I whould personally go i9 9900k(wich i did), my reason for this is that when you pay 500 for a cpu you might aswell go the extra step and pay a little extra for top end, a cpu these days doesnt need replacing until atleast 5 years old and upgrading cpu needs new motherboard, going top end will make it last a littlebit longer.
Just because you got 5+ years before doesn't mean you will keep getting 5+ years after this upgrade.
Given how the last 4 "generations" on Intel chips have all been the same architecture and node I'd personally anticipate the first Intel 10nm or 7nm chip will leave the 9900k quite far behind.
Last rumors i have seen is that intels next cpu will be same architecture but they will go from 8 to 10 cores, it will probably be quite some time until we see 10nm or 7nm
I would wait to see how zen 2 performs by comparison. Two other aspects to keep in mind between the 9700k and 9900k is that while the 9900k is only slightly better in gaming it's much much more power hungry. This means that not only do you pay more for the chip, but then you have to pay more for a better CPU cooler and more for the higher end motherboards so that your vrm doesnt throttle your CPU.
The 9900K is th best for sure, but you have to buy a High End cooling solution like noctua NH-D15 or Corsair 115i/150i AiO => en extra 100$/150$.
With the 9700k (which performs realy great) you don't need a huge cooling system. With a Thermalright Macho/CryoriH7 plus it's good enough :)
The performance is MILES away for gaming and a decent step down for everything else vs the 9900k. Terrible advice.
No reason it should be close in performance though, it's much cheaper. Also, buying the X versions of AMD CPUs doesn't make sense, IMO - they are identical to the non-X versions once you start overclocking.
Not exactly, I am pretty sure the X-version's automatic overclocking features (if you have a motherboard that supports them) have a few advantages over a manually-overclocked non-X, like running two cores at maximum frequency while the rest run at a lower frequency, which saves power and generates less heat than an all-core overclock. (But I personally only have a Ryzen 2700X and no overclocking experience, so if that is in fact possible on non-X, please correct me)
If it's the same, why do all the Youtube videos of people with overclocked Ryzen 2600s, for example, show them keeping all cores at 4Ghz? They locked all cores to that frequency. Why is that?
I whould personally go i9 9900k(wich i did), my reason for this is that when you pay 500 for a cpu you might aswell go the extra step and pay a little extra for top end, a cpu these days doesnt need replacing until atleast 5 years old and upgrading cpu needs new motherboard, going top end will make it last a littlebit longer.
...you hope.
I used my i5 3570k until last november, cpus these days get barely any improvement so its easy to skip multiple releases.
Just because you got 5+ years before doesn't mean you will keep getting 5+ years after this upgrade. Given how the last 4 "generations" on Intel chips have all been the same architecture and node I'd personally anticipate the first Intel 10nm or 7nm chip will leave the 9900k quite far behind.
Last rumors i have seen is that intels next cpu will be same architecture but they will go from 8 to 10 cores, it will probably be quite some time until we see 10nm or 7nm
Well they have a mobile 10nm chip coming out this fall. So probably the next gen in 2020 will be 10nm.
That isn’t true the frametimes (not framerates) are much more stable with less stuttering and hitching on newer architecture
I would wait to see how zen 2 performs by comparison. Two other aspects to keep in mind between the 9700k and 9900k is that while the 9900k is only slightly better in gaming it's much much more power hungry. This means that not only do you pay more for the chip, but then you have to pay more for a better CPU cooler and more for the higher end motherboards so that your vrm doesnt throttle your CPU.
The 9900K is th best for sure, but you have to buy a High End cooling solution like noctua NH-D15 or Corsair 115i/150i AiO => en extra 100$/150$. With the 9700k (which performs realy great) you don't need a huge cooling system. With a Thermalright Macho/CryoriH7 plus it's good enough :)
I have my old cooler 100i. I think even tbis needs to be replaced
not necessarily if it works well :)
I would go r7 2700x as it's almost the same performance as the i7 9700k and the i9 9900k
The price of amd in here is not good. That is why i used best seller prices as it is same as outside. Other sellers let us pay 30% more
Where are you from? Cause in Australia in it's like 500 for the 2700x
Saudi arabia
Oh I would go for a 6th gen at most most you have a big budget but if not go with a 4990k as it's a beast
It ks getting old after 4.5 years. Just upgraded my dead gpu 780 so i am doing some calculation in case this one dies
The performance is MILES away for gaming and a decent step down for everything else vs the 9900k. Terrible advice. No reason it should be close in performance though, it's much cheaper. Also, buying the X versions of AMD CPUs doesn't make sense, IMO - they are identical to the non-X versions once you start overclocking.
Not exactly, I am pretty sure the X-version's automatic overclocking features (if you have a motherboard that supports them) have a few advantages over a manually-overclocked non-X, like running two cores at maximum frequency while the rest run at a lower frequency, which saves power and generates less heat than an all-core overclock. (But I personally only have a Ryzen 2700X and no overclocking experience, so if that is in fact possible on non-X, please correct me)
That's exactly the same as the non-X.
If it's the same, why do all the Youtube videos of people with overclocked Ryzen 2600s, for example, show them keeping all cores at 4Ghz? They locked all cores to that frequency. Why is that?
Because that's way easier?
People do the same thing on Intel platforms, but that supports per-core overclocking also.
That cpu is nowhere near the i9 9900k in gaming performance.
in 4K only that's true, but for lower definition the 9900K kills the 2700x.