supremacy and edging the 2700X in productivity at stock and have a massive ~1Ghz overclock capability for those who want to take advantage of it. No one could have said anything bad about that. That would have been huge and put AMD on its heels till 7nm releases.

 

[jimmysmitty]

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA6KX8CU0933&Description=i9%209900K&cm_re=i9_9900K-_-19-117-957-_-Product

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B005404P9I/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all

The benchmarks have already shown that at true "stock" factory setting from Intel enforcing a 95W limit the 9900K breaks even with the R7 2700X in workstation based tasks. Only when overclocking to some degree or another does it pull away from the 2700X. We all know that for pure gaming the best total gaming dominance processor would be the i7 8700K or the i5 9600K as 99% of games can't use more than 6 cores and overclock them as high as possible.

Cherry picking price links is bad:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.3876944&Description=i9%209900K

Board and CPU for less than the CPU itself.

Yup. his given links are all 3rd party links... even on Amazon where not even one of them is fulfilled by Amazon either.

This one is the true price of the CPU at NewEgg when sold by itself:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117957&ignorebbr=1

It's interesting though about the power envelope manipulation.

There isn't really any manipulation on Intels part going on. Some motherboard vendors throw in auto overclocking, this doesn't happen only with Intel. I always turn that off ans it always uses way more voltage than required at stock. Hell even just running the CPU at stock with it off most boards push more voltage than required.

I had a Q6600 that the board wanted to push 1.35v at stock but I was able to get it stable at 1.25v @ 3GHz for many years.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA6KX8CU0933&Description=i9%209900K&cm_re=i9_9900K-_-19-117-957-_-Product

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B005404P9I/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all

The benchmarks have already shown that at true "stock" factory setting from Intel enforcing a 95W limit the 9900K breaks even with the R7 2700X in workstation based tasks. Only when overclocking to some degree or another does it pull away from the 2700X. We all know that for pure gaming the best total gaming dominance processor would be the i7 8700K or the i5 9600K as 99% of games can't use more than 6 cores and overclock them as high as possible.

Cherry picking price links is bad:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.3876944&Description=i9%209900K

Board and CPU for less than the CPU itself.

Yup. his given links are all 3rd party links... even on Amazon where not even one of them is fulfilled by Amazon either.

This one is the true price of the CPU at NewEgg when sold by itself:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117957&ignorebbr=1

It's interesting though about the power envelope manipulation.

Wasn't trying to cherry pick anything, I asked to be notified when stock became available and those are the links that came up when I searched on Newegg and Amazon. I have no idea why Newegg would be offering processor only for $859 and then bundling a good motherboard and processor for less money, that makes no sense. I will take the bullet on that though, I looked at the first link that came up from Newegg and posted it without digging deeper. I usually buy most everything directly from MicroCenter, very rarely do I order online, but like at MicroCenter I always though that at Newegg the price was the price....To me its very strange to have two identical items vary in price by such a large amount being sold by the same retailer. I didn't realize they were 3rd party vendors. Totally my bad.

Newegg for some reason added third party vendors a bit ago. Probably to compete with Amazon. I think its a bad idea but who am I to say as I am just some random computer enthusiast.

Still you can get a combo for a decent price although I still think the CPU needs to come down in price by about $150 to be a more competitive part.

And as said no one is going to buy the 9900K and leave it stock. If I did I would probably settle for 4.7GHz on all cores and try to dial in a lower voltage like a lot of reviewers have done that lowers the heat and power draw quite a bit. I game but 5GHz isn't enough of a difference for me to worry about and 4.7GHz is still pretty damn fast.

I usually shop exclusively at MicroCenter as I have found over the years I get the best deals from them and don't have to worry about shipping issues (ie when is it actually going to get here and will it be damaged when I get it). I didn't know that Newegg had added third party vendors, I didn't think they had them in the past. As I said, totally my bad, I'm honestly just glad that they aren't going to be priced that high- market gouging has gotten out of control with some items.

No micro Centers here unfortunately.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA6KX8CU0933&Description=i9%209900K&cm_re=i9_9900K-_-19-117-957-_-Product

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B005404P9I/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all

The benchmarks have already shown that at true "stock" factory setting from Intel enforcing a 95W limit the 9900K breaks even with the R7 2700X in workstation based tasks. Only when overclocking to some degree or another does it pull away from the 2700X. We all know that for pure gaming the best total gaming dominance processor would be the i7 8700K or the i5 9600K as 99% of games can't use more than 6 cores and overclock them as high as possible.

Cherry picking price links is bad:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.3876944&Description=i9%209900K

Board and CPU for less than the CPU itself.

Yup. his given links are all 3rd party links... even on Amazon where not even one of them is fulfilled by Amazon either.

This one is the true price of the CPU at NewEgg when sold by itself:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117957&ignorebbr=1

It's interesting though about the power envelope manipulation.

There isn't really any manipulation on Intels part going on. Some motherboard vendors throw in auto overclocking, this doesn't happen only with Intel. I always turn that off ans it always uses way more voltage than required at stock. Hell even just running the CPU at stock with it off most boards push more voltage than required.

I had a Q6600 that the board wanted to push 1.35v at stock but I was able to get it stable at 1.25v @ 3GHz for many years.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA6KX8CU0933&Description=i9%209900K&cm_re=i9_9900K-_-19-117-957-_-Product

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B005404P9I/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all

The benchmarks have already shown that at true "stock" factory setting from Intel enforcing a 95W limit the 9900K breaks even with the R7 2700X in workstation based tasks. Only when overclocking to some degree or another does it pull away from the 2700X. We all know that for pure gaming the best total gaming dominance processor would be the i7 8700K or the i5 9600K as 99% of games can't use more than 6 cores and overclock them as high as possible.

Cherry picking price links is bad:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.3876944&Description=i9%209900K

Board and CPU for less than the CPU itself.

Yup. his given links are all 3rd party links... even on Amazon where not even one of them is fulfilled by Amazon either.

This one is the true price of the CPU at NewEgg when sold by itself:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117957&ignorebbr=1

It's interesting though about the power envelope manipulation.

Wasn't trying to cherry pick anything, I asked to be notified when stock became available and those are the links that came up when I searched on Newegg and Amazon. I have no idea why Newegg would be offering processor only for $859 and then bundling a good motherboard and processor for less money, that makes no sense. I will take the bullet on that though, I looked at the first link that came up from Newegg and posted it without digging deeper. I usually buy most everything directly from MicroCenter, very rarely do I order online, but like at MicroCenter I always though that at Newegg the price was the price....To me its very strange to have two identical items vary in price by such a large amount being sold by the same retailer. I didn't realize they were 3rd party vendors. Totally my bad.

Newegg for some reason added third party vendors a bit ago. Probably to compete with Amazon. I think its a bad idea but who am I to say as I am just some random computer enthusiast.

Still you can get a combo for a decent price although I still think the CPU needs to come down in price by about $150 to be a more competitive part.

And as said no one is going to buy the 9900K and leave it stock. If I did I would probably settle for 4.7GHz on all cores and try to dial in a lower voltage like a lot of reviewers have done that lowers the heat and power draw quite a bit. I game but 5GHz isn't enough of a difference for me to worry about and 4.7GHz is still pretty damn fast.

I absolutely agree. The 9900K is not, I repeat not good value...The AMD family of Ryzen and Threadripper are very good value and I applaud AMD bringing competition to the market which can only be great for us the consumers....we finally have a choice at all price points...But to hamstring the 9900K because of a 95w TDP is a terrible comparison as who spends $600 on a 9900K to run it at stock and that a 'K' unlocked CPU...and even if they do, who cares, it's there money...

My biggest thing is the platform overall. AMD still lags a bit However we still have to see Intels refresh for their HEDT platform and what pricing will be there. If the 9800X is actually priced where it is listed MSRP (589) then it will be well more worth the value than the 9900K if the 9900K doesn't drop by at least $100 considering that you get 2 more memory channels, vastly more PCIe from the CPU and a faster interconnect.

However I feel retailers will still price gouge.

 

[Redneck5439]

Just to be clear, the only issues I have the with i9 9900K is the absurdly high price and the 95W rating. If it would have been priced fairly ~400 - 450 it would have a clear place as a do everything processor that could crush gaming and that is clearly cheaper than true workstation processors. As a far as the 95W limit, if Intel wanted this chip to be hitting 4.7Ghz all core by default they would have set the TDP at 155W. By overclocking by default you not only skew the "stock" benchmarks in your favor but you also do your own product a disservice. As pointed out by jimmysmitty auto overclocking always pumps way more voltage to your processor than is needed to ensure that even the poorest binned chip will still be able to hit targeted overclock. This promotes higher thermals and a lower life span. The idea that "its a K processor everyone expects it to be overclocked and will overclock it" is just plain false. There are a good number of people who buy a K processor for the improved binning but have absolutely no intentions to overclock it. Had it been priced fairly with a true stock clock setting that showcased its amazing ability to overclock an additional 800Mhz - 1Ghz no one would have been able to say anything but good things about it.

 

[Redneck5439]

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA6KX8CU0933&Description=i9%209900K&cm_re=i9_9900K-_-19-117-957-_-Product

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B005404P9I/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all

The benchmarks have already shown that at true "stock" factory setting from Intel enforcing a 95W limit the 9900K breaks even with the R7 2700X in workstation based tasks. Only when overclocking to some degree or another does it pull away from the 2700X. We all know that for pure gaming the best total gaming dominance processor would be the i7 8700K or the i5 9600K as 99% of games can't use more than 6 cores and overclock them as high as possible.

Cherry picking price links is bad:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.3876944&Description=i9%209900K

Board and CPU for less than the CPU itself.

Yup. his given links are all 3rd party links... even on Amazon where not even one of them is fulfilled by Amazon either.

This one is the true price of the CPU at NewEgg when sold by itself:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117957&ignorebbr=1

It's interesting though about the power envelope manipulation.

There isn't really any manipulation on Intels part going on. Some motherboard vendors throw in auto overclocking, this doesn't happen only with Intel. I always turn that off ans it always uses way more voltage than required at stock. Hell even just running the CPU at stock with it off most boards push more voltage than required.

I had a Q6600 that the board wanted to push 1.35v at stock but I was able to get it stable at 1.25v @ 3GHz for many years.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA6KX8CU0933&Description=i9%209900K&cm_re=i9_9900K-_-19-117-957-_-Product

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B005404P9I/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all

The benchmarks have already shown that at true "stock" factory setting from Intel enforcing a 95W limit the 9900K breaks even with the R7 2700X in workstation based tasks. Only when overclocking to some degree or another does it pull away from the 2700X. We all know that for pure gaming the best total gaming dominance processor would be the i7 8700K or the i5 9600K as 99% of games can't use more than 6 cores and overclock them as high as possible.

Cherry picking price links is bad:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.3876944&Description=i9%209900K

Board and CPU for less than the CPU itself.

Yup. his given links are all 3rd party links... even on Amazon where not even one of them is fulfilled by Amazon either.

This one is the true price of the CPU at NewEgg when sold by itself:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117957&ignorebbr=1

It's interesting though about the power envelope manipulation.

Wasn't trying to cherry pick anything, I asked to be notified when stock became available and those are the links that came up when I searched on Newegg and Amazon. I have no idea why Newegg would be offering processor only for $859 and then bundling a good motherboard and processor for less money, that makes no sense. I will take the bullet on that though, I looked at the first link that came up from Newegg and posted it without digging deeper. I usually buy most everything directly from MicroCenter, very rarely do I order online, but like at MicroCenter I always though that at Newegg the price was the price....To me its very strange to have two identical items vary in price by such a large amount being sold by the same retailer. I didn't realize they were 3rd party vendors. Totally my bad.

Newegg for some reason added third party vendors a bit ago. Probably to compete with Amazon. I think its a bad idea but who am I to say as I am just some random computer enthusiast.

Still you can get a combo for a decent price although I still think the CPU needs to come down in price by about $150 to be a more competitive part.

And as said no one is going to buy the 9900K and leave it stock. If I did I would probably settle for 4.7GHz on all cores and try to dial in a lower voltage like a lot of reviewers have done that lowers the heat and power draw quite a bit. I game but 5GHz isn't enough of a difference for me to worry about and 4.7GHz is still pretty damn fast.

I usually shop exclusively at MicroCenter as I have found over the years I get the best deals from them and don't have to worry about shipping issues (ie when is it actually going to get here and will it be damaged when I get it). I didn't know that Newegg had added third party vendors, I didn't think they had them in the past. As I said, totally my bad, I'm honestly just glad that they aren't going to be priced that high- market gouging has gotten out of control with some items.

No micro Centers here unfortunately.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA6KX8CU0933&Description=i9%209900K&cm_re=i9_9900K-_-19-117-957-_-Product

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B005404P9I/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all

The benchmarks have already shown that at true "stock" factory setting from Intel enforcing a 95W limit the 9900K breaks even with the R7 2700X in workstation based tasks. Only when overclocking to some degree or another does it pull away from the 2700X. We all know that for pure gaming the best total gaming dominance processor would be the i7 8700K or the i5 9600K as 99% of games can't use more than 6 cores and overclock them as high as possible.

Cherry picking price links is bad:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.3876944&Description=i9%209900K

Board and CPU for less than the CPU itself.

Yup. his given links are all 3rd party links... even on Amazon where not even one of them is fulfilled by Amazon either.

This one is the true price of the CPU at NewEgg when sold by itself:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117957&ignorebbr=1

It's interesting though about the power envelope manipulation.

There isn't really any manipulation on Intels part going on. Some motherboard vendors throw in auto overclocking, this doesn't happen only with Intel. I always turn that off ans it always uses way more voltage than required at stock. Hell even just running the CPU at stock with it off most boards push more voltage than required.

I had a Q6600 that the board wanted to push 1.35v at stock but I was able to get it stable at 1.25v @ 3GHz for many years.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA6KX8CU0933&Description=i9%209900K&cm_re=i9_9900K-_-19-117-957-_-Product

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B005404P9I/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all

The benchmarks have already shown that at true "stock" factory setting from Intel enforcing a 95W limit the 9900K breaks even with the R7 2700X in workstation based tasks. Only when overclocking to some degree or another does it pull away from the 2700X. We all know that for pure gaming the best total gaming dominance processor would be the i7 8700K or the i5 9600K as 99% of games can't use more than 6 cores and overclock them as high as possible.

Cherry picking price links is bad:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.3876944&Description=i9%209900K

Board and CPU for less than the CPU itself.

Yup. his given links are all 3rd party links... even on Amazon where not even one of them is fulfilled by Amazon either.

This one is the true price of the CPU at NewEgg when sold by itself:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117957&ignorebbr=1

It's interesting though about the power envelope manipulation.

Wasn't trying to cherry pick anything, I asked to be notified when stock became available and those are the links that came up when I searched on Newegg and Amazon. I have no idea why Newegg would be offering processor only for $859 and then bundling a good motherboard and processor for less money, that makes no sense. I will take the bullet on that though, I looked at the first link that came up from Newegg and posted it without digging deeper. I usually buy most everything directly from MicroCenter, very rarely do I order online, but like at MicroCenter I always though that at Newegg the price was the price....To me its very strange to have two identical items vary in price by such a large amount being sold by the same retailer. I didn't realize they were 3rd party vendors. Totally my bad.

Newegg for some reason added third party vendors a bit ago. Probably to compete with Amazon. I think its a bad idea but who am I to say as I am just some random computer enthusiast.

Still you can get a combo for a decent price although I still think the CPU needs to come down in price by about $150 to be a more competitive part.

And as said no one is going to buy the 9900K and leave it stock. If I did I would probably settle for 4.7GHz on all cores and try to dial in a lower voltage like a lot of reviewers have done that lowers the heat and power draw quite a bit. I game but 5GHz isn't enough of a difference for me to worry about and 4.7GHz is still pretty damn fast.

I absolutely agree. The 9900K is not, I repeat not good value...The AMD family of Ryzen and Threadripper are very good value and I applaud AMD bringing competition to the market which can only be great for us the consumers....we finally have a choice at all price points...But to hamstring the 9900K because of a 95w TDP is a terrible comparison as who spends $600 on a 9900K to run it at stock and that a 'K' unlocked CPU...and even if they do, who cares, it's there money...

My biggest thing is the platform overall. AMD still lags a bit However we still have to see Intels refresh for their HEDT platform and what pricing will be there. If the 9800X is actually priced where it is listed MSRP (589) then it will be well more worth the value than the 9900K if the 9900K doesn't drop by at least $100 considering that you get 2 more memory channels, vastly more PCIe from the CPU and a faster interconnect.

However I feel retailers will still price gouge.

I don't really have a MicroCenter "near" me, but I make it work. The closest one to me is about 100 miles away so I do a day trip, get all the parts I know I'll need for ordered builds and stock up on ones that I think I'll probably need and hope I'm right. The prices at MicroCenter and actually being able to look at what your buying make the trip worthwhile though. A lot of times if I had to pay what Newegg, or other online retailers were selling parts for there really wouldn't be much room for me to make a profit. The bundle deals at MicroCenter are what are really amazing.

 

[shrapnel_indie]

Just to be clear, the only issues I have the with i9 9900K is the absurdly high price and the 95W rating. If it would have been priced fairly ~400 - 450 it would have a clear place as a do everything processor that could crush gaming and that is clearly cheaper than true workstation processors. As a far as the 95W limit, if Intel wanted this chip to be hitting 4.7Ghz all core by default they would have set the TDP at 155W. By overclocking by default you not only skew the "stock" benchmarks in your favor but you also do your own product a disservice. As pointed out by jimmysmitty auto overclocking always pumps way more voltage to your processor than is needed to ensure that even the poorest binned chip will still be able to hit targeted overclock. This promotes higher thermals and a lower life span. The idea that "its a K processor everyone expects it to be overclocked and will overclock it" is just plain false. There are a good number of people who buy a K processor for the improved binning but have absolutely no intentions to overclock it. Had it been priced fairly with a true stock clock setting that showcased its amazing ability to overclock an additional 800Mhz - 1Ghz no one would have been able to say anything but good things about it.

Don't forget that the k series of the part is usually clocked higher (base clock) than the non-K version, so someone who isn't into overclocking may just go for it because of that.

 

[Redneck5439]

Just to be clear, the only issues I have the with i9 9900K is the absurdly high price and the 95W rating. If it would have been priced fairly ~400 - 450 it would have a clear place as a do everything processor that could crush gaming and that is clearly cheaper than true workstation processors. As a far as the 95W limit, if Intel wanted this chip to be hitting 4.7Ghz all core by default they would have set the TDP at 155W. By overclocking by default you not only skew the "stock" benchmarks in your favor but you also do your own product a disservice. As pointed out by jimmysmitty auto overclocking always pumps way more voltage to your processor than is needed to ensure that even the poorest binned chip will still be able to hit targeted overclock. This promotes higher thermals and a lower life span. The idea that "its a K processor everyone expects it to be overclocked and will overclock it" is just plain false. There are a good number of people who buy a K processor for the improved binning but have absolutely no intentions to overclock it. Had it been priced fairly with a true stock clock setting that showcased its amazing ability to overclock an additional 800Mhz - 1Ghz no one would have been able to say anything but good things about it.

Don't forget that the k series of the part is usually clocked higher (base clock) than the non-K version, so someone who isn't into overclocking may just go for it because of that.

Very true as well. I was actually surprised when I got into building systems just how many people wanted the "K" processor with no intention to overclock. Don't get me wrong, a lot wanted to push it as far as possible and couldn't wait to get it home and rev it up. But I found a large niche of "K" buyers who instead of wanting to push the limits in clock speed were more interested in keeping stock speed and performance but wanted the core voltage to be pushed as low as possible and the better binning of the "K" processors makes that much easier. In mini builds where room for proper coolers becomes an issue this made perfect sense to me as less voltage, less heat, the smaller heat sink you could use. However there are several "K" systems I built and optimized with the lowest stable Vcore possible that had healthy mid towers and plenty of room for cooling... I could never explain it, but to each his (or her) own I guess.

 

[average joe]

I know this article is oldish at this point but i was price checking a bit over the holidays and I have a possible concern about the value proposition. The AMD's seem to rely upon overclocking a bit to match the Intel's performance or at least close the gap in certain games. I find Ryzen motherboards appear to be about 10 or 20 bucks more expensive and they are RAM finicky which drives up the price of ram for the AMD side. So taking CPU, RAM, and Motherboard together the price is a wash between AMD and Intel. Ryzen needs fast ram and lots of folks have trouble finding compatible sets which means ram is about 200 bucks for gSkill 3200 AMD kit which is the go to AMD ram. Whereas intel can use 2666 or 3000 mhz any cheapo ram and it will still do well running 108 for a similar gskill set with 14 -14--14-XX timings.

 

[average joe]

Ryzen 2600 for $170 intell 9600k $280
Gskill fllare x AMD $205 gskill ageis $ 97
MSI tomahawk $110 ASrock z390 pro4 $100

$485 $477

 

[Redneck5439]

I know this article is oldish at this point but i was price checking a bit over the holidays and I have a possible concern about the value proposition. The AMD's seem to rely upon overclocking a bit to match the Intel's performance or at least close the gap in certain games. I find Ryzen motherboards appear to be about 10 or 20 bucks more expensive and they are RAM finicky which drives up the price of ram for the AMD side. So taking CPU, RAM, and Motherboard together the price is a wash between AMD and Intel. Ryzen needs fast ram and lots of folks have trouble finding compatible sets which means ram is about 200 bucks for gSkill 3200 AMD kit which is the go to AMD ram. Whereas intel can use 2666 or 3000 mhz any cheapo ram and it will still do well running 108 for a similar gskill set with 14 -14--14-XX timings.

It is true that Samsung "B" die kits (CL 14) can run a lot of money. However Ryzen Plus fixed the vast majorities of RAM compatibility that first gen Ryzen had. I for example am running a Trident Z RGB kit 3200Mhz that is I think "A" die, was a much better bargain than Samsung "B" die and I have it overclocked to 3600Mhz. I have no compatibility issues at all. I think my RAM when I bought it was ~$130. You can also buy the Ryzen R5 2600 for $155 at Amazon. That drops your comparison to AMD build costing $395 and Intel costing $477 which is much more realistic.

One more thing to consider is the Z390 motherboard that is a whopping $10 less is a dead socket. There is no chance that the Z390 motherboards will support 10nm if Intel ever releases it. The AM4 motherboards on the other hand are supported though 2020 so will have an upgrade path through Zen 2, Ryzen 3000 series. I'd say that coming in cheaper up front and having a very good upgrade path makes Ryzen a much, much better value than Intel.

 

[jimmysmitty]

I know this article is oldish at this point but i was price checking a bit over the holidays and I have a possible concern about the value proposition. The AMD's seem to rely upon overclocking a bit to match the Intel's performance or at least close the gap in certain games. I find Ryzen motherboards appear to be about 10 or 20 bucks more expensive and they are RAM finicky which drives up the price of ram for the AMD side. So taking CPU, RAM, and Motherboard together the price is a wash between AMD and Intel. Ryzen needs fast ram and lots of folks have trouble finding compatible sets which means ram is about 200 bucks for gSkill 3200 AMD kit which is the go to AMD ram. Whereas intel can use 2666 or 3000 mhz any cheapo ram and it will still do well running 108 for a similar gskill set with 14 -14--14-XX timings.

It is true that Samsung "B" die kits (CL 14) can run a lot of money. However Ryzen Plus fixed the vast majorities of RAM compatibility that first gen Ryzen had. I for example am running a Trident Z RGB kit 3200Mhz that is I think "A" die, was a much better bargain than Samsung "B" die and I have it overclocked to 3600Mhz. I have no compatibility issues at all. I think my RAM when I bought it was ~$130. You can also buy the Ryzen R5 2600 for $155 at Amazon. That drops your comparison to AMD build costing $395 and Intel costing $477 which is much more realistic.

One more thing to consider is the Z390 motherboard that is a whopping $10 less is a dead socket. There is no chance that the Z390 motherboards will support 10nm if Intel ever releases it. The AM4 motherboards on the other hand are supported though 2020 so will have an upgrade path through Zen 2, Ryzen 3000 series. I'd say that coming in cheaper up front and having a very good upgrade path makes Ryzen a much, much better value than Intel.

Thats a pretty big assumption to make. While the chances are that Intel will move to a new socket with their 10nm wed wont know until the day comes that the information is released. I am going to assume it will be a new socket for 10nm mainly due to the changes it seems Intel is doing to their mainstream CPUs with Sunny Cove. But I will not make it a 100% yes.

 

[Redneck5439]

I know this article is oldish at this point but i was price checking a bit over the holidays and I have a possible concern about the value proposition. The AMD's seem to rely upon overclocking a bit to match the Intel's performance or at least close the gap in certain games. I find Ryzen motherboards appear to be about 10 or 20 bucks more expensive and they are RAM finicky which drives up the price of ram for the AMD side. So taking CPU, RAM, and Motherboard together the price is a wash between AMD and Intel. Ryzen needs fast ram and lots of folks have trouble finding compatible sets which means ram is about 200 bucks for gSkill 3200 AMD kit which is the go to AMD ram. Whereas intel can use 2666 or 3000 mhz any cheapo ram and it will still do well running 108 for a similar gskill set with 14 -14--14-XX timings.

It is true that Samsung "B" die kits (CL 14) can run a lot of money. However Ryzen Plus fixed the vast majorities of RAM compatibility that first gen Ryzen had. I for example am running a Trident Z RGB kit 3200Mhz that is I think "A" die, was a much better bargain than Samsung "B" die and I have it overclocked to 3600Mhz. I have no compatibility issues at all. I think my RAM when I bought it was ~$130. You can also buy the Ryzen R5 2600 for $155 at Amazon. That drops your comparison to AMD build costing $395 and Intel costing $477 which is much more realistic.

One more thing to consider is the Z390 motherboard that is a whopping $10 less is a dead socket. There is no chance that the Z390 motherboards will support 10nm if Intel ever releases it. The AM4 motherboards on the other hand are supported though 2020 so will have an upgrade path through Zen 2, Ryzen 3000 series. I'd say that coming in cheaper up front and having a very good upgrade path makes Ryzen a much, much better value than Intel.

Thats a pretty big assumption to make. While the chances are that Intel will move to a new socket with their 10nm wed wont know until the day comes that the information is released. I am going to assume it will be a new socket for 10nm mainly due to the changes it seems Intel is doing to their mainstream CPUs with Sunny Cove. But I will not make it a 100% yes.

To be fair, I guess no one could be 100% certain so I'll definitely give you that. However looking at Intel's past history of board compatibility generation to generation and the upgrades Intel has planned for Sunny Cove there is a better than 99% chance that Sunny Cove 10nm will be on a new socket. That's not to say that Intel won't release another refresh of their refresh of their refresh on 14nm++ (not sure how many +s there up to now), and that may utilize the Z390 socket, but another refresh won't help them much against Zen 2 which will release with AM4 compatibility. What Intel really needs is the release of their long delayed 10nm which will almost certainly be on a new socket.

My main point was AMD's AM4 socket is supported though 2020 and Zen 2 will be compatible on AM4. That gives the current AM4 motherboards a huge value advantage over Intel's Z390 boards that will almost certainly not support Sunny Cove, which makes the Z390 a dead socket and aside from another possible refresh gives the Z390 no real upgrade path.

 

[jimmysmitty]

I know this article is oldish at this point but i was price checking a bit over the holidays and I have a possible concern about the value proposition. The AMD's seem to rely upon overclocking a bit to match the Intel's performance or at least close the gap in certain games. I find Ryzen motherboards appear to be about 10 or 20 bucks more expensive and they are RAM finicky which drives up the price of ram for the AMD side. So taking CPU, RAM, and Motherboard together the price is a wash between AMD and Intel. Ryzen needs fast ram and lots of folks have trouble finding compatible sets which means ram is about 200 bucks for gSkill 3200 AMD kit which is the go to AMD ram. Whereas intel can use 2666 or 3000 mhz any cheapo ram and it will still do well running 108 for a similar gskill set with 14 -14--14-XX timings.

It is true that Samsung "B" die kits (CL 14) can run a lot of money. However Ryzen Plus fixed the vast majorities of RAM compatibility that first gen Ryzen had. I for example am running a Trident Z RGB kit 3200Mhz that is I think "A" die, was a much better bargain than Samsung "B" die and I have it overclocked to 3600Mhz. I have no compatibility issues at all. I think my RAM when I bought it was ~$130. You can also buy the Ryzen R5 2600 for $155 at Amazon. That drops your comparison to AMD build costing $395 and Intel costing $477 which is much more realistic.

One more thing to consider is the Z390 motherboard that is a whopping $10 less is a dead socket. There is no chance that the Z390 motherboards will support 10nm if Intel ever releases it. The AM4 motherboards on the other hand are supported though 2020 so will have an upgrade path through Zen 2, Ryzen 3000 series. I'd say that coming in cheaper up front and having a very good upgrade path makes Ryzen a much, much better value than Intel.

Thats a pretty big assumption to make. While the chances are that Intel will move to a new socket with their 10nm wed wont know until the day comes that the information is released. I am going to assume it will be a new socket for 10nm mainly due to the changes it seems Intel is doing to their mainstream CPUs with Sunny Cove. But I will not make it a 100% yes.

To be fair, I guess no one could be 100% certain so I'll definitely give you that. However looking at Intel's past history of board compatibility generation to generation and the upgrades Intel has planned for Sunny Cove there is a better than 99% chance that Sunny Cove 10nm will be on a new socket. That's not to say that Intel won't release another refresh of their refresh of their refresh on 14nm++ (not sure how many +s there up to now), and that may utilize the Z390 socket, but another refresh won't help them much against Zen 2 which will release with AM4 compatibility. What Intel really needs is the release of their long delayed 10nm which will almost certainly be on a new socket.

My main point was AMD's AM4 socket is supported though 2020 and Zen 2 will be compatible on AM4. That gives the current AM4 motherboards a huge value advantage over Intel's Z390 boards that will almost certainly not support Sunny Cove, which makes the Z390 a dead socket and aside from another possible refresh gives the Z390 no real upgrade path.

I do agree Sunny Cove will most likely push a new socket. Its a pretty big change compared to previous refreshes. I am a bit sad Intel was unable to stick to the Tick-Tock method as 10nm would have been on LGA 1151 and on the same chipset as Skylake.
For me though I have never looked at longevity. The one benefit Intel has had is that their CPUs last quite a while anyways. By the time I upgraded from my Q6600 to my 2500K I had the Q6600 long enough that the platforms value was worth it. Same with the 2500K. Most people who buy a Z390 and whatever CPU will be fine CPU wise for the next 5 years anyways, same with Ryzen. I doubt by the time you need to upgrade from say a Ryzen 2700 that AM4 will be AMDs mainstream socket.

 

[Redneck5439]

I know this article is oldish at this point but i was price checking a bit over the holidays and I have a possible concern about the value proposition. The AMD's seem to rely upon overclocking a bit to match the Intel's performance or at least close the gap in certain games. I find Ryzen motherboards appear to be about 10 or 20 bucks more expensive and they are RAM finicky which drives up the price of ram for the AMD side. So taking CPU, RAM, and Motherboard together the price is a wash between AMD and Intel. Ryzen needs fast ram and lots of folks have trouble finding compatible sets which means ram is about 200 bucks for gSkill 3200 AMD kit which is the go to AMD ram. Whereas intel can use 2666 or 3000 mhz any cheapo ram and it will still do well running 108 for a similar gskill set with 14 -14--14-XX timings.

It is true that Samsung "B" die kits (CL 14) can run a lot of money. However Ryzen Plus fixed the vast majorities of RAM compatibility that first gen Ryzen had. I for example am running a Trident Z RGB kit 3200Mhz that is I think "A" die, was a much better bargain than Samsung "B" die and I have it overclocked to 3600Mhz. I have no compatibility issues at all. I think my RAM when I bought it was ~$130. You can also buy the Ryzen R5 2600 for $155 at Amazon. That drops your comparison to AMD build costing $395 and Intel costing $477 which is much more realistic.

One more thing to consider is the Z390 motherboard that is a whopping $10 less is a dead socket. There is no chance that the Z390 motherboards will support 10nm if Intel ever releases it. The AM4 motherboards on the other hand are supported though 2020 so will have an upgrade path through Zen 2, Ryzen 3000 series. I'd say that coming in cheaper up front and having a very good upgrade path makes Ryzen a much, much better value than Intel.

Thats a pretty big assumption to make. While the chances are that Intel will move to a new socket with their 10nm wed wont know until the day comes that the information is released. I am going to assume it will be a new socket for 10nm mainly due to the changes it seems Intel is doing to their mainstream CPUs with Sunny Cove. But I will not make it a 100% yes.

To be fair, I guess no one could be 100% certain so I'll definitely give you that. However looking at Intel's past history of board compatibility generation to generation and the upgrades Intel has planned for Sunny Cove there is a better than 99% chance that Sunny Cove 10nm will be on a new socket. That's not to say that Intel won't release another refresh of their refresh of their refresh on 14nm++ (not sure how many +s there up to now), and that may utilize the Z390 socket, but another refresh won't help them much against Zen 2 which will release with AM4 compatibility. What Intel really needs is the release of their long delayed 10nm which will almost certainly be on a new socket.

My main point was AMD's AM4 socket is supported though 2020 and Zen 2 will be compatible on AM4. That gives the current AM4 motherboards a huge value advantage over Intel's Z390 boards that will almost certainly not support Sunny Cove, which makes the Z390 a dead socket and aside from another possible refresh gives the Z390 no real upgrade path.

I do agree Sunny Cove will most likely push a new socket. Its a pretty big change compared to previous refreshes. I am a bit sad Intel was unable to stick to the Tick-Tock method as 10nm would have been on LGA 1151 and on the same chipset as Skylake.
For me though I have never looked at longevity. The one benefit Intel has had is that their CPUs last quite a while anyways. By the time I upgraded from my Q6600 to my 2500K I had the Q6600 long enough that the platforms value was worth it. Same with the 2500K. Most people who buy a Z390 and whatever CPU will be fine CPU wise for the next 5 years anyways, same with Ryzen. I doubt by the time you need to upgrade from say a Ryzen 2700 that AM4 will be AMDs mainstream socket.

I'll agree with that. I am seriously considering upgrading the processor to Ryzen R7 3xxx when it releases, but may opt not to as well. Traditionally I have only upgraded my personal rigs every 5 to 6 years and have been overall happy till the upgrade. This last time I just couldn't wait any longer (was trying to hold out till Zen 2 7nm), my FX 8370 rig with R9 290 was suffering from random hardware failures that I'm not sure was the processor, power supply or motherboard. When I upgraded to the R7 2700X and recently installed RTX 2070 I knew it would be a big performance boost, but I wasn't expecting just how much of a boost. I would say overall my system is more than 50% more powerful than my FX 8370 rig.