[SOLVED] New platform - AMD or Intel? / 3900x vs 9900k / i9 9820x

[Gazownik]

Hey guys!

I've been looking for some topics about choosing a proper CPU for gaming right now and couldn't find a straight answer.

At the moment I've wanted to switch into Z390 chipset along with i9 9900k or i9 9820X but since the latter one is for 2066 I might reconsider it.
Lately, a release of new AMD CPU happened - 3900x in which I'm also interested after watching dozens of gameplays/benchmarks and reading some discussions as well as checking it on CPU charts on PassMark ($ - performance).

3900x is around the same price as i9 9900k and I mainly need my PC for gaming in 1440p (sometimes on 3 displays), only from time to time I'm using Photoshop CC2019 but mostly for raster stuff. I'm not a streamer but I'm using shitton of apps during my gameplay like 40+ open chrome cards which contain FB/youtube and other social stuff most of the time.

I'm also interested in OC'ing the CPU's but I've heard that AMD isn't actually very good for this atm. (forgot why tho).
I'm an Intel user since the failure of FX's from AMD and it was a good choice as for my needs so far but with new AMD CPU's came out new MB's X570 with PCIe 4.0 which might be used in the future (like 2019/20) by new GPU's and I do intend to change GPU in that time for another high-end card.

First of all, I've wanted to get Ice Lake CPU but I don't intend to wait that long for the release.

Can You guys help me in choosing between those two?



PS. Btw did they fix that problem with AMD's bios' on MB's?

 

[simsim86]

I basically do the same stuff you do on a pc and I went with 9900k on z390 instead of amd. its a little cheaper compared to 3900x on x570 better for gaming and overclocking.
but keep in mind that the z390 is practically dead. there is probably only one more cpu (9900ks) coming out. am4 will get continued support for ~2 more years.

i also dont really think we will see much usage of pci 4.0 in the near future. maybe in a few years but you will probably buy something then anyway.

 

[nmb255]

My read on the whole situation right now is this:
o AMD 7nm as almost caught up with Intel 14nm technology
o For Gaming the 9900k is the best option
o With Ryzen you get more cores for the same money, more bang for buck

Whole 'productivity' angle is one that can skew things and causing confusion. It's based on benchmarks of dedicated multithread apps. What you need to balance is just how much rendering of 3D objects or creating content do you do. If you are making a living from such activities then the 3900x would be better. Though there are other high core CPUS to consider if you are in such a business situation. If you render 1 video a month as a hobby, then you won't go wrong with the 9900k, it's not like it can't do the task.

Regards having lots of things open. I run a 4770K still and I regularly have 40+ chrome tabs, 6+ VM's running various Linux, Outlook, Excel, Steam, Googlearth, VNC, etc, etc, etc... and I don't have any issues or problems gaming with all that in the background.

I think the benchmarks we are missing would be ones showing game play while doing other things. Even while streaming gaming. Then we can see the value of those extra cores and if they useful in general situations or only useful in specialist use cases.

For you, from what you said. Get the 9900K and don't look back.

 

[mitch074]

My read on the whole situation right now is this:
o AMD 7nm as almost caught up with Intel 14nm technology
o For Gaming the 9900k is the best option
o With Ryzen you get more cores for the same money, more bang for buck

Whole 'productivity' angle is one that can skew things and causing confusion. It's based on benchmarks of dedicated multithread apps. What you need to balance is just how much rendering of 3D objects or creating content do you do. If you are making a living from such activities then the 3900x would be better. Though there are other high core CPUS to consider if you are in such a business situation. If you render 1 video a month as a hobby, then you won't go wrong with the 9900k, it's not like it can't do the task.

Regards having lots of things open. I run a 4770K still and I regularly have 40+ chrome tabs, 6+ VM's running various Linux, Outlook, Excel, Steam, Googlearth, VNC, etc, etc, etc... and I don't have any issues or problems gaming with all that in the background.

I think the benchmarks we are missing would be ones showing game play while doing other things. Even while streaming gaming. Then we can see the value of those extra cores and if they useful in general situations or only useful in specialist use cases.

For you, from what you said. Get the 9900K and don't look back.

Power usage on Ryzen 3 shows that 7nm beats Intel's 14nm something fierce - AMD's design doesn't clock as high as Intel's, yet the process is much more power efficient. But, since it has better IPC, Max performance in both is very similar out of the box. You can overclock an Intel, but it requires a beefy motherboard and some tough cooling.
Yes, for your use case, the 9900 is probably best for now. However, as soon as next year your platform will be dead while if you got a 3700X now you would get 80% of a 9900's performance for half the price - and next year you'd get a new CPU with twice the power you already have, only you could keep the rest of the system. But, as said, right now with your specific use case the 9900 perform slightly better (and much better if you overspend on cooling) yet it's a technological dead end.

 

[Gazownik]

You can overclock an Intel, but it requires a beefy motherboard and some tough cooling.

Well, I actually do have a custom LC atm so probably I'm going to pick i9.
I've also been asking my co-workers (I work in MSI) about their opinion on both CPU's and after we've made dozen of tests ourselves, everyone came to a conclusion that Intel would be better for gaming and AMD also for gaming (not quite as efficient as intel but still, ~few % diff) and heavy-load apps.

Maybe I'll switch to next gen of Ryzen if they'll somehow manage to beat Intel next year(at least I hope they will).

I might be an Intel user since I've sold my last AMD (FX) CPU but I hope AMD gonna give Intel a run for their money soon (like in Phenom case back in the days).

Anyway... thanks for Your response guys, gonna pick the most accurate answer soon

 

[mitch074]

Well, I actually do have a custom LC atm so probably I'm going to pick i9.
I've also been asking my co-workers (I work in MSI) about their opinion on both CPU's and after we've made dozen of tests ourselves, everyone came to a conclusion that Intel would be better for gaming and AMD also for gaming (not quite as efficient as intel but still, ~few % diff) and heavy-load apps.

Maybe I'll switch to next gen of Ryzen if they'll somehow manage to beat Intel next year(at least I hope they will).

I might be an Intel user since I've sold my last AMD (FX) CPU but I hope AMD gonna give Intel a run for their money soon (like in Phenom case back in the days).

Anyway... thanks for Your response guys, gonna pick the most accurate answer soon

As a matter of fact, on the last tally, AMD beat Intel on all counts except Max fps in games - no kidding, Intel even lost in Adobe! Most probable cause is the doubled cache in Ryzen 3, but still.
If you already have an Intel compatible cooler and don't care about cash get the 9900, but anything else loses to AMD. Avoid i5 like the plague, i7 is out unless you get the very best and latest and overclock like mad, i9 is good but it's only useful in Adobe if you get it with quick sync.