[SOLVED] Was buying the Intel i9 9900k a mistake?

[hd7970ghz]

Feeling like I may have made a poor decision buying this i9 9900k over a Ryzen 2000 series CPU...

Did I make a mistake?

My intention was to build a gaming / streaming PC that could also do photoshop and editing work.

 

[barkingsun]

You should have invested in [strike]cxxx[/strike] and [strike]hxxxxxx[/strike].

<MODERATOR EDIT>

WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE!

TOM'S IS A FAMILY FRIENDLY WEBSITE!
YOUR CHOICE OF WORDS VIOLATES OUR TERMS OF USE AND FORUM RULES!
THIS IS A BANNING OFFENSE!

TERMS OF USE - http://www.purch.com/terms-of-use/
FORUM RULES - http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-2083474/read-forum-rules-styling-posts.html

<CHECK YOUR PRIVATE MESSAGES>

 

[jitendrad]

Yes buying i9 just for gaming and streaming don't worth your money. Invest your money in better place and for CPU which is best for gaming and streaming , I recommend top get I7 or Ryzen 7 and pair it with a powerful GPU like 1080ti or 2080

 

[Obakasama]

The i9-9900k should be able to handle those tasks well. What makes you think it was a mistake?

 

[jaslion]

Feeling like I may have made a poor decision buying this i9 9900k over a Ryzen 2000 series CPU...

Did I make a mistake?

My intention was to build a gaming / streaming PC that could also do photoshop and editing work.

A simple ryzen 5 2600 is good enough for those tasks. The 9900k is also plenty just a lot more expensive. If you had to cut costs somewhere else that would have otherwise made your system better overall without a big difference between going to the ryzen 2600 or something then yeah you might have made a priority mistake.

 

[LordVile]

Probs. Unless you’re editing video in afeobe then you might get your money’s worth going with Intel

 

[sizzling]

The 9900k is the better performer for those uses but it comes at a significant price premium and the additional performance is not huge. Ryzen has a much better price/performance ratio.

 

[rookieGamer]

not really a mistake. it can run games better than any ryzen .. rest of the work i think ryzen might've handled better
also ryzen wouldntve cost you kidney ryzen7 2700X cost almost half .. but since you already bought it .. keep it, nothing much you can do now.

 

[Supahos]

Depends, if you had to skimp on your gpu, or other parts to pay for your 9900k then yes you made a mistake. If it's all top notch then you do have the fastest gaming cpu that currently exists

 

[LordVile]

Unless he’s playing at 4K and the 9900K has the same performance as an i5

 

[Supahos]

You have that backwards... At 4k it has same performance at 1080 trying for a ton of frames it's better

 

[LordVile]

What? At 4K you are GPU bound so a better CPU doesn’t matter up to a point.

 

[Supahos]

We're saying the same thing, just both wrote it backwards to what the other one is saying. Just reread yours

 

[LordVile]

I think you need to read it again.

If everything else is “top notch” it’s not that much of a waste UNLESS he’s playing at 4K at which point CPU matters less.

 

[Supahos]

He also does some editing work. I understand what you're saying I just said I misread what you said.

 

[LordVile]

Yeah the 9900K should be great if using adobe. But you can get a 1950X for the same price now which demolishes it for programs that like core count and don’t just the iGPU.

 

[hd7970ghz]

Hi everyone,

Thank you so much for your responses! Plenty of insight gained.

I edited a feature film shot on RED RAW 5k on an AMD FX-8320 system in 2014. Looking at how well that ran I knew anything would be an upgrade. I looked at Adobe Premiere and Adobe Photoshop benchmarks and saw Intel still had faster single core IPC. My editing partner had an i7 4770k at the time and his worked slightly faster.

Given that the i9 9900k had 8 cores, 16 threads, and was faster in multimedia production and tailored more for gaming frame-rates (especially at lower resolutions) I felt it was the best option despite the cost.

I realize the speed difference in games dissipate between Intel and AMD as screen resolution increases, but I would rather have higher frame-rates and lower resolution than go 4k only for 60 FPS. I just purchased dual 2560x1080p screens for editing too so it seemed like a logical purchase. I also only have an RX 480 8GB card and there's no way I could have afforded a 1080ti or RX 2080 at this time.

Current pricing differences for me: (Canadian dollars)

AMD Ryzen 2700x is $449.00.
Intel i9 9900k was $689.99.

Difference of $240.00. (Non sale items)

I can justify that cost for the frame-rate increase in games alone. Really not THAT much money in the end if it still lasts me 5 years or so!

Let me know if my logic makes sense here of if you still think I made a mistake.

**On a side note I am currently running it at 4.5GHz Gaming stable, at 1.135 Vcore, 1.152V VCCIO and 1.136V System Agent. (Runs max at 55c gaming, Is that good?)**


This Youtube video shows the difference between AMD 2700x and i9 9900k streaming / gaming performance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2GvkrMXnd0

 

[hd7970ghz]

Yeah the 9900K should be great if using adobe. But you can get a 1950X for the same price now which demolishes it for programs that like core count and don’t just the iGPU.

Reason I didn't go with Threadripper is the cost of the motherboards and Quad Channel Ram. Otherwise I would have gone that route! In the end it would have costed me about $500 more going that way rather than Intel 9900k system which is quite close in benchmarks even for multimedia I do (Premiere and Photoshop). Gaming is a whole other story lol. Threadripper isn't on my list of gaming CPUs.

 

[LordVile]

You can get a good TR4 board for a sukaulr price to a decent Z390 though. And it’s only like $20 more for 4x8 opposed to 2x16.

If you’re using premiere you should defiantly go intel, heavily favours them.

 

[Gam3r01]

It sounds like you are happy with your purchase, so why worry?
If you justified the cost to yourself then thats the end of story.

 

[hd7970ghz]

While I am happy with the performance and feel it isn't a complete loss, I do have to admit the limitations to my own knowledge on all things computer components; hence I have reached out to the Toms Hardware community. Based on what I DO know I think I have made a decision that makes sense, however, I didn't take time to research everything and so I feel inclined to ask for some further input. I think if I wasn't even curious I would be foolishly ignorant and potentially rationalizing my purchase simply because I made the purchase and cannot return it. I like knowledge, I like facts and I think there is more to this decision than simply speed and cost. I love AMD, I have owned both systems and have seen a need for both until recently with ADM Ryzen's IPC. Thing is, that brought Intel's chips down in price and now Intel isn't SO far out to lunch. A few hundred bucks over 5 years is like 13 cents a day difference. I can justify that. Can anyone else?

The only reason I can personally justify going with AMD Ryzen 2700x or equivalent is that it can be upgraded to Ryzen 3000 CPU'S. But if the performance is on par or even slightly faster than i9 9900k, then spending 500 on a 3000 series CPU wouldn't make much sense, would it? I mean, if cost / performance / future proofing is the goal.

Do you believe that in the next few years I will kick myself for this purchase in terms of overall performance versus AMD?

Thanks

 

[Gam3r01]

Personally, depending on your level of edit work, an i7/R7 would have been plenty, but, thats just my personal opinion. I dont like the i9 lineup for a general audience.

 

[LordVile]

What about the R9 chips

 

[hd7970ghz]

Just wanted to say I am very pleased with my purchase. It was just about the same cost in the end as an equivalent 3000 series Ryzen, and even then, it runs better framerates in video games.