hapkiman :
*[Like I said. Some will have difficulty grasping my point]
@REDGARL:
I could resort to calling you colorful adjectives or names as you did to me, but I will not. No need. I know logic, and what I said is sound and correct. I will simply reply with more facts.
I already have the Z390 motherboard and custom cooling that I need for a i9 9900k build - so this point you tried to make is academic. As for power consumption - It is not an issue or a concern for me either as I have a 1000w Platinum SeaSonic PSU that I am certain is up to the task. Again, moot point. I'm not saying this proc does not exceed the rated TDP spec of 95w or isn't power hungry. It's been proven by several reviewers that it is indeed very power hungry. I'm simply saying it is not a problem for me.
Finally - regardless of price, the Threadripper is a not a direct competitor for the i9 9900K. The i9 9900K is billed as an enthusiast class gaming processor. In Intel's words it is the "Best gaming processor in the world." Seems a little grandiose and unnecessary for Intel to have made such a claim (especially in light of PT's boggled testing methodology), but it is still apparently accurate, if even only by a small margin in certain instances. But I digress as my point is the i9 9900k is not part of Intel's HEDT line (which would be TR's direct competition along with Intel's Xeons). The Threadripper is not designed primarily as a gaming processor. Of course it can game, but if you bought a TR just to build a gaming rig, well....lets just say there are certainly better options from AMD for that. This is why AMD has a specific mode for Threadripper (gaming mode as opposed to it's creator mode) to disable cores so that the proc may function more proficiently as a gaming processor. In other words, TR simply does not perform well in games unless modified from its default state.
But enough said. It's late so let's leave it at that. We agree that we disagree.
Actually I think the disagreement is entirely on one side of the "discussion" and I wish you hadn't dignified it with another response after your first, perfectly well crafted and salient post. I appreciate that you're secure enough in your choices and decisions that you don't need to disparage others, which, frankly, the more you see and read the more you wonder who they're REALLY trying to convince.
Anyway, since I'm sending a reply to you now I would like to expand, on a productive note, to something else you observed....that history shows with firmware improvements new Intel proc's show even better gains over time then the ~5% to 10% they show now.
There's probably something to that*, but even more then that what I think happens is that game developers, who have to code and optimize for processors which are most common at the time, end up coding for the number of cores one or two generations back.
What this means longer term for the i9 is that eventually more of the cores gets multiplied by higher frequencies... .so that the 400 to 700Mhz x2 or x4 core speed advantage it enjoys today, will turn into a 400 to 700Mhz x6 or x8 core advantage in the future.
In short, I expect the i9's ~5% to 10% gaming benchmark advantage to expand in future games versus silicon with a contemporary release. This will become even more pronounced as the threshold at which systems become GPU bound is raised, making CPU deficiencies more revealing and explicit.
Lastly, people talk about saving money, but when you have to upgrade in 3 or 4 years instead of 5 or 6, then it becomes a false economy.
-----
*In fact it's already happening:
https://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/Z390%20Taichi%20Ultimate/index.us.asp#BIOS
(also, it's more Ryzen for us)
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram