# Comprehensive Core i9-10900K Review Leaked: Suggests Intel Option Formidable



## btarunr (May 18, 2020)

A comprehensive review of the Intel Core i9-10900K 10-core/20-thread processor by Chinese tech publication TecLab leaked to the web on video sharing site bilibili. Its testing data reveals that Intel has a fighting chance against the Ryzen 9 3900X both in gaming- and non-gaming tasks despite a deficit of 2 cores; whereas the much pricier Ryzen 9 3950X only enjoys leads in multi-threaded synthetic- or productivity benchmarks. 

Much of Intel's performance leads are attributed to a fairly high core-count, significantly higher clock speeds than the AMD chips, and improved boosting algorithms, such as Thermal Velocity Boost helping the chip out in gaming tests. Where Intel loses hard to AMD is power-draw and energy-efficiency. TecLab tested the three chips with comparable memory- and identical graphics setups. 



 

 

 



More charts follow.





 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The games above are Assassin's Creed Odyssey, Metro: Exodus, and Tomb Raider. 

Find the video presentation (in Chinese language) here.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## XL-R8R (May 18, 2020)

Summery:  Intel finally gives users a viable alternative to AMD's 6 month old 3900x while using 10-20% more power.



Nothing much is news-worthy in this news.





Also @btarunr there is a spelling mistake; "change" should be "chance".



Edit - arent the games shown in the screenshots, the ones that usually favour clock speed/Intel CPU's any way?


----------



## XiGMAKiD (May 18, 2020)

Competition is (figuratively and literally) heating up


----------



## Dredi (May 18, 2020)

Their puget bech results are off by about 20% for the AMD systems when compared to benches run by puget itself. Seems a bit iffy.


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (May 18, 2020)

XL-R8R said:


> Summery:  Intel finally gives users a viable alternative to AMD's 6 month old 3900x while using 10-20% more power.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Isn’t it more than 10-20%? I’ve read board makers are prepared to give the chip 320-350W of headroom for max sustained TVB. That‘a more like 100% more than 3950X at 145W.


----------



## Dave65 (May 18, 2020)

Dredi said:


> Their puget bech results are off by about 20% for the AMD systems when compared to benches run by puget itself. Seems a bit iffy.



Very IFFY!


----------



## Firedrops (May 18, 2020)

the AMD figures for single core/gaming could easily be substituted within margin of error for the 3700x, then suddenly intel only has slight performance increase over the much cheaper AMD, and is comparatively overpriced.


----------



## Mats (May 18, 2020)

Darmok N Jalad said:


> Isn’t it more than 10-20%?


It's 29 % more than the 3900X in that test, probably not the CPU alone.



Darmok N Jalad said:


> I’ve read board makers are prepared to give the chip 320-350W of headroom for max sustained TVB. That‘a more like 100% more than 3950X at 145W.


I don't think it's a good idea to grab numbers from different sources.


----------



## willgart (May 18, 2020)

wow... 28% more power than the 3900X.... crazy hot !


----------



## Object55 (May 18, 2020)

Great news, Intel Top end chip almost beats AMD's midrange.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 18, 2020)

Kinda funny, now we're getting posts suggesting Intel are not too bad at gaming and are a viable option.

Where were the news posts declaring Ryzens as the same ,when intel were not formidable.


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (May 18, 2020)

Mats said:


> It's 29 % more than the 3900X in that test, probably not the CPU alone.
> 
> 
> I don't think it's a good idea to grab numbers from different sources.


My source was Anandtech, so I don’t have an issue with those numbers. 



> Users wanting the 10-core 5.3 GHz will need to purchase the new top Core i9-10900K processor, which has a unit price of $488, and keep it under 70 ºC to enable Intel’s new Thermal Velocity Boost. Not only that, despite the 125 W TDP listed on the box, Intel states that the turbo power recommendation is 250 W – the motherboard manufacturers we’ve spoken to have prepared for 320-350 W from their own testing, in order to maintain that top turbo for as long as possible.











						Intel’s 10th Gen Comet Lake for Desktops: Skylake-S Hits 10 Cores and 5.3 GHz
					






					www.anandtech.com


----------



## Decryptor009 (May 18, 2020)

So not really anything new then.

The intel chip is faster for my needs, but not fast enough to warrent the price hike and power consumption / heat hike either.

Generally, intel would need to be out pacing AMD something like 50% to even get me to consider it because AMD gives us such a great package at a great price, this is the difference intel, i think it would be nice if you know.. could learn?


----------



## Turmania (May 18, 2020)

They really needed the die shrink this launch.


----------



## ZoneDymo (May 18, 2020)

yeah if you push clock speeds and add more cores, im sure it is "formiddable".

cant wait for the 11900K or 20900K that has 12 cores and boosts to 5.5ghz that we can call once again "formiddable" while ignoring the rediculous power consumption and heat.


----------



## Mats (May 18, 2020)

Darmok N Jalad said:


> My source was Anandtech, so I don’t have an issue with those numbers.


Those are from documentation. Nothing wrong with Anandtech as a source, but pulling numbers from different sources is a tricky one.
I want side by side comparisons from benchmarks and measured power draw, like the OP. Not sure how legit this one is tho.



ZoneDymo said:


> cant wait for the 11900K or 20900K that has 12 cores and boosts to 5.5ghz that we can call once again "formiddable" while ignoring the rediculous power consumption and heat.


The next one is supposed to be the biggest improvement since 2015, so maybe it has a chance to be not as hot as Comet Lake.  Still 14 nm tho..


----------



## john_ (May 18, 2020)

The average consumer will buy this CPU, put a mid range water/air cooler on it and never see these numbers. 
On the other hand, the average consumer who will buy an AMD CPU, will put a mid range water/air cooler on it and probably see results close to these numbers.


----------



## Mats (May 18, 2020)

john_ said:


> The average consumer will buy this CPU, put a mid range water/air cooler on it and never see these numbers.


The average consumer doesn't buy a $500 CPU.


----------



## mat9v (May 18, 2020)

Results from Pugetsystems themselves:
AfterEffects - https://www.pugetsystems.com/pic_disp.php?id=58301&width=800
Photoshop - https://www.pugetsystems.com/pic_disp.php?id=58273&width=800
I don't think these chinese benchmarks are very... accurate.


----------



## john_ (May 18, 2020)

Mats said:


> The average consumer doesn't buy a $500 CPU.


I think you are wrong here. There are plenty who will buy the best CPU and then try to cut costs from other parts (mobo, PSU, etc....).

Also let's be a little logical here and don't expect the other person to explain the obvious. When I am saying about average consumer, I am not talking about the whole market, from Celerons to Threadrippers, I am talking about those who will buy that CPU. Maybe I should say "the average buyer of that CPU", but even then you could argue that the average buyer of that CPU has a masters degree in CPU cooling, overclocking, memory optimizations....


----------



## Decryptor009 (May 18, 2020)

john_ said:


> I think you are wrong here. There are plenty who will buy the best CPU and then try to cut costs from other parts (mobo, PSU, etc....).
> 
> Also let's be a little logical here and don't expect the other person to explain the obvious. When I am saying about average consumer, I am not talking about the whole market, from Celerons to Threadrippers, I am talking about those who will buy that CPU. Maybe I should say "the average buyer of that CPU", but even then you could argue that the average buyer of that CPU has a masters degree in CPU cooling, overclocking, memory optimizations....


Average consumers never pay $500 for a CPU, it is just plain common sense.

You also moved the goal posts making your whole statement very illogical in the end.


----------



## john_ (May 18, 2020)

Decryptor009 said:


> Average consumers never pay $500 for a CPU, it is just plain common sense.
> 
> You also moved the goal posts making your whole statement very illogical in the end.


Whatever makes you happy. 
I have learned not to argue with people who post half a line of "true facts".


----------



## E-curbi (May 18, 2020)

XiGMAKiD said:


> Competition is (figuratively and literally) heating up



Heat output decreases as silicon quality increases. Inverse relationship.

If your work applications can *truly* benefit from 20threads to get work completed quickly and you wish to take advantage of Intel's lower memory ddr4 latency values - there's always the option to pick up a 10900K selectively binned by one of the aftermarket sellers. Yea, it costs more for the higher performing bins, but if it's your work computer - there's an obvious Return on Investment if the CPU increases your ability to produce quickly.

Siliconlottery.com in Texas
Der8auer in Germany
8-Pack in the UK

I'd wait for Rocket Lake's improved ST performance later this year, but then only 8cores 16threads to work with. 

So the decision is better made by your work applications need for clock speed vs number of threads, which is always the case when selecting a work CPU from Intel or AMD.


----------



## SIGSEGV (May 18, 2020)

power hungry cpu. 
I don't know why I am so happy to see Intel having a hard time against AMD Ryzen to take the performance crown.


----------



## Mayclore (May 18, 2020)

Since I have no interest in trying to install a fusion reactor into my PC case, I'll stick with AMD.


----------



## Aldain (May 18, 2020)

Formidable?? Really??


----------



## watzupken (May 18, 2020)

john_ said:


> The average consumer will buy this CPU, put a mid range water/air cooler on it and never see these numbers.
> On the other hand, the average consumer who will buy an AMD CPU, will put a mid range water/air cooler on it and probably see results close to these numbers.



I don't disagree here. Most reviewers uses high end cooler and open air test bed for testing, with the purpose of letting the product run at its full potential. What they generally don't show is that most CPU coolers will not be able to handle the heat from the flagship Intel chips and won't trigger this "thermal velocity" clockspeed. If you want to overclock it further, better have an industrial chiller under the table to cool it.



Aldain said:


> Formidable?? Really??


Formidable power consumption and heat output. No previous consumer processor even comes close to these.


----------



## Daven (May 18, 2020)

If the 10th generation isn't available soon or there isn't enough volume to stay in stock for several months, then these Intel chips will be going up against AMD Zen 3 chips.


----------



## sutyi (May 18, 2020)

Depending on pricing everything can be a good deal to be honest.

Wonder what sort of cooling they'll provide for non-K SKUs tho.


----------



## RealNeil (May 18, 2020)

watzupken said:


> Formidable power consumption and heat output. No previous consumer processor even comes close to these.


Mitigating high heat output can get expensive. It also causes problems with a system in the long haul.
It's probably not worth it for many of us.


----------



## Mats (May 18, 2020)

SIGSEGV said:


> I don't know why I am so happy to see Intel having a hard time against AMD Ryzen to take the performance crown.


Oh yeah, and we all benefit from the competition. Intel will return with something interesting worth a new naming scheme, but this is the best they've got for now.

I have a wish list for a few more 14 nm names before Intel moves on, hopefully an eleven core *Plasma Lake*,
or preferrably the twelve core, with a single channel RAM controller (had to leave room for that extra core), *Big Bang Lake 1010x9990STFU^+++ .*

The Yucatan Impact Crater Lake would also be a nice nod to another disaster.  /s


----------



## Chrispy_ (May 18, 2020)

In all the benches where the 3950X comes last, it's a "lower is better" benchmark.


----------



## ARF (May 18, 2020)

WPrime runs in seconds, so yeah, less is more.


----------



## thesmokingman (May 18, 2020)

Damn... why even bother? It's 75w more for the same number of cores versus 3900x. AMD gives you 4 more cores for 44 more watts. Godamn!


----------



## ERazer (May 18, 2020)

if your serious about sustaining those OC you gonna need custom water loop

been there done that, custom loop is pain in the ass to maintain at least you only had to do it twice a year or so


----------



## phanbuey (May 18, 2020)

if I was going to build the ultimate gaming machine, I would get this, disable HT and see how far it could go on stock 10C/10T for games.

The dream would be a 5.3 or 5.4Ghz all 10 core clock no HT.  Curious to see if anyone does this.


----------



## Vya Domus (May 18, 2020)

XL-R8R said:


> Summery:  Intel finally gives users a viable alternative to AMD's 6 month old 3900x _while using 10-20% more power_.



That's optimistic.



Mats said:


> The average consumer doesn't buy a $500 CPU.



You ask people around here and they'll tell you X/Y/Z company is dead because their top of the line product is 1% slower.



phanbuey said:


> The dream would be a 5.3 or 5.4Ghz all 10 core clock no HT.  Curious to see if anyone does this.



The main reason these CPUs get faster and faster is not because of the core count, it's because they keep pushing single core Turbos. So whether you have 6 8 10 cores at 5.4 Ghz, it's going to be more or less the same.


----------



## KarymidoN (May 18, 2020)

ERazer said:


> if your serious about sustaining those OC you gonna need custom water loop
> 
> been there done that, custom loop is pain in the ass to maintain at least you only had to do it twice a year or so



I recently assembled my first custom Liquid Loop and boy is it pretty, yeah. Is it cool, yeah. But is it a pain in the ass o maintain? Hell yeah.
Even tho i added drain ports and designed it to be easy to clean, its so much pain to keep it running that, i'm not even 6 months in it and i'm already looking for reasons to go back to a more lazy solution.


----------



## thesmokingman (May 18, 2020)

KarymidoN said:


> I recently assembled my first custom Liquid Loop and boy is it pretty, yeah. Is it cool, yeah. But is it a pain in the ass o maintain? Hell yeah.
> Even tho i added drain ports and designed it to be easy to clean, its so much pain to keep it running that, i'm not even 6 months in it and i'm already looking for reasons to go back to a more lazy solution.



Dude, drain ports are a waste of time. Get QDC's, then you can drain from the QDC. Dedicated drain ports are circa 2010.


----------



## Mats (May 18, 2020)

Vya Domus said:


> You ask people around here and they'll tell you X/Y/Z company is dead because their top of the line product is 1% slower.


Indeed. So much drama and whining going on. I'd like to see a TPU telenovela based on some forum posts. (..and yeah, some of my own posts would probably be included lol)


----------



## phanbuey (May 18, 2020)

I just want to see the 9900ks drop in price so that i can lazy swap.


----------



## Mats (May 18, 2020)

phanbuey said:


> I just want to see the 9900ks drop in price so that i can lazy swap.


Not very likely, since Comet is on a different socket. Remember what happened to 8700K prices when 9900K came?

*Nothing.*








						Intel Core i7-8700K, 6C/12T, 3.70-4.70GHz, boxed ohne Kühler | Preisvergleich Geizhals EU
					

✔ Preisvergleich für Intel Core i7-8700K, 6C/12T, 3.70-4.70GHz, boxed ohne Kühler ✔ Bewertungen ✔ Produktinfo ⇒ Kerne: 6 • Threads: 12 • Turbotakt: 4.70GHz (Turbo Boost 2.0) • Basistakt: 3.70GHz… ✔ Intel ✔ Testberichte ✔ Günstig kaufen




					geizhals.eu


----------



## phanbuey (May 18, 2020)

Mats said:


> Not very likely, since Comet is on a different socket. Remember what heppened to 8700K when 9900K came?
> 
> Nothing.
> 
> ...



not on the retail sites, but I got my 8700 on ebay for like $280 when that happened, and the z370 mobo for basically free from a friend upgrading to z390... so Im hoping the second hand market is flooded by 9900k peeps ditching to AMD/new platform.  A $320 9900K would hold me over until DDR5 nicely i think.


----------



## Mats (May 18, 2020)

Could be wrong tho, I forgot about the Intel CPU shortage.

Yaeh the 9900K got a lot of flak but it's fast and not 10900K hot.


----------



## thesmokingman (May 18, 2020)

phanbuey said:


> I just want to see the 9900ks drop in price so that i can lazy swap.



It's probably a good time to try Zen 3.


----------



## Metroid (May 18, 2020)

This reminds me r600 https://www.techpowerup.com/review/ati-hd-2900-xt/ all over again. AMD at that time made a worse product than the one they had in the market, Intel did the same now.


----------



## dj-electric (May 18, 2020)

ITT: people who assume how hot the 10900K actually is to handle.


----------



## AnarchoPrimitiv (May 18, 2020)

The 3900x is going for about $420 right now while the MSRP retail price for the 10900k is about $520 (only the tray price is $488 when 1000 units are purchased)... so is it really that impressive for the 10900k to come close to (but still not soundly defeating) thr 3900x while costing approximately 25% more and using 20+% more power?


----------



## ppn (May 18, 2020)

try 10700K, at 409,99 price is a steal.
Zen3 will be losing in the future, compared to 5 and 3nm with triple transistor densities, it is always useless to argue power consumption and performance,. it is going to lose sooner than you think.


----------



## phanbuey (May 18, 2020)

ppn said:


> try 10700K, at 409,99 price is a steal.



Dont forget the $100 motherboard.



AnarchoPrimitiv said:


> The 3900x is going for about $420 right now while the MSRP retail price for the 10900k is about $520 (only the tray price is $488 when 1000 units are purchased)... so is it really that impressive for the 10900k to come close to (but still not soundly defeating) thr 3900x while costing approximately 25% more and using 20+% more power?



And... the crazy thing is that it's the 3900x  - the 4900x is around the corner so if the 10900k is already just barely competing with the 3900x it will get destroyed lol.


----------



## Vario (May 18, 2020)

Mats said:


> Could be wrong tho, I forgot about the Intel CPU shortage.
> 
> Yaeh the 9900K got a lot of flak but it's fast and not 10900K hot.


Its still pretty hot.  To run it on an aircooler, you have to underclock and undervolt it.


----------



## Mats (May 18, 2020)

phanbuey said:


> A $320 9900K would hold me over until DDR5 nicely i think.


Just because it's a decent second hand CPU it doesn't mean it's worth it. 
I mean, you already have an 8700K. Dunno what you're expecting from such an upgrade. Maybe wait for the post-Skylake-CPU's to get some real improvements with less power draw.
If you had a 4 core I wouldn't say anything.



Vario said:


> To run it on an aircooler, you have to underclock and undervolt it.


Even besides stress testing? I've never used one lol.


----------



## Vario (May 18, 2020)

Mats said:


> Just because it's a decent second hand CPU it doesn't mean it's worth it.
> I mean, you already have an 8700K. Dunno what you're expecting from such an upgrade. Maybe wait for the post-Skylake-CPU's to get some real improvements with less power draw.
> If you had a 4 core I wouldn't say anything.
> 
> ...


Yes, in my experience the 9900K gets really hot at stock parameters on a large aircooler (PHTC14PE).  Depends on your workload.  If all you do is look at firefox, its probably going to run fine.  If you do anything intensive with it and are using aircooler and a normal PC case with normal fans, you will want to underclock and undervolt it, at the very least make sure that your motherboard's long and short power limit are set properly, since the ASRock Z390 Taichi didn't seem to set these limits by default.

@phanbuey I'd keep the 8700K, 9900K isn't much of an upgrade unless you are into video compiling.


----------



## noel_fs (May 18, 2020)

This is mediocre and embarrassing. If they atleast had the decency to support a single platform for 4 years maybe this would be worth it with previous socket. But of course new socket so add easily 150$ for a 10900k build. At that point i would objectively wait for next zen generation.


----------



## AnarchoPrimitiv (May 18, 2020)

ppn said:


> try 10700K, at 409,99 price is a steal.
> Zen3 will be losing in the future, compared to 5 and 3nm with triple transistor densities, it is always useless to argue power consumption and performance,. it is going to lose sooner than you think.


Why is Zen3 losing in the future when we already know that OEMs are reporting 20%+ IPC improvements, that moving to 7nm EUV will gain 200-300Mhz in the clocks (possibly allowing Zen3's boost frequency to hit 5.0Ghz and basically taking away Intel's last, albeit pointless, source of pride), and that the amount of cores per CCX is going to be doubled.  We know from the reviews of the 3100 vs 3300x that the two vs one CCX topology respectively equated to an approximate 12% overall performance increase.  With Zen 3 doubling the cores per CCX, there's every reason to believe that this performance boost will help Zen3 in ADDITION to the 20+% IPC increase. 

So with the 20% IPC increase, the 200-300Mhz boost in clocks, and the doubling of cores per CCX, Zen3 could very well result in core for core performance gains vs Zen2 in the area of 30+%!  When it comes to rocket lake, we know there will be new core architecture, but the same old 14nm process.  I seriously doubt this will result in better performance gains than Zen3.  It was just leaked that OEMs testing early samples of Zen3 believe that not only will Zen3 maintain multicore application dominance, but that Zen3 might take the gaming performance crown as well..... Knowing all of that, I don't see how it's possible for you to believe Zen3 will be defeated by whatever intel squirts out


----------



## IceShroom (May 18, 2020)

Extra electric bill from those power consumption???
Or it is only matter when AMD's GPU/CPU cause it.


----------



## Mats (May 18, 2020)

Vario said:


> Yes, in my experience the 9900K gets really hot at stock parameters on a large aircooler (PHTC14PE).


The TPU review didn't give me that impression but I'll take your word for it.


----------



## ERazer (May 18, 2020)

dj-electric said:


> ITT: people who assume how hot the 10900K actually is to handle.



14nm *is* 14nm, then add 2 more core with higher boost, i pretty sure everyone can agree the lower your temp the better boost/sustain boost.

it doesn't take a rocket scientist to at least recognize this cpu gonna run hotter that  9900ks


----------



## phanbuey (May 18, 2020)

This is the true successor the original Pentium 4 D


----------



## Lokran88 (May 18, 2020)

KarymidoN said:


> I recently assembled my first custom Liquid Loop and boy is it pretty, yeah. Is it cool, yeah. But is it a pain in the ass o maintain? Hell yeah.
> Even tho i added drain ports and designed it to be easy to clean, its so much pain to keep it running that, i'm not even 6 months in it and i'm already looking for reasons to go back to a more lazy solution.



Sorry if that's offtopic but besides having to drain it once a year or even less often I am not having any work with it at all. Just runs and runs. But I am using soft tubing and clear cooling liquid.

Anyway, I did order a 10900k but still not sure if I might cancel it and wait rather for Zen 3.


----------



## thesmokingman (May 18, 2020)

phanbuey said:


> This is the true successor the original Pentium 4 D



It is starting to look like those Netburst days, do less with a lot more!


----------



## Mats (May 18, 2020)

Lokran88 said:


> Anyway, I did order a 10900k but still not sure if I might cancel it and wait rather for Zen 3.


What do you have right now? Don't you want to wait for some reviews?


----------



## Bee9 (May 18, 2020)

phanbuey said:


> .
> And... the crazy thing is that it's the 3900x  - the 4900x is around the corner so if the 10900k is already just barely competing with the 3900x it will get destroyed lol.


 beating a dead horse is still Beating...
Damn Intel needs a die shrink right now. I can’t wait for new Zen to come out and see intel drop their price to compete.


----------



## Vario (May 18, 2020)

Mats said:


> The TPU review didn't give me that impression but I'll take your word for it.


To simulate a worst case scenario, when I built that machine, I turned on Prime 95 with entirely stock out of the box settings, I hit 110C.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 18, 2020)

john_ said:


> I think you are wrong here. There are plenty who will buy the best CPU and then try to cut costs from other parts (mobo, PSU, etc....).
> 
> Also let's be a little logical here and don't expect the other person to explain the obvious. When I am saying about average consumer, I am not talking about the whole market, from Celerons to Threadrippers, I am talking about those who will buy that CPU. Maybe I should say "the average buyer of that CPU", but even then you could argue that the average buyer of that CPU has a masters degree in CPU cooling, overclocking, memory optimizations....


Your contradictory.

He means the actual average user , so he is right.

Your , average buyer of this chip knows what's what point, might be right.

But the Average user isn't him or her.

The average user buys a little below what they actually need typically and the mainstream doesn't start at i5 for no reason, this is a i9! It's too expensive for 90%+ out there.


----------



## Makaveli (May 18, 2020)

Will just leave this here.


----------



## Chrispy_ (May 18, 2020)

Mats said:


> Not very likely, since Comet is on a different socket. Remember what happened to 8700K prices when 9900K came?
> 
> *Nothing.*
> 
> ...


Exactly. The most powerful CPU you can fit in an older socket always goes up in price. 

I sold my 4790 (Wasn't even a K-model) for _more than I bought it for new_, because to someone with an S1150 i3 machine they get a huge upgrade without having to spend even more on a new motherboard and different RAM as well. That convenience massively increases the resale value of any high-end processor on a retired socket type.


----------



## Tomgang (May 18, 2020)

How cute, I9 10900K can almost beat zen 2 while warming up your house and set your power meter on overwork. No thanks, while It reaches impressive coreclock, it is still based on way to old tech (14nm), power hungry and running hot as he'll.

I think I will wait for zen 3 and see what it can do. I've been on X58 for 11 years now, so I can properly manage to wait a few more months before an upgrade and see what will come.


----------



## Chrispy_ (May 18, 2020)

How many of Intel's huge list of security vulnerabilities have been hardware-patched in Comet Lake?

I get the impression that vulnerabilities in the recycled Skylake architecture are being discovered at twice or even three times the rate that Intel can patch them in software, let alone hardware mitigations that are always at least 18 months behind the curve just because of the lenghty process between tapeout and a shipped product.


----------



## B-Real (May 18, 2020)

3900X: $410 with less power consumption
10900K: $488

That's a massive no. And Zen 3 is some months away, which will likely see another 15% IPC boost.


----------



## Mats (May 18, 2020)

Tomgang said:


> I've been on X58 for 11 years now, so I can properly manage to wait a few more months before an upgrade and see what will come.


Yeah, no matter if you go Intel or AMD, Comet Lake is not a worthy upgrade.


----------



## Tomgang (May 18, 2020)

Mats said:


> Yeah, no matter if you go Intel or AMD, Comet Lake is not a worthy upgrade.



Intel has not been a worthy upgrade for a long time now. They been on 14 NM for 5-6 years and that is way to long. You can clearly see what that means. AMD now has the over all better choises and the fastest as well (Intel can't do much to threadripper). While Intel win on games and coreclock respectively, they lose in technology, power consumption, heat and multicore performance.

I will not pay for old reused tech from Intel. I will either upgrade to zen 3 or wait for Intel 10 nm... Maybe.


----------



## ARF (May 18, 2020)

B-Real said:


> 3900X: $410 with less power consumption
> 10900K: $488
> 
> That's a massive no. And Zen 3 is some months away, which will likely see another 15% IPC boost.




Maybe even more 






__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1260944035444920325


----------



## Vario (May 18, 2020)

Chrispy_ said:


> Exactly. The most powerful CPU you can fit in an older socket always goes up in price.
> 
> I sold my 4790 (Wasn't even a K-model) for _more than I bought it for new_, because to someone with an S1150 i3 machine they get a huge upgrade without having to spend even more on a new motherboard and different RAM as well. That convenience massively increases the resale value of any high-end processor on a retired socket type.


If you have a long term plan in place, its a decent plan to buy a high end motherboard and high end CPU, and then parting them out several years later when the platform has hit obsolescence. People do pay a lot for the best possible processor on a obsolete socket. There is a bit of a sunken cost fallacy to it: they have a motherboard and ram and do not want to upgrade either of them so they pay a lot for a CPU.  Same with the motherboard, they have a decent but older system and the motherboard fails: they already have the CPU and ram and so will pay a lot for a good condition motherboard of the same socket as their dead one just to keep their system alive.  Premium obsolete ITX motherboards really go up in value because they are even scarcer.


----------



## Lokran88 (May 18, 2020)

Mats said:


> What do you have right now? Don't you want to wait for some reviews?



Yeah, I am well aware that I got nothing. And I don't think that it is a bad chip. It is just less competitive on this node with an old arch drawing more power than necessary. So I might consider to wait a little more and then decide.


----------



## Mats (May 18, 2020)

Lokran88 said:


> Yeah, I am well aware that I got nothing.


No, I meant, what CPU have you got right now? What are you upgrading from?


----------



## Lokran88 (May 18, 2020)

Mats said:


> No, I meant, what CPU have you got right now? What are you upgrading from?



Ahh, sorry, got you. 

Nah, can't tell you cause you will call me dumb, lol.

Actually got a 8700k @ 5 GHZ. But I got someone who would need it and would sell it then for cheap.

I am aware that the 300 MHZ more boost and 4 cores 8 threads probably aren't worth the upgrade. I just could afford it and don't care about the money that much.

 But yeah, really considering to cancel order and wait for Zen 3 or RKL or even Alder Lake.


----------



## Lindatje (May 18, 2020)

Intel: AMD, we have beat the Ryzen 3000 serie..... lol.

AMD: Great job Intel, you have indeed a higher score in the wattage meter....

Intel: %$@%#^ AMD, %$#@!$...


----------



## Mats (May 18, 2020)

Lokran88 said:


> But yeah, really considering to cancel order and wait for Zen 3 or RKL or even Alder Lake.


They all sounds like more fun upgrades.


----------



## Cybrshrk (May 18, 2020)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Kinda funny, now we're getting posts suggesting Intel are not too bad at gaming and are a viable option.
> 
> Where were the news posts declaring Ryzens as the same ,when intel were not formidable.



What? AMD has yet to ever take the gaming crown once since introducing ryzen after all the releases and all the years passed they never took the gaming title.

Whu


Lindatje said:


> Intel: AMD, we have beat the Ryzen 3000 serie..... lol.
> 
> AMD: Great job Intel, you have indeed a higher score in the wattage meter....
> 
> Intel: %$@%#^ AMD, %$#@!$...


 
Why is it all you fanboys love to leave out the part where Intel has never been beaten in gaming performance since introducing ryzen. Not once. 

For some this is  all the news and yet you guys can't even manage to mention it. 

I'll sell everything and go ryzen the minute they have that crown (heck I said that back in 2017 and I absolutely meant it) but still 3 years later when I'm ready to upgrade and I'm looking for the best gaming performance once again. I'm left with only one option like last time. Intel.



Mats said:


> Just because it's a decent second hand CPU it doesn't mean it's worth it.
> I mean, you already have an 8700K. Dunno what you're expecting from such an upgrade. Maybe wait for the post-Skylake-CPU's to get some real improvements with less power draw.
> If you had a 4 core I wouldn't say anything.
> 
> ...


Sold my 7700k couple days ago for $300 (originally cost $350 in 2017) and am going from the top gaming performance of that time to the new top gaming performance of today (and its still Intel). 

I been saying since the 1800x and when I canceled my order for it ill go ryzen when they can actually take the top spot for gaming (the only thing that matters to me).



noel_fs said:


> This is mediocre and embarrassing. If they atleast had the decency to support a single platform for 4 years maybe this would be worth it with previous socket. But of course new socket so add easily 150$ for a 10900k build. At that point i would objectively wait for next zen generation.


Buy ryzen 4000 this year and you're looking at the exact same thing the next time you want to upgrade. At least with the 1200 Socket and 10900k you have atleast 1 generation more of upgrades (rocket lake). Can't say that if you go 4000 series and x570 (it's EOL).  AM4 will be replaced after this year.



AnarchoPrimitiv said:


> Why is Zen3 losing in the future when we already know that OEMs are reporting 20%+ IPC improvements, that moving to 7nm EUV will gain 200-300Mhz in the clocks (possibly allowing Zen3's boost frequency to hit 5.0Ghz and basically taking away Intel's last, albeit pointless, source of pride), and that the amount of cores per CCX is going to be doubled.  We know from the reviews of the 3100 vs 3300x that the two vs one CCX topology respectively equated to an approximate 12% overall performance increase.  With Zen 3 doubling the cores per CCX, there's every reason to believe that this performance boost will help Zen3 in ADDITION to the 20+% IPC increase.
> 
> So with the 20% IPC increase, the 200-300Mhz boost in clocks, and the doubling of cores per CCX, Zen3 could very well result in core for core performance gains vs Zen2 in the area of 30+%!  When it comes to rocket lake, we know there will be new core architecture, but the same old 14nm process.  I seriously doubt this will result in better performance gains than Zen3.  It was just leaked that OEMs testing early samples of Zen3 believe that not only will Zen3 maintain multicore application dominance, but that Zen3 might take the gaming performance crown as well..... Knowing all of that, I don't see how it's possible for you to believe Zen3 will be defeated by whatever intel squirts out


Judging by history and how every time before has went Intel is the safer bet of pure gaming is your goal.


----------



## Mats (May 18, 2020)

Cybrshrk said:


> Sold my 7700k couple days ago for $300 (originally cost $350 in 2017) and am going from the top gaming performance of that time to the new top gaming performance of today (and its still Intel).


Well you had a 4 core so I don't see have that have anything to do with the quote from me. It's not like I disagree with you here.


----------



## Cybrshrk (May 18, 2020)

I


Lokran88 said:


> Sorry if that's offtopic but besides having to drain it once a year or even less often I am not having any work with it at all. Just runs and runs. But I am using soft tubing and clear cooling liquid.
> 
> Anyway, I did order a 10900k but still not sure if I might cancel it and wait rather for Zen 3.


 Use hard tubing and just have to clean my loop about once a year as well no big deal its 1 day of 365 and my Temps stay awesome and my oc's strong. 

BTW where did you go for your 10900k pre order. I had the unfortunate luck to go with newegg business (rip) lol 

So we will see what happens but I'm not sure if I'll see it this week or not.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 18, 2020)

Cybrshrk said:


> What? AMD has yet to ever take the gaming crown once since introducing ryzen after all the releases and all the years passed they never took the gaming title.
> 
> Whu
> 
> ...



But... there are already games that run better on Ryzen than they do on Intel. Going forward, there is little reason to believe that will not get better. And on top of that, the Zen CPUs do it without burning a hole in your wallet for extra cooling.

And on top of THAT... how CPU limited are you really if you buy any high end CPU? For me the verdict was out with Ryzen 3000, to be honest. There is no real reason to go blue, but there are notable disadvantages to it. Do you really want to double or triple the power budget on your CPU for 5 FPS? You could run a new GPU on that alone.


----------



## Cybrshrk (May 18, 2020)

thesmokingman said:


> It's probably a good time to try Zen 3.


As soon as they take the gaming crown I'm down.



Vayra86 said:


> But... there are already games that run better on Ryzen than they do on Intel. Going forward, there is little reason to believe that will not get better. And on top of that, the Zen CPUs do it without burning a hole in your wallet for extra cooling.
> 
> And on top of THAT... how CPU limited are you really if you buy any high end CPU? For me the verdict was out with Ryzen 3000, to be honest. There is no real reason to go blue, but there are notable disadvantages to it. Do you really want to double or triple the power budget on your CPU for 5 FPS?


Biggest "other reasons" I've seen.... 
Stability 

Of the 4 ryzen builds I've helped friends with (and my own 3600 secondary system) not 1 has booted up and just ran. All had problems booting and several have had issue staying stable and friends have had to call me multiple times to troubleshoot a dead pc after a shut down. I eventually even had it happen to me this March and required me unplugging the system holding power button for several minutes and leaving it alone for over an hour before it came back. 

Just a lot of trouble really. 

The other reason is resale value (which is very important to me) 

My 2017 7700k originally cost me $350 and I just sold it a couple days ago for $300 (many go for this and more on ebay every single day) at the same time my buddy wanted to sell his 2017 $500 ryzen 1800x and he couldn't even get a buyer at $150.

Intel just holds its value better and even though today a 3300x at less than $200 can keep up people would rather pay me $300 to get my 7700k. 

There are other reasons but outside of gaming these are the other 2 major ones that have me going Intel once again. Maybe one day of amd can truly claim the best gaming performance things will change but until then I'll have to stick with Intel.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 18, 2020)

Cybrshrk said:


> As soon as they take the gaming crown I'm down.
> 
> 
> Biggest "other reasons" I've seen....
> ...



YMMV as usual, and faith in a brand has to grow in any case, so it is ultimately all up to you. All I can say is, I've built a couple 3600 rigs too, and they are all running perfectly fine, and the whole process from assembly to Windows boot and usage was virtually as simple as it was on the Intel's I've built over the last ten years. There is only a tiny, tiny part of emotion in it for me; Intel has not been doing us favors the last couple of years; not with their product portfolio (total stagnation) and definitely not with their 'security' problems. A microcode can hit you any day of the week. I don't call that reassuring. AMD has suffered a lot less from this, as they have a more modern architecture at its core. I like to support that, because I believe Intel has no real answers to that just yet.

A big one for Ryzen builds is part selection. We've gotten lazy building on Intel you could just mix and match anything in terms of RAM, board etc and the line up was always similar and familiar (H-Z-etc)..

Your reasons are valid though. If you make the jump and the experience is shit, there is no way you will recommend it. About resale value though... that will change rapidly and if you buy a recent Ryzen it won't resell for less than a similar Intel. There's just no way, the brand dominance is fading fast and the product isn't objectively faster. Another big thing is that Ryzen CPUs in the higher segment are very well binned too, to even achieve their performance so there is also silicon quality in play, which isn't in play on Intel. There are lots of stories about miserable OC"s on Intel from stock. My 8700K is a good example of a CPU that just managed to pass the QC check. If I look at 50x multiplier funny, the CPU says no. It runs great on lower volts, but above 4.9? Forget it. And that was a few gens ago... this has not improved.

Some considerations  Note, I also am a high refresh rate gamer, I would never go back to sub 120 FPS target. I even sacrifice resolution for it. I would still build a Ryzen rig if I had to upgrade tomorrow.


----------



## Mats (May 18, 2020)

Cybrshrk said:


> Why is it all you fanboys love to leave out the part where Intel has never been beaten in gaming performance since introducing ryzen. Not once.


Don't call people that, it's rude.

Everyone already knows that Intel is faster in most games, but not all. Check the 3700X review here if you don't believe me.

You fail to realize where all the hate comes from: power consumption and heat.

Yeah, top gaming performance, but at what cost? The days of efficient Intel CPU's like the 2700K that crushed everything are long gone.
(Yeah I pick the 2700K just because most people have forgotten about it.)


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 18, 2020)

Cybrshrk said:


> As soon as they take the gaming crown I'm down.
> 
> 
> Biggest "other reasons" I've seen....
> ...


I would not pay $300.

And clearly sarcasm ain't your thing.
My point was intel have always had gaming at 1080p as a go-to reprieve from being owned on performance charts, so how is this news.


----------



## Bee9 (May 18, 2020)

Makaveli said:


> Will just leave this here.



3900X is a rendering beast.



Cybrshrk said:


> Why is it all you fanboys love to leave out the part where Intel has never been beaten in gaming performance since introducing ryzen. Not once.



I will just quote Linus Tech Tips here: "If you do any real work and gaming at the same time, get the Ryzen 3900X. "
It runs cooler, consume less power, and provide better value for multi-threaded application. 
Most people don't play games for a living, so it depends on your need. If gaming is all your life, (like pro SC2 player in Korea), then Intel is your number one choice. 
If my Ryzen loses by 5% or even 10% -15% in gaming but it will help me do my work faster, I am willing to sacrifice the gaming performance. I need to make money first. When my 9900K priced at $500 get smoked by the cheaper 3900X (priced at $420), I know it's time for upgrading. The 10900K pricing will need to be adjusted to match the competition. I hope it will be around $400 mark shortly after hitting the shelf. 
Back to gaming: For Starcraft 2 pro players, Intel is a must. But for casual streamers, I can see many of them can benefit from more cores because of the heavy applications they run in the background (video capture and encoding, uploading videos, discord, VoIP etc...).


----------



## msimax (May 18, 2020)

intels 109590K


----------



## ERazer (May 18, 2020)

Cybrshrk said:


> My 2017 7700k originally cost me $350 and I just sold it a couple days ago for $300 (many go for this and more on ebay every single day) at the same time my buddy wanted to sell his 2017 $500 ryzen 1800x and he couldn't even get a buyer at $150.


 Good for you and all but why the hell on earth someone would pay $300 for 7700k, that some amazing sweet talking.


----------



## Mats (May 18, 2020)

ERazer said:


> Good for you and all but why the hell on earth someone would pay $300 for 7700k, that some amazing sweet talking.


That's what I thought, but then I checked and saw three different used ones sold for about $280 each last month, crazy.


----------



## Chrispy_ (May 18, 2020)

Cybrshrk said:


> Intel has never been beaten in gaming performance since introducing ryzen. Not once.



My personal opinion is that the CPU crown doesn't matter for gaming for most people. I think the niche that makes the small difference between an Intel CPU and AMD CPU in gaming only matters to people trying to get 240fps at 1080p for their 240Hz monitor.

Everyone else will be bottlenecked by GPU in most titles - Even with a 2080Ti. If you want to buy an expensive processor that's absolutely fine, and everyone's right to choose, but unless you have some godlike GPU solution that shifts the bottleneck from GPU to CPU, almost any midrange CPU will do a good enough job.

There are plenty of reviews out there painting the 3300X as the best gaming option right now, because the money saved buying that instead of a 9900KF can be put towards the GPU budget. I'm not saying you should necessarily pair a 3300X with a 2080Super, but those two will cost you the same as a 9900KF and a 6GB vanilla RTX 2060. Obviously the 2080Super combination is the vastly superior gaming choice.

The only crown that matters to most people is performance/$ and when it comes to gaming that's rarely anywhere near the absolute performance crown. If you have enough money to throw at a 2080Ti then you can probably afford to buy whatever CPU you want, and the monitor to go with it. Meanwhile, something like 99.4% of all DIY PCs are built to a sub-$2000 budget (source, PCpartpicker).


----------



## Lokran88 (May 18, 2020)

Cybrshrk said:


> BTW where did you go for your 10900k pre order. I had the unfortunate luck to go with newegg business (rip) lol



I think we are all in the same boat here. I am in Germany so telling you where I preordered will be useless but I can tell you that only two big retailers in Germany have even listed it since last wednesday and none of them have it available.

They responded to my mail this morning telling me that they do not know when it will arrive and the vendor/producer also did not update them on availability.

I don't know if this also might have to do with Corona but as I heard Intel was always having trouble to deliver at release since they were having general 14nm shortage


----------



## QUANTUMPHYSICS (May 18, 2020)

Intel keeps smoking AMD in gaming.


----------



## ERazer (May 18, 2020)

Mats said:


> That's what I thought, but then I checked and saw three different used ones sold for about $280 each last month, crazy.



I had that dilemma from previous rig, I had 6800k  and my upgrade path was 6950x if i wanna keep mobo  which around $700 plus on eBay 

At least you now no need to cross HEDT platform to have more cores, thanks AMD 

TBH, ppl should stop with intel vs AMD,  it should be old rig vs best upgrade you can afford


----------



## Mats (May 18, 2020)

Cybrshrk said:


> Buy ryzen 4000 this year and you're looking at the exact same thing the next time you want to upgrade.


That way of reasoning works both ways. Buy a 9900KF and you'll have no upgrade options, and nothing came before it for the Z390 boards. (The 9900K and the 8000 is the same generation)
As it stands now, the AM4 boards works with two or three generations of CPU's.

Z390? One generation. Picking the AM4 socket at the end of its life cycle isn't really the same thing.


----------



## ppn (May 18, 2020)

No upgrade options for 9900k, a kickass product. No need to really. With ZeN you had to upgrade every year. Just because there was a new model of bates 4000. And thats somehow a plus. Laughable. They couldn't make it right the first time kept improving it. And in the end CCX latency, memory controller is a separate chip. Far from finished. Bates 5000 is just around the corner.  Motherboard makers will push for new socket every year. Just refuse to release new bios and force your wallets.


----------



## Decryptor009 (May 18, 2020)

ppn said:


> No upgrade options for 9900k, a kickass product. No need to really. With ZeN you had to upgrade every year. Just because there was a new model of bates 4000. And thats somehow a plus. Laughable. They couldn't make it right the first time kept improving it. And in the end CCX latency, memory controller is a separate chip. Far from finished. Bates 5000 is just around the corner.  Motherboard makers will push for new socket every year. Just refuse to release new bios and force your wallets.


Objectively, Ryzen is much more a kickass product because it reigns in more money for the company and gives consumers something great at a lower cost.

9900K is a great CPU, it's cost is not though.

The rest of your words is just inferiority and projecting the issue of spending so much money.

Moving forwards, AMD will just increase in dominance.


----------



## Mysteoa (May 18, 2020)

thesmokingman said:


> Damn... why even bother? It's 75w more for the same number of cores versus 3900x. AMD gives you 4 more cores for 44 more watts. Godamn!



10900k is a 10 core not a 12 core. So its 44W for 6 cores less and 75w for 2 core less.


----------



## Mats (May 18, 2020)

ppn said:


> No need to really.


What a weird comment. As if upgrade options were drawback.. nice way to spin it when Intel stops innovating. Good one.


----------



## Daven (May 18, 2020)

ppn said:


> No upgrade options for 9900k, a kickass product. No need to really. With ZeN you had to upgrade every year. Just because there was a new model of bates 4000. And thats somehow a plus. Laughable. They couldn't make it right the first time kept improving it. And in the end CCX latency, memory controller is a separate chip. Far from finished. Bates 5000 is just around the corner.  Motherboard makers will push for new socket every year. Just refuse to release new bios and force your wallets.



This person is a wccftech commentor. I wouldn't recommend responding to any of his/her comments as they bring down the level of conversation to the craziness that goes on in wccftech's comment system.


----------



## Mats (May 18, 2020)

ppn said:


> With ZeN you had to upgrade every year.


The 3900X cost €100 less, is 13 % faster in TPU's benchmarking tests, and 1.6 % slower in gaming at 1440 (1.1 at 4k), than a 9900K.

Tell me again, why would anyone have to upgrade the 3900K but not the 9900K?


----------



## Bee9 (May 19, 2020)

Mats said:


> The 3900X cost €100 less, is 13 % faster in TPU's benchmarking tests, and 1.6 % slower in gaming at 1440 (1.1 at 4k), than a 9900K.
> 
> Tell me again, why would anyone have to upgrade the 3900K but not the 9900K?


Because some people value that 1.6% in gaming than anything.


----------



## moproblems99 (May 19, 2020)

Man, this is like what GPUs have been like for a sweet while.  How interesting for AMD to be on both ends.


----------



## dicktracy (May 19, 2020)

Skylake still the fastest gaming CPU to date... LMFAO. When is ARM joining the battle again?


----------



## WeeRab (May 19, 2020)

The numbers are all run on a system with EK watercooling.   Pulling 337w whist running AIDA64 is verging on criminal.
 May be different when some proper reviews are done...but we were warned by the M/board makers the 10900k was a 'hot' chip.



QUANTUMPHYSICS said:


> Intel keeps smoking AMD in gaming.


Yeah...With a 337w power draw.  It's smoking alright.


----------



## Crackong (May 19, 2020)

IDK why but TPU should cap this one for power consumption.
The test uses the whole system power consumption.







3900x machine: idle 126W , Full CPU load: 263W
10900k machine: idle 107W , Full CPU load: 338W
3950x machine: idle 128W , Full CPU load: 306W

From my own experience, Ryzen idles ~30-ish W , Intel idles ~20
For a rough guess, let's take 90W out from the idle power consumption.

So for CPU only:
3900x:   173W
10900k: 248W
3950x :  216W

10900k is 43.35% more power hungry than 3900x.


----------



## Sabishii Hito (May 19, 2020)

Enough with the CPU comparisons, I want to see what the IMC on these things can do.  I wonder if DDR4-5200 will be capable with most samples provided a board that can handle it.


----------



## watzupken (May 19, 2020)

sutyi said:


> Depending on pricing everything can be a good deal to be honest.
> 
> Wonder what sort of cooling they'll provide for non-K SKUs tho.



When you mentioned pricing, you need for factor in a new Z490 board, a decent PSU and a high end cooler. While Intel have reluctantly drop prices on the CPU, cost of other components to get it to work have gone up. I don't even think the stock cooler that comes with the non K version will be able to keep up with the heat, and the Thermal Velocity feature likely won't work with stock cooler.



ppn said:


> try 10700K, at 409,99 price is a steal.
> Zen3 will be losing in the future, compared to 5 and 3nm with triple transistor densities, it is always useless to argue power consumption and performance,. it is going to lose sooner than you think.


Yes, it sounds "cheap" until you factor in you need a new Z490 board, a high end cooler, and perhaps a good PSU (case by case basis). 

Zen 3 will lose in the future, that is correct. But till Intel comes out with a 7nm, 5nm or even 3nm processor, they will still be the underdog with no product to compete. And also, its not like Zen 3 is the last product that AMD is releasing and they will not wait around for Intel to respond. Perhaps if you have some insights as to when Intel's 5nm will be out since you mentioned AMD will lose sooner than we know? I know you sound like you are defending for Intel, but your defense is full of loopholes and unreasonable.


----------



## EarthDog (May 19, 2020)

Lol at the notion for an extra psu. 550-650W is going to be plenty.



Sabishii Hito said:


> Enough with the CPU comparisons, I want to see what the IMC on these things can do.  I wonder if DDR4-5200 will be capable with most samples provided a board that can handle it.


I highly doubt anything that close.


----------



## Gungar (May 19, 2020)

AnarchoPrimitiv said:


> Why is Zen3 losing in the future when we already know that OEMs are reporting 20%+ IPC improvements, that moving to 7nm EUV will gain 200-300Mhz in the clocks (possibly allowing Zen3's boost frequency to hit 5.0Ghz and basically taking away Intel's last, albeit pointless, source of pride), and that the amount of cores per CCX is going to be doubled.  We know from the reviews of the 3100 vs 3300x that the two vs one CCX topology respectively equated to an approximate 12% overall performance increase.  With Zen 3 doubling the cores per CCX, there's every reason to believe that this performance boost will help Zen3 in ADDITION to the 20+% IPC increase.
> 
> So with the 20% IPC increase, the 200-300Mhz boost in clocks, and the doubling of cores per CCX, Zen3 could very well result in core for core performance gains vs Zen2 in the area of 30+%!  When it comes to rocket lake, we know there will be new core architecture, but the same old 14nm process.  I seriously doubt this will result in better performance gains than Zen3.  It was just leaked that OEMs testing early samples of Zen3 believe that not only will Zen3 maintain multicore application dominance, but that Zen3 might take the gaming performance crown as well..... Knowing all of that, I don't see how it's possible for you to believe Zen3 will be defeated by whatever intel squirts out



Ofc Zen 3 won't boost to 5.0 on TSMC fab...


----------



## ZoneDymo (May 19, 2020)

QUANTUMPHYSICS said:


> Intel keeps smoking AMD in gaming.



Are we looking at the same charts? I see at max a 6 fps difference...you cant even notice that unless you actively switch between the two....
I mean if you play on low settings on 1080p or below, basically if are a "pro" high fps player in CSGO sure go intel.

But if you are a more mainstream? or average gamer, they tend to prefere high resolutions and all the settings cranked, meaning you wont benefit from that Intel cpu at all, you would just be buying an aged cpu in a new suit.


----------



## coozie78 (May 19, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> Lol at the notion for an extra psu. 550-650W is going to be plenty.



I doubt anyone purchasing this type of CPU is likely to get away with a 550W unit unless they pair it with a weak GPU.
Put this beast into a system with a RTX2080,overclock it and you'll get what >500W peak gaming draw? To cope <>750W would be more sensible.


----------



## EarthDog (May 19, 2020)

coozie78 said:


> I doubt anyone purchasing this type of CPU is likely to get away with a 550W unit unless they pair it with a weak GPU.
> Put this beast into a system with a RTX2080,overclock it and you'll get what >500W peak gaming draw? To cope <>750W would be more sensible.


650W is plenty if you want to set it up like that. But that said, at 5.2 ghz all c/t with rtx 2070, I dont see 450W at the wall..

750W psu for a 500W load is paying too much for no reason. 650W is plenty for that.


----------



## Chrispy_ (May 19, 2020)

Crackong said:


> So for CPU only:
> 3900x:   173W
> 10900k: 248W
> 3950x :  216W
> ...


For what it's worth, I've built a lot of 3900X and a handful of 3950X and those are PBO+ numbers on high-end boards with the upper limit of what you'll see in terms of PPT, TDC, EDC limits. Those limits are much higher than AMD's spec, which permits a 65W CPU to have an 88W PPT and a 105W CPU to have a 142W PPT.

I *guarantee* you will get within 25-50MHz boost clocks (so performance will be between 0.5% and 1% lower) on the 3900X using a more normal motherboard that delivers 142W PPT and my experience of the 3950X is that it's maybe 10% hungrier, give or take, so it will be a fraction slower at 142W but it will still definitely meet the rated clockspeeds, even when using the 3900X's stock cooler (though it's damn noisy when trying to handle a 3950X!)

Although PBO+ is a 'stock feature', the AMD spec for a 105W CPU is 142W - meaning that both the 3900X and 3950X are capable of meeting their rated clocks at 142W or lower.

PBO+ on high-end motherboards qualifies as a factory overclock that goes beyond AMD's stock settings. It is massively inefficient and guzzles tons of extra power for very little extra performance. Nobody is going to buy a $300 overclocking board and use cheap air cooling so that's fine - but it needs to be taken into consideration when comparing "stock" performance/Watt figures because overclocking-focused boards will automatically overclock the CPU through PBO+ to well beyond the sweet spot on the efficiency curve. As someone building rendering nodes that are running 24/7 all-core loads, the efficiency curve matters a lot to me.



EarthDog said:


> 750W psu for a 500W load is paying too much for no reason. 650W is plenty for that.


A 650W PSU for a 500W load is fine, but remember that PSU efficiency is highest at around 50% load.

A 650W PSU will certainly do the job for the warranty period but it'll run hotter and louder and is less likely to last as long past the warranty period. The biggest thing that degrades PSU components is heat, and the best way to keep a PSU cool is to operate well below its peak load and in its most efficient operation range.


----------



## Mats (May 19, 2020)

Bee9 said:


> Because some people value that 1.6% in gaming than anything.


I get that, but saying that the 9900K doesn't need to be replaced at some point is just silly.


----------



## Dredi (May 19, 2020)

AnarchoPrimitiv said:


> Why is Zen3 losing in the future when we already know that OEMs are reporting 20%+ IPC improvements, that moving to 7nm EUV will gain 200-300Mhz in the clocks (possibly allowing Zen3's boost frequency to hit 5.0Ghz and basically taking away Intel's last, albeit pointless, source of pride), and that the amount of cores per CCX is going to be doubled.  We know from the reviews of the 3100 vs 3300x that the two vs one CCX topology respectively equated to an approximate 12% overall performance increase.  With Zen 3 doubling the cores per CCX, there's every reason to believe that this performance boost will help Zen3 in ADDITION to the 20+% IPC increase.
> 
> So with the 20% IPC increase, the 200-300Mhz boost in clocks, and the doubling of cores per CCX, Zen3 could very well result in core for core performance gains vs Zen2 in the area of 30+%!  When it comes to rocket lake, we know there will be new core architecture, but the same old 14nm process.  I seriously doubt this will result in better performance gains than Zen3.  It was just leaked that OEMs testing early samples of Zen3 believe that not only will Zen3 maintain multicore application dominance, but that Zen3 might take the gaming performance crown as well..... Knowing all of that, I don't see how it's possible for you to believe Zen3 will be defeated by whatever intel squirts out


The CCX topology change just means better IPC in some applications, and is thus included in the possible ”20% IPC increase”. (application specific)Performance = (application specific)IPC * clock speed, there is no CCX topology in that equation.

20% increase in IPC and some 200MHz in clock speeds for budget chips would be plenty, dont be greedy in your predictions. The top end of the clock speed spectrum won’t likely get that much more anyway due to the exponential relationship with power consumption and clocks. So base clocks get maybe 200-300MHz boost and the top end possibly 100MHz.

The top products will be fast af and cost an arm and a leg as there is no competition. Budget chips like 4600 will be truly awesome though in all aspects.


----------



## EarthDog (May 19, 2020)

Chrispy_ said:


> A 650W PSU for a 500W load is fine, but remember that PSU efficiency is highest at around 50% load.


True... but to what end? You are aware how flat the efficiency curve is, right? At most, the difference between tiers is 3%. The difference between running at 50% load vs. 66% is likely ~1%. I emplor you to take the time and do the math to see if you will ever make up the difference monetarily over the life of the PSU. I know at my  10 cents /KW /hr, I would need to F@H (24/7/365) for several years to make up the difference between the same model 650W vs 750W. And there is room to upgrade (though we're already talking flagship CPU and high-end GPU).



Chrispy_ said:


> A 650W PSU will certainly do the job for the warranty period but it'll run hotter and louder and is less likely to last as long past the warranty period. The biggest thing that degrades PSU components is heat, and the best way to keep a PSU cool is to operate well below its peak load and in its most efficient operation range.


Just not worth it (to me).......Running 500W load on a 650W PSU is "well below its peak load" and still quite close to "its most efficient operating range". For 80+ Gold, the MAXIMUM difference allowed between 50-100% load is 3%...

That advice only serves to spend more money for no/little tangible reasons. Buying a PSU to run it at 50% load is a monumental waste of cash. 60-75% is a great sweetspot between price, headroom, and quiet operations.

EDIT: I just ran a game (Forza 4) with a 'CPU' @ 5.2 GHz 10c/20t with a stock RTX 2070... want to know what the kill-a-watt said? I peaked at 301W (at the wall) during the benchmark.

EDIT2: The Division 2 - 362W peak (ran around 325W).

EDIT3: AIDA64 stress test... 290W.

EDIT4: A64 stress test + Furmark, 460W.

Again, all values are at the wall, so take away 10% for efficiency. 

So, I stand firmly behind the 650W will be plenty fine. Truth be told, 550W would be too...though 80% is pushing things a bit for quiet operations (depends on the unit and what you have in your case). Id also run a 2080Ti on a 650W PSU without a bit of worry. Doesn't get much more than that.....


----------



## Crackong (May 19, 2020)

Chrispy_ said:


> For what it's worth, I've built a lot of 3900X and a handful of 3950X and those are PBO+ numbers on high-end boards with the upper limit of what you'll see in terms of PPT, TDC, EDC limits. Those limits are much higher than AMD's spec, which permits a 65W CPU to have an 88W PPT and a 105W CPU to have a 142W PPT.
> 
> I *guarantee* you will get within 25-50MHz boost clocks (so performance will be between 0.5% and 1% lower) on the 3900X using a more normal motherboard that delivers 142W PPT and my experience of the 3950X is that it's maybe 10% hungrier, give or take, so it will be a fraction slower at 142W but it will still definitely meet the rated clockspeeds, even when using the 3900X's stock cooler (though it's damn noisy when trying to handle a 3950X!)



I made those calculation based on the figures from that video, assuming the tester uses the same config and load on each CPU.
And also his figures are measured from the PSU, not from the motherboard sensors, so there are variances. 

I use 3900x as well
In Prime95 small FFT it draws around ~135W package power, measured in HWinfo64 

That's why I said it was just a rough guess.


----------



## Makaveli (May 19, 2020)

ZoneDymo said:


> Are we looking at the same charts? I see at max a 6 fps difference...you cant even notice that unless you actively switch between the two....
> I mean if you play on low settings on 1080p or below, basically if are a "pro" high fps player in CSGO sure go intel.
> 
> But if you are a more mainstream? or average gamer, they tend to prefere high resolutions and all the settings cranked, meaning you wont benefit from that Intel cpu at all, you would just be buying an aged cpu in a new suit.



Yup there is no smoking there.

Its worded that way for a reason I will leave it to you guys to assume that reason.



EarthDog said:


> 650W is plenty if you want to set it up like that. But that said, at 5.2 ghz all c/t with rtx 2070, I dont see 450W at the wall..
> 
> 750W psu for a 500W load is paying too much for no reason. 650W is plenty for that.




I would prefer the 750 psu for 500w because psu's get less efficient the more you load them. And produce higher fan noise closer to max load.

The 250 Watts of room that the 750 will give you should equal a longer lasting quieter psu. And should be worth the price difference.


----------



## Decryptor009 (May 19, 2020)

Makaveli said:


> Yup there is no smoking there.
> 
> Its worded that way for a reason I will leave it to you guys to assume that reason.
> 
> ...


Yes very true, a cheaper higher wattage PSU can still offer a very good argument vs a more expensive technically superior PSU with less wattage, the technical superiority doe snot negate noise at near to max capacity.

Both units will age but i would put my money on a decent higher wattage PSU holding out longer than a technically superior product loaded close to it's maximum.


----------



## Chrispy_ (May 19, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> True... but to what end? You are aware how flat the efficiency curve is, right? At most, the difference between tiers is 3%. The difference between running at 50% load vs. 66% is likely ~1%. I emplor you to take the time and do the math to see if you will ever make up the difference monetarily over the life of the PSU. I know at my  10 cents /KW /hr, I would need to F@H (24/7/365) for several years to make up the difference between the same model 650W vs 750W. And there is room to upgrade (though we're already talking flagship CPU and high-end GPU).



Efficiency is part of it, but the components in a PSU are also sized appropriately - so even at identical efficiency for a 500W load, the 650W PSU will likely run hotter than the 750W PSU.

Like I said, the 650W would be fine, the 750W would be better. Better is rarely cheaper too.


----------



## EarthDog (May 19, 2020)

Chrispy_ said:


> Efficiency is part of it, but the components in a PSU are also sized appropriately - so even at identical efficiency for a 500W load, the 650W PSU will likely run hotter than the 750W PSU.
> 
> Like I said, the 650W would be fine, the 750W would be better. Better is rarely cheaper too.


1. And? Both will run well with specs, bud... what's your point here? The temp differences are likely negligible...and won't take away any appreciable amount of life. 7 years, 10 years, etc... plenty of life from a PSU.
2. The 750W is in no tangible way better in this case. It is simply spending more than you need to...many would say a waste.


----------



## Makaveli (May 19, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> 1. And? Both will run well with specs, bud... what's your point here? The temp differences are likely negligible...and won't take away any appreciable amount of life. 7 years, 10 years, etc... plenty of life from a PSU.
> 2. The 750W is in no tangible way better in this case. It is simply spending more than you need to...many would say a waste.



PSU's are not all made the same and quality components do matter.

Only highend PSU's with come with a 7-10 year warranty and Japanese caps not the cheap stuff.

If the difference in price is $20-$30 I think its worth spending it.


----------



## EarthDog (May 19, 2020)

Makaveli said:


> I would prefer the 750 psu for 500w because psu's get less efficient the more you load them. And produce higher fan noise closer to max load.
> 
> The 250 Watts of room that the 750 will give you should equal a longer lasting quieter psu. And should be worth the price difference.


I've already went over these talking points. The efficiency difference is NOTHING (a max of 3%, actual ~1%)..so that point isn't really one. Fans may spin up faster, sure... but again, I don't hear shit over 5 case fans and a GPU. Also note, my PSU fan barely turns on with a 4.5 GHz 16c/32T CPU (Intel) and a 2080 Ti overclocked. That isn't using any more power than the 10900K. 


Makaveli said:


> PSU's are not all made the same and quality components do matter.
> 
> Only highend PSU's with come with a 7-10 year warranty and Japanese caps not the cheap stuff.
> 
> If the difference in price is $20-$30 I think its worth spending it.


Right. That is what we are talking about......QUALITY PSUs... not shit... come on. Even 5 year PSUs would be fine running a couple of C warmer. A quality PSU should run its label rating for the life of its warranty. Ya'll are making mountains out of mole hills causing you (and those reading) to overspend for no real reason.

If there is a $20-$30 difference, there is no way I would buy 750W over 650W in this case. None. That is $20-$30 wasted and never recovered.


Gentlemen......move on. Our points have been made. If you choose to spend more for little to no reason, that is on you/whoever is doing it. Im just here to say the reasons mentioned to go higher are soft at best. I've lived this life and have had zero issues over the last 2 decades. I've used 3 PSUs in that time. lol


----------



## Makaveli (May 19, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> If there is a $20-$30 difference, there is no way I would buy 750W over 650W in this case. None. That is $20-$30 wasted.



You see it as a waste and I see it as an investment.

There are 3 components I never go cheap with in a build.

Motherboard
PSU
Monitor

I've been building pc's for about 25 years now there is nothing you can post that will change my opinion on this.

Everyones budget will be different but my recommendation stays the same, if you can afford to spend alittle bit extra do it.


----------



## EarthDog (May 19, 2020)

Makaveli said:


> You see it as a waste and I see it as an investment.
> 
> There are 3 components I never go cheap with in a build.
> 
> ...


But it isn't an investment. It's a depreciating asset.

You really aren't getting more out of the device spending more. You can parade around all you want that it can run warmer, but I'm only looking for PSUs to live past their warranty. How far is always a crapshoot. I could save that $20-$30 and put it towards another PSU several years down the road. Who the hell looks at a PSU well past their warranty and thinks... if I would have bought 100W more it would still be living? Come on........

I also didn't say to go cheap either. I'm saying to buy quality units that are appropriately sized and include enough headroom for additions and quiet operation. In this case, 650W is plenty. Look at the numbers I listed... that is actual from the wall (again 10% high due to PSU).

I know for decades my method has worked flawlessly personally and for the hundreds I've helped over that time in forums. People put WAY too much stock into 50% efficiency BS. Just because I can afford $20-$30 more, doesn't mean it should be done (again, no tangible returns in this case).

Again, let's move on. The information is there, people can choose to do whatever they want.


----------



## Bee9 (May 19, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> If there is a $20-$30 difference, there is no way I would buy 750W over 650W in this case. None. That is $20-$30 wasted and never recovered.



Rather have a gold rated 650 than a cheapo 750w. Im running a 850w platinum and I think that will be enough to last for the next 5 years or so.

For this Intel generation, what I am afraid the most is the pricing. They cannot price the 10900k more than $500. Just too high for what it offers relative to the competition


----------



## EarthDog (May 19, 2020)

Bee9 said:


> Rather have a gold rated 650 than a cheapo 750w. Im running a 850w platinum and I think that will be enough to last for the next 5 years or so.


Who wouldn't? What is your point here? 

850W should last until that PSU dies or you go multiple high wattage GPUs...(and who is doing that these days?). It's overspent for single CPU/GPU rigs.

A quality 650W Gold unit is plenty for 90% of users using a single card. This wattage allows for ambient CPU overclocks as well as GPU overclocks while still living in the 50% to 75% range.


----------



## Decryptor009 (May 19, 2020)

Bee9 said:


> Rather have a gold rated 650 than a cheapo 750w. Im running a 850w platinum and I think that will be enough to last for the next 5 years or so.
> 
> For this Intel generation, what I am afraid the most is the pricing. They cannot price the 10900k more than $500. Just too high for what it offers relative to the competition


I have an 80 Plus Silver 1KW Silverstone Strider that is still fully functional after 11 years of abuse.


----------



## Makaveli (May 19, 2020)

Bee9 said:


> Rather have a gold rated 650 than a cheapo 750w. Im running a 850w platinum and I think that will be enough to last for the next 5 years or so.
> 
> For this Intel generation, what I am afraid the most is the pricing. They cannot price the 10900k more than $500. Just too high for what it offers relative to the competition



i'm on Corsair AX850 Titanium with a 10 year warranty it will last no problem, my previous build has a Corsair AX750 Gold that came with a 7 year warranty and that still runs fine to this day. Both PSU's are very quiet probably the best one's i've owned in the last couple decades. I've used bunch of other brands in the last 20+ years and these are my favorites so far.

For this processor I'm going to be more curious about people slapping inadequate coolers on it then complaining about not hitting the higher clock speeds.


----------



## Bee9 (May 19, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> Who wouldn't? What is your point here?
> 
> 850W should last until that PSU dies or you go multiple high wattage GPUs...(and who is doing that these days?). It's overspent for single CPU/GPU rigs.
> 
> A quality 650W Gold unit is plenty for 90% of users using a single card. This wattage allows for ambient CPU overclocks as well as GPU overclocks while still living in the 50% to 75% range.


My point here is to get a just-enough-wattage and higher quality PSU rather than go for higher W and lower component quality. I hate changing PSU because that means re-doing the cable management. So, whatever goes in there will get stuck there for a lifetime.
Btw, I got it for the same price as the 650W (open box) so I just go for it. PSU sometimes have excess solder flux that smell terrible when first powerup and the 1st owner return it, so I grab it for really cheap.




Makaveli said:


> For this processor I'm going to be more curious about people slapping inadequate coolers on it then complaining about not hitting the higher clock speeds.


Oh lovely summer is coming and it's gonna be HOT.


----------



## EarthDog (May 19, 2020)

Everyone's anecdotes are amusing. I'll add to it.

Don't mind my 550W Sunbeam from Circa 2004(?) still going string powering an 1500X and RTX 2060 today.


----------



## Bee9 (May 19, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> Everyone's anecdotes are amusing. I'll add to it.
> 
> Don't mind my 550W Sunbeam from Circa 2004(?) still going string powering an 1500X and RTX 2060 today.



Wonder how many of those relic still kicking around these days...


----------



## Decryptor009 (May 19, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> Everyone's anecdotes are amusing. I'll add to it.
> 
> Don't mind my 550W Sunbeam from Circa 2004(?) still going string powering an 1500X and RTX 2060 today.


Anecdotes still work far superior to any objective thing with a PSU when you are comparing units that deliver their wattage and are decent or above, you can be very objective when it is a pile of junk vs a decent unit however.

Since failures happen to even the best PSU's... it becomes much more subjective at that point.


----------



## Bee9 (May 19, 2020)

Decryptor009 said:


> Since failures happen to even the best PSU's... it becomes much more subjective at that point.


Yeah I agree it's a subjective thingy and also a wallet matter. When $150 is 0.1% of monthly income vs 50% of monthly allowance.
But hey, since when this becomes a PSU thread... Come back to 10900K people!


----------



## EarthDog (May 19, 2020)

Decryptor009 said:


> Anecdotes still work far superior to any objective thing with a PSU when you are comparing units that deliver their wattage and are decent or above, you can be very objective when it is a pile of junk vs a decent unit however.
> 
> Since failures happen to even the best PSU's... it becomes much more subjective at that point.


Anecdotes are a joke. I don't care what dick, tom, and jane do compared to the 10,000 other units sold. 

Yes, why would we talk about random failures that can happen to any unit? 

You guys crack me up... love my avatar. 

Have a great day, peeps!


----------



## Decryptor009 (May 19, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> Anecdotes are a joke. I don't care what dick, tom, and jane do compared to the 10,000 other units sold.
> 
> Yes, why would we talk about random failures that can happen to any unit?
> 
> ...


Yes your old man arrogance won't ever change, it's always everyone else!

You just repeated what i said, where flat out objectification cannot and does not work.

Moving on...


----------



## WeeRab (May 19, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> I've already went over these talking points. The efficiency difference is NOTHING (a max of 3%, actual ~1%)..so that point isn't really one. Fans may spin up faster, sure... but again, I don't hear shit over 5 case fans and a GPU. Also note, my PSU fan barely turns on with a 4.5 GHz 16c/32T CPU (Intel) and a 2080 Ti overclocked. That isn't using any more power than the 10900K.
> Right. That is what we are talking about......QUALITY PSUs... not shit... come on. Even 5 year PSUs would be fine running a couple of C warmer. A quality PSU should run its label rating for the life of its warranty. Ya'll are making mountains out of mole hills causing you (and those reading) to overspend for no real reason.
> 
> If there is a $20-$30 difference, there is no way I would buy 750W over 650W in this case. None. That is $20-$30 wasted and never recovered.
> ...


Not so fast.
 You've gone to great lengths arguing about a $20 - $30 difference in PSU's - And yet admit to spending $100's more on BS intel parts because of what?  A couple of percentage points in gaming?
 A pity your quest for efficiency doesn't extend to cold hard cash, "that is wasted and never recovered".


----------



## EarthDog (May 19, 2020)

Decryptor009 said:


> Yes your old man arrogance won't ever change, it's always everyone else!


IN this case, yeah. I find it hilarious that people spend $20-$30 more on a PSU that almost literally yields nothing.



WeeRab said:


> Not so fast.
> You've gone to great lengths arguing about a $20 - $30 difference in PSU's - And yet admit to spending $100's more on BS intel parts because of what?  A couple of percentage points in gaming?
> A pity your quest for efficiency doesn't extend to cold hard cash, "that is wasted and never recovered".


Friend, the CPU I have I received for free (I'm a reviewer)... nice try though . Systems I have bought (for my kids) are AMD based. So, nice one, but incredibly misplaced. WTG. You and the other lemmings that thanked you are pretty cute assuming things about me.

Also, I get more out of my CPUs because I can utilize (not use) them. I was a competitive sub-ambient overclocker as well. So more cores/threads helps, and so do other chips with a lot faster clocks.


----------



## Decryptor009 (May 19, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> IN this case, yeah. I find it hilarious that people spend $20-$30 more on a PSU that almost literally yields nothing.
> 
> Friend, the CPU I have I received for free (I'm a reviewer)... nice try though . Systems I have bought (for my kids) are AMD based. So, nice one, but incredibly misplaced. WTG. You and the other lemmings that thanked you are pretty cute assuming things about me.
> 
> Also, I get more out of my CPUs because I can utilize (not use) them. I was a competitive sub-ambient overclocker as well. So more cores/threads helps, and so do other chips with a lot faster clocks.


Do you see how everything you just mentioned is fully subjective?

"Subject to use" is what people should consider when we judge PSU choice, unless it is a load of garbage that will blow up.
Then we also have those who are clueless and could use a hand choosing an appropriate unit too, be objective with them.

We already know enough.. just sensless bickering and objectifying other peoples uses to stand out which is arrogance enough.


----------



## EarthDog (May 19, 2020)

Yes. I take exception with people who prefer to spend more for nothing (and then try to justify it with BS reasons). My goal, as stated previously, is to get the info out there and let people decide. Hopefully I accomplished that initially before it devolved.

I digress.


----------



## Makaveli (May 19, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> Yes. I take exception with people who prefer to spend more for nothing (and then try to justify it with BS reasons).



Why its not coming out of your pocket? And why does your justification matter for someones else's purchase?


----------



## EarthDog (May 19, 2020)

Makaveli said:


> Why its not coming out of your pocket? And why is your jusification required someones else's purchase?


You're spot on, sir. I shouldn't care this much to force facts down people's throats and bemoan them when they do something seemingly illogical. But...that is, sadly, built in to my character. We all have demons.

Edit: Please note what I responded to initially. 








						Comprehensive Core i9-10900K Review Leaked: Suggests Intel Option Formidable
					

No upgrade options for 9900k, a kickass product. No need to really. With ZeN you had to upgrade every year. Just because there was a new model of bates 4000. And thats somehow a plus. Laughable. They couldn't make it right the first time kept improving it. And in the end CCX latency, memory...




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## Decryptor009 (May 19, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> You're spot on, sir. I shouldn't care this much to force facts down people's throats and bemoan them when they do something seemingly illogical. But...that is, sadly, built in to my character. We all have demons.
> 
> Edit: Please note what I responded to initially.


We can all have a go at character flaws.. i do it enough, but i respect this post, thanks EarthDog.


----------



## EarthDog (May 19, 2020)

I've been told I act like Sheldon Cooper if that helps us laugh.... I agree. Lol


----------



## coozie78 (May 19, 2020)

Jeez, guys, I was just pointing out that 550W would be pushing it for a big CPU/GPU combo, didn't expect things to get so heated.


----------



## KarymidoN (May 19, 2020)

thesmokingman said:


> Dude, drain ports are a waste of time. Get QDC's, then you can drain from the QDC. Dedicated drain ports are circa 2010.



i oderdered some but due to the whole pandemic apocalypse thing they never arrived, still in processing (i had to order from china, couldn't find any in brazil).


----------



## thesmokingman (May 19, 2020)

KarymidoN said:


> i oderdered some but due to the whole pandemic apocalypse thing they never arrived, still in processing (i had to order from china, couldn't find any in brazil).



You want two matching pairs. That way you can make a tubing extension with the extra pair. That tubing extension can then be cut to allow access to loop. You can point one end (low side) into a bucket, and grab the other and take a huge breath and blow the fluid out of the loop.


----------



## KarymidoN (May 19, 2020)

thesmokingman said:


> You want two matching pairs. That way you can make a tubing extension with the extra pair. That tubing extension can then be cut to allow access to loop. You can point one end (low side) into a bucket, and grab the other and take a huge breath and blow the fluid out of the loop.



thx bro, i ordered 4 matching pairs just bc chinese stuff tends to fail when shipped for 2-3 months to brazil (being kicked and smashed + poor packging + low quality). i like the result but i went with some pastel color fluid, qualit is good, but it creates a lot of grossness in the loop. i'll be going clear by the end of this month.


----------



## thesmokingman (May 19, 2020)

KarymidoN said:


> thx bro, i ordered 4 matching pairs just bc chinese stuff tends to fail when shipped for 2-3 months to brazil (being kicked and smashed + poor packging + low quality). i like the result but i went with some pastel color fluid, qualit is good, but it creates a lot of grossness in the loop. i'll be going clear by the end of this month.



Colored /dark tubing is best as that prevents biological growth. Btw with your QDC pair, you can then make/buy a drop in loop filter which is a must have tool. Pic below is from a massive new build I did and that's all the gunk from the first fill up and flush, yuck.


----------



## RealNeil (May 20, 2020)

phanbuey said:


> Im hoping the second hand market is flooded by 9900k peeps ditching to AMD/new platform.


I have an i9-9900K here and was intrigued by Ryzen 3800X when it came out.
 So I bought the Ryzen 3800X CPU, board, and RAM for it. But I just couldn't bring myself to sell the i9-9900K. It's pretty damn nice and it's a keeper.


----------



## QUANTUMPHYSICS (May 20, 2020)

ZoneDymo said:


> Are we looking at the same charts? I see at max a 6 fps difference...you cant even notice that unless you actively switch between the two....
> I mean if you play on low settings on 1080p or below, basically if are a "pro" high fps player in CSGO sure go intel.
> 
> But if you are a more mainstream? or average gamer, they tend to prefere high resolutions and all the settings cranked, meaning you wont benefit from that Intel cpu at all, you would just be buying an aged cpu in a new suit.




I'm not sure if you've seen the ones I've seen.

Gaming: Intel kills AMD. 

AMD only wins in those workstation style benchmarks I don't care about. 

But if you don't know - now ya know...


----------



## ZoneDymo (May 20, 2020)

QUANTUMPHYSICS said:


> I'm not sure if you've seen the ones I've seen.
> 
> Gaming: Intel kills AMD.
> 
> ...



go ahead then, link those that you have seen where it "kills" AMD


----------



## thesmokingman (May 20, 2020)

1% =  KILLS


----------



## noel_fs (May 20, 2020)

Cybrshrk said:


> Buy ryzen 4000 this year and you're looking at the exact same thing the next time you want to upgrade. At least with the 1200 Socket and 10900k you have atleast 1 generation more of upgrades (rocket lake). Can't say that if you go 4000 series and x570 (it's EOL).  AM4 will be replaced after this year.


Hmmm you are a bit handicapped i see. If you buy 4000 its because you are already on the platform. If you want 10900k you have to buy the platform. AM4 sure will be replaced after this year, just like 1200 in 2 years (wow access to rocket lake yet another 5 year old orverpriced architecture). Atleast am4 lasted 4 years or 5?


----------



## Makaveli (May 20, 2020)

QUANTUMPHYSICS said:


> I'm not sure if you've seen the ones I've seen.
> 
> Gaming: Intel kills AMD.
> 
> ...



Boring.

Are an adult that just plays games all day?

Working? got a woman? somethings are more important than getting 10 extra fps at 1080p while using 200watts of  power.



ZoneDymo said:


> go ahead then, link those that you have seen where it "kills" AMD



There won't any proof its the typical fan boy post void of any reasoning or logic.


----------



## Sabishii Hito (May 24, 2020)

Makaveli said:


> got a woman?



Talk about an expensive depreciating "asset"


----------



## Mats (May 24, 2020)

QUANTUMPHYSICS said:


> I'm not sure if you've seen the ones I've seen.
> 
> Gaming: Intel kills AMD.
> 
> AMD only wins in those workstation style benchmarks I don't care about.


Thanks for the drama.

When Intel launched Sandy Bridge while AMD was struggling with their outdated CPU's, now that was a KILL if anything. Or Intel in 2006. This is nothing compared to that.

A reminder of how much AMD is getting killed during the last year:


----------



## medi01 (May 24, 2020)

QUANTUMPHYSICS said:


> Gaming: Intel kills AMD.


----------

