i9 9900K vs Threadripper 2920X

[jacksoncau]

Well it boils down to these 2 processors and I just don't know which route to go? The intel chip has 16 PCIe lanes while the Threadripper has 64. I understand the GPU will need lanes so will 16 be enough? Which route should I go? all perspectives are welcome. Thank you folks.

 

[Gam3r01]

Depends largely on what you plan to use the system for.

 

[jacksoncau]

Depends largely on what you plan to use the system for.

Gaming, photo editing, music, video encoding and editing, but its primary use, gaming.

 

[dudeman509]

Depends largely on what you plan to use the system for.

Gaming, photo editing, music, video encoding and editing, but its primary use, gaming.

Generally, Intel's are a little bit ahead of Ryzen/Threadripper for gaming. If you game at 1080p, more of the bottleneck shifts to the GPU and it's basically a moot point.

Video encoding/editing put the advantage in the Threadripper's court. So I guess it depends how much of that you plan on doing.

IMO, you can't really go wrong either way, but the advantage is in the i9's court for gaming. However, they are a beast to keep cool/from throttling.

 

[jacksoncau]

Depends largely on what you plan to use the system for.

Gaming, photo editing, music, video encoding and editing, but its primary use, gaming.

Generally, Intel's are a little bit ahead of Ryzen/Threadripper for gaming. If you game at 1080p, more of the bottleneck shifts to the GPU and it's basically a moot point.

Video encoding/editing put the advantage in the Threadripper's court. So I guess it depends how much of that you plan on doing.

IMO, you can't really go wrong either way, but the advantage is in the i9's court for gaming. However, they are a beast to keep cool/from throttling.

thanks man. I'm still deciding but somewhat leaning more toward TR because of the lanes and the price... but still deciding

 

[The Original Ralph]

i just built a rig with a i9-9900k, moving from a X99 mobo with a 5960X cpu which had 40 lanes vs the 9900lk's 16 - both CPUs have 8C/16T, so i was a little concerned about loss in performance in video editing. I was attracted by the higher clock speed of the 9900k, as the 5960X ran at 4.2 GHz - first test video i did, when i had the 9900k at 4.9 OC, the same file the 5960X had rendered in 41 minutes, the 9900k did it in 27 minutes, so it was a considerable drop in time to render, which is what i was hoping for

i started giving OC frequency more attention when i saw what bumping the 5960X from 3.9 to 4.2 did to render times - not as dramatic as i just described above, but enough to give me some respect for the value of high OC frequencies.

I still haven't figured it out, but the Z390 chipset is supposed to have 20 or 24 lanes of it's own - been meaning to research that.

One warning if you do go with the 9900k - i've had two motherboards and two CPUs RMA'd - the first one, an Asrock Taichi Z390 fried itself the instant i flashed the "latest / greatest" BIOS release, never got past POST on reboot and each attempt got worse until it fried the CPU's graphics side so i had no display. THen i noticed other posters on the web complaining of issues and then one popped in here into my thread stating he had fried his as well. Asrock has pulled that BIOS off their webiste, but point is, that CPU is so new, and power requirements / limits seem to be still getting the wrinkles out. The 2nd mobo, Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Master, was just a quality control issue, the BIOS chip was apparently defective from new and kept corrupting worse and worse

i regret being a beta customer tester, but while the 2nd i9 cpu was running i was impressed. Didn't make it to 5.0 before the board went south.
I can't speak to gaming, as i'm not a gamer

fwiw

 

[yeti_yeti]

I think is you are doing mostly gaming with some editing in between, i7 or Ryzen 7 should still get the job done, while being significantly cheaper than i9/Threadripper.

 

[jacksoncau]

i just built a rig with a i9-9900k, moving from a X99 mobo with a 5960X cpu which had 40 lanes vs the 9900lk's 16 - both CPUs have 8C/16T, so i was a little concerned about loss in performance in video editing. I was attracted by the higher clock speed of the 9900k, as the 5960X ran at 4.2 GHz - first test video i did, when i had the 9900k at 4.9 OC, the same file the 5960X had rendered in 41 minutes, the 9900k did it in 27 minutes, so it was a considerable drop in time to render, which is what i was hoping for

i started giving OC frequency more attention when i saw what bumping the 5960X from 3.9 to 4.2 did to render times - not as dramatic as i just described above, but enough to give me some respect for the value of high OC frequencies.

I still haven't figured it out, but the Z390 is supposed to have 20 or 24 lanes of it's own - been meaning to research that.

One warning if you do go with the 9900k - i've had two motherboards and two CPUs RMA'd - the first one, an Asrock Taichi Z390 fried itself the instant i flashed the "latest / greatest" BIOS release, never got past POST on reboot and each attempt got worse until it fried the CPU's graphics side so i had no display. THen i noticed other posters on the web complaining of issues and then one popped in here into my thread stating he had fried his as well. Asrock has pulled that BIOS off their webiste, but point is, that CPU is so new, and power requirements / limits seem to be still getting the wrinkles out. The 2nd mobo, Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Master, was just a quality control issue, the BIOS chip was apparently defective from new and kept corrupting worse and worse

i regret being a beta customer tester, but while the 2nd i9 cpu was running i was impressed. Didn't make it to 5.0 before the board went south.
I can't speak to gaming, as i'm not a gamer

fwiw

HFS! #Mindblown

Thank you for your perspective concerning this. quite helpful to the least.

 

[jacksoncau]

I think is you are doing mostly gaming with some editing in between, i7 or Ryzen 7 should still get the job done, while being significantly cheaper than i9/Threadripper.

Thank you