Right now the i9 9900k has stock shortage and it is priced for like 669$ in my country I just made a return yesterday and my current pc has i7 4790k with 2080 super so will wait few months and maybe comet lake will get fairer price
Not that much. Zen 2 is only ~25% faster than Zen for a given price point. If you don't bother upgrading for less than 50% extra performance for a given price, then that's four years between upgrades at this rate which is only ~5%/year faster than what we've been getting from Intel for the past ~10 years. Zen's launch was a welcome break but the rest of it so far is a return to relatively tiny annual performance gains.
You missed the whole point... there's going to be steady progression of product releases in the coming years in Intel and AMD's steady game of one-upsmanship. That means whatever you buy today WILL LOOSE it's shiny cachet in the marketing hoopla accompanying those releases.
At only 10-15%/year, most people aren't going to give a damn about new products for multiple years, this just isn't worth bothering with no matter how many new products are launching. The "second dog" mentality only applies to enthusiasts who like having the newest shiny stuff all of the time, normal people want something that works well enough and won't be looking back for 5+ years.
I don't have anything yet I just ordered my build two days all the components like cooler processer and mobo
In the case of 9900k vs 10700k, the 10-series CPUs have the benefit of having its TDP spread out across two extra cores worth of die area and having its two worst cores disabled. I'd imagine that having a significant positive impact on overall power-efficiency and slightly relaxed cooling requirements from reduced power density.
Thats what im looking for not to upgrade or spend money on anything for atleast 5 years after spending a hell of money
The thing is...if you wait for that 10700K (or whatever) and you'll be experiencing the same doubts and asking this same question because the marketing people will already be pushing for the next processor.
If you buy a $660 CPU knowing that a $350 CPU is coming 3-4 months later to take its place, paying $660 today makes very little sense unless you absolutely need the upgrade today. Intel's next CPU after that won't be anywhere near as drastic of a short-term value loss if any loss at all since Comet Lake is pretty much the practical limit for mainstream 14nm and mainstream 10nm is still vaporware based on how mobile 10nm is struggling to provide net benefits beyond the IGP.
The 10700 will be made from the same die as the 10900, it will have 10 cores with the two worst cores disabled similar to how current i5 and i7 are made from the same die as the i9 with HT disabled for the i7 and two disabled cores on top for the i5. That's where my "optimism" comes from: it is much easier to improve efficiency when the die has two 'spare cores" and you get to disable the worst two on the die instead of having to get all cores up to speed like you do now with the 9900k/ks or will later with the 10900k.
If you have an 8-core die like the 9900k and want to ship an all-core 5GHz part, you have to push vcore up to whatever the weakest core requires. If you have a 10-cores die like the 10900 and can drop the two worst cores that may require 50mV extra to reach a given clock frequency, then you can make 8-cores parts that draw 5-10W less. Since the die is also ~15% bigger from having two disabled cores, that's 15% more die area to couple heat onto the IHS and help it stay cooler. So the i7-10700k is almost certain to be more power-efficient and cooler than the 9900k.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram