Why is the 9900K being compared to the 2700X?

[accountanonymous]

AMD's Threadripper is the i9 competitor. The Ryzen 7 is the i7 competitor, the Ryzen 5 is the i5 competitor, etc. So why is an i9 being compared to what is equivalently an i7? I get that they have the same C/T count, but I don't think anyone expects a $500 chip to beat a $300 one. It seems like the useful comparison is 9900k vs 2990WX and 9700K vs 2700X. That would allow people to see the benefits of hyper-threading and the usefulness of per-core speed in a given workload.

But I'm not an established tech publication, so what am I missing?

 

[Tugrul_512bit]

Imo, the catch is the remaining $200 after buying a 2700X instead of 9900k.

That extra $200 for GPU means choosing GTX1080 instead of GTX1070.

How much difference of FPS by picking GTX1080 instead of GTX1070?

+35 FPS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVdlUd6QBUw

But what if you choose 9900k instead of 2700x?

+20 FPS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8QRaYGq4dk

I prefer bottleneck on GPU because it means higher compute operations per second and games getting more and more GPU consuming. But they are not getting so much CPU focus.

Also not everyone fully gamers. Some need CUDA/OpenCL computing at times and this means Amd CPU lets us have 35% more GPU power for mathematics.

In mathematical concept, players are maximizing their happiness by optimizing prices and performances of all components. Naturally this operation converges to a GPU-friendly setup. Sometimes even just extra RAM bandwidth helps. Consider $200 for extra fast and extra amount of memory. This really helps Ryzen.

So, I'm asking now:

- 9900k + 1070 (blue pill)

versus

- 2700x + 1080 (red pill)

which one you choose?

 

[bradsctt]

You're missing that the while its labelled as an i9, the 9900k is on the mainstream platform rather than enthusiast X299.

Just as the i9 9900k is the top mainstream platform Intel CPU, the 2700X is the top mainstream platform AMD CPU.

That's why its being compared to the Ryzen 7. Because that's the fastest AMD competitor within the same market segment.

Threadripper is in an entirely different market segment, same as the i9 7***X CPU on X299.

 

[accountanonymous]

Imo, the catch is the remaining $200 after buying a 2700X instead of 9900k.

That extra $200 for GPU means choosing GTX1080 instead of GTX1070.

How much difference of FPS by picking GTX1080 instead of GTX1070?

+35 FPS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVdlUd6QBUw

But what if you choose 9900k instead of 2700x?

+20 FPS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8QRaYGq4dk

I prefer bottleneck on GPU because it means higher compute operations per second and games getting more and more GPU consuming. But they are not getting so much CPU focus.

Also not everyone fully gamers. Some need CUDA/OpenCL computing at times and this means Amd CPU lets us have 35% more GPU power for mathematics.

In mathematical concept, players are maximizing their happiness by optimizing prices and performances of all components. Naturally this operation converges to a GPU-friendly setup. Sometimes even just extra RAM bandwidth helps. Consider $200 for extra fast and extra amount of memory. This really helps Ryzen.

So, I'm asking now:

- 9900k + 1070 (blue pill)

versus

- 2700x + 1080 (red pill)

which one you choose? I suppose GTA guys pick blue pill and Tombraider guys pick red pill.

I think this is a completely different discussion. And it's interesting, but how does that relate to the press comparing the 9900K and 2700X?

I'm not asking to compare the 2700X and 9900K. I'm asking why comparing the 2 is the right question. Add to that, as you pointed out, that the 2700X is more of a mid-range workstation CPU then a gaming chip, and I'm even more confused. And yeah, the cost deficit you pointed out is important, but your comparison still seems like the wrong comparison.

Why is the 2700X the 9900K's competitor?

 

[accountanonymous]

You're missing that the while its labelled as an i9, the 9900k is on the mainstream platform rather than enthusiast X299.

Just as the i9 9900k is the top mainstream platform Intel CPU, the 2700X is the top mainstream platform AMD CPU.

That's why its being compared to the Ryzen 7. Because that's the fastest AMD competitor within the same market segment.

Threadripper is in an entirely different market segment, same as the i9 7***X CPU on X299.

So the Threadripper isn't the i9's competitor, it's the Extreme Edition's competitor?

 

[bradsctt]

In theory, yes.

 

[Tugrul_512bit]

Imo, the catch is the remaining $200 after buying a 2700X instead of 9900k.

That extra $200 for GPU means choosing GTX1080 instead of GTX1070.

How much difference of FPS by picking GTX1080 instead of GTX1070?

+35 FPS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVdlUd6QBUw

But what if you choose 9900k instead of 2700x?

+20 FPS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8QRaYGq4dk

I prefer bottleneck on GPU because it means higher compute operations per second and games getting more and more GPU consuming. But they are not getting so much CPU focus.

Also not everyone fully gamers. Some need CUDA/OpenCL computing at times and this means Amd CPU lets us have 35% more GPU power for mathematics.

In mathematical concept, players are maximizing their happiness by optimizing prices and performances of all components. Naturally this operation converges to a GPU-friendly setup. Sometimes even just extra RAM bandwidth helps. Consider $200 for extra fast and extra amount of memory. This really helps Ryzen.

So, I'm asking now:

- 9900k + 1070 (blue pill)

versus

- 2700x + 1080 (red pill)

which one you choose? I suppose GTA guys pick blue pill and Tombraider guys pick red pill.

I think this is a completely different discussion. And it's interesting, but how does that relate to the press comparing the 9900K and 2700X?

I'm not asking to compare the 2700X and 9900K. I'm asking why comparing the 2 is the right question. Add to that, as you pointed out, that the 2700X is more of a mid-range workstation CPU then a gaming chip, and I'm even more confused. And yeah, the cost deficit you pointed out is important, but your comparison still seems like the wrong comparison.

Why is the 2700X the 9900K's competitor?

i9 is the new i7

 

[vMax]

I think bradsctt explained it well and to elaborate a little more, it is 8 core and 16 thread Intel Mainstream platform versus 8 core and 16 thread AMD mainstream platform and regardless of the price (which is way, way to much on the Intel side) it is a direct comparison core for core, thread for thread...In fact, you can now measure against Gaming and Productivity at the highest mainstream CPU end of both manufactures. Yes the Intel i9-9900K wins pretty much across the board on all fronts which was not the case with there last mainstream lead CPU the 8700K which won the gaming side but lost the productivity side.

On the pricing side it's simple, Intel are still trying to get the maximum margin they can versus AMD who are trying to gain maximum market share. As AMD catch's up and continues to pile the pressure on, Intel will have to compete more and will drop prices, concurrently AMD will start upping there prices when they reach parity or even exceed Intel's performance (don't forget this is a business with shareholders and investors)...not to what Intel has got away with but then again, Intel have had no competition for a fair few years...Personally I think what is going on the the CPU space with AMD's resurgence is absolutely great in finally driving real competition giving us more choice and power across all price points and it should only get better with ZEN 2 and Intel's 10nm Ice Lake CPU's...I only wish AMD could also compete better with Nvidia and that would be all our Christmas's coming at the same time...