New PT Data: i9-9900K is 66% Pricier While Being Just 12% Faster than 2700X at Gaming

[RealNeil]

How is that Vega Red devil treating you? Do you like it? I know there is a downside to the card due to the fact it's not the best ever but I got FreeSync and I just need to use it. From what I've read on the internet about Navi. The top AMD card will be up to 15% faster than Vega 64. Due to that I don't think waiting longer is any good for me.
I suppose the 3000 series Ryzen will be great. I must say I'm impressed with my 2700X. For now, I don't need to change it but if I will get a good deal on the new Ryzen I will get it.

I haven't plugged the Red Devil into any system yet. probably later on today if I get the time. My Gigabyte Vega-64 isn't clocked as high as the Devil is, so I'm not sure how Crossfire will be with them.
I bought the Gigabyte card because it was dirt-cheap compared to buying another Red Devil card.
Maybe later I'll find a deal on another Devil

I'm going to be using the pair of them in an i9-7900X box because it already has a large (1300W) PSU in it. There is a pair of GTX-1080 FE cards running SLI inside of it now and I want to run a few benches before and after the swap. I imagine the 1080s are quicker.

I have my eye on a 34" Freesync screen that a friend is going to sell after Christmas, so these two Vega cards will get to stretch a little.

 

[ratirt]

I dont think you understood what I wrote. As per the thread name, I used the 9900k, not 2700x in the argument.

I'm not accustomed to your way of writing or maybe it's your figure of speach, but I don't recall and see in your post anything about the 9900K. What I see is that you refer to the 8700K and 9700k stating these, including with 2700X are not worth buying. Well my friend. I don't know about the Intel's CPU's since I don't posses them but 2700X is damn worth buying, especially for the current sell price. So anything you previously said is bull crap on the barn floor, sir.

I haven't plugged the Red Devil into any system yet. probably later on today if I get the time. My Gigabyte Vega-64 isn't clocked as high as the Devil is, so I'm not sure how Crossfire will be with them.
I bought the Gigabyte card because it was dirt-cheap compared to buying another Red Devil card.
Maybe later I'll find a deal on another Devil

I'm going to be using the pair of them in an i9-7900X box because it already has a large (1300W) PSU in it. There is a pair of GTX-1080 FE cards running SLI inside of it now and I want to run a few benches before and after the swap. I imagine the 1080s are quicker.

I have my eye on a 34" Freesync screen that a friend is going to sell after Christmas, so these two Vega cards will get to stretch a little.

How much did you pay for them? For the Devil and the Gigabyte?
I'm getting my Devil delivered this week. when I get it I will definitely play with it. I wonder how will it go with my screen
I got my 4k screen and it's so amazing It was worth it and hopefully my Vega Red Devil will make it shine even more

 

[lexluthermiester]

Hyper threading, 50% more heat for 20% more performance, not worth it.

Have to agree with EarthDog on this one. The extra heat generated is about 25% to 35% for an extra 20% to 25% performance. While it's not an exactly even trade off, it's not to the extreme you suggested.

 

[Metroid]

You dont get 50% more heat.

HT yields more than 20% performance increase.
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=HT-Core-Scaling-Xeon-SKL

Really? Benchmarks since the beginning always showed that a real 4 core = 100% + 4 threads aka hyper-threading gives from 0 to 25%., which means from 100 to 125%. Also in the heat department, if a cpu stands 60c 4 cores and you enable hyper-threading, the same 60c becomes 90c. That is 50% in my book. That was my i7 920 as a fact back in 2008.

I'm not accustomed to your way of writing or maybe it's your figure of speach, but I don't recall and see in your post anything about the 9900K. What I see is that you refer to the 8700K and 9700k stating these, including with 2700X are not worth buying. Well my friend. I don't know about the Intel's CPU's since I don't posses them but 2700X is damn worth buying, especially for the current sell price. So anything you previously said is bull crap on the barn floor, sir.

I'm sorry for that, I implied is better to have a 2700x or a 9700 even a 8700 than a 9900k. The premium price is not enough to justify.

 

[ratirt]

I'm sorry for that, I implied is better to have a 2700x or a 9700 even a 8700 than a 9900k. The premium price is not enough to justify.

It's fine. Just wanted to clear that out.

 

[EarthDog]

Really? Benchmarks since the beginning always showed that a real 4 core = 100% + 4 threads aka hyper-threading gives from 0 to 25%., which means from 100 to 125%. Also in the heat department, if a cpu stands 60c 4 cores and you enable hyper-threading, the same 60c becomes 90c. That is 50% in my book.

I posted a benchmark that shows differently... HT/SMT efficiency varies with many factors... 20% average seems low is all I was getting at. It was in my head around 25-35% depending on the benchmark.

25% does not mean 100-125%. Do the math... If I got 25 more FPS and I was at 100 FPS, that would be 25% more. 100% more of 100 FPS is 200 FPS.

Your heat example is a 50% increase, but... those values are made up. I haven't seen a 50% increase on temperatures from HT in any HT CPU I owned or benchmarked. I have seen 10-20C much more commonly (and the latter is on my current CPU adding 16 threads...... not 4), but if I am already sitting at 70C................ that isn't a 50% increase (and those are real numbers with my current CPU).

 

[Metroid]

I posted a benchmark that shows differently... HT/SMT efficiency varies with many factors... 20% average seems low is all I was getting at. It was in my head around 25-35% depending on the benchmark.

25% does not mean 100-125%. Do the math... If I got 25 more FPS and I was at 100 FPS, that would be 25% more. 100% more of 100 FPS is 200 FPS.

Your heat example is a 50% increase, but... those values are made up. I haven't seen a 50% increase on temperatures from HT in any HT CPU I owned or benchmarked. I have seen 10-20C much more commonly (and the latter is on my current CPU adding 16 threads...... not 4), but if I am already sitting at 70C................ that isn't a 50% increase (and those are real numbers with my current CPU).

A good example is a 9900k x 9700k, I treat a 9900k as a real 10 cores performance, the 8 threads plus from it is 2 cores for me 25% each which multiplied gives 200% which in the end means more 2 cores, Now we all know 9900k are binned which means heat is not as bad as it is on 9700k because it might even use less voltage than 9700k, a 9700k is just a broken 9900k, more heat per performance and so on, now remove all these from the 9900k and add 2 more cores to the 9700k there we have it. 2 more cores bring voltage to enormous numbers like if it was more threads, for example my i7 920 4 cores used to use 1.1v voltage, with hyper threading on used to use 1.4v, there you have it, just calculate it now.

It's sad the reviews dont do that, only a user can do things like that and show its findings, I wish somebody would do that to a 9900k, how much it can be underclocked as 8 threads only and then as 16 threads, the usefulness of have a 16 threads to a 8 threads and the tradeoffs of it cause for me is very important. 9900k is just not worth for me, too much heat and performance to justify the price even thought its binned.

 

[EarthDog]

Wow... not sure what that even means my man, yikes. Sorry.

 

[DysphoricSmile]

But you do need to spend a LOT of money on proper cooling if you are going for that 5GHz all core. And that will be much more expensive than memory for Ryzen.
At which point you are no longer looking at a $530 CPU but a $650-700 one.

WRONG ON BOTH COUNTS! I HAVE an i7-8700k - NOT delidded it easily hits 5 GHZ all core and 4.7 GHZ Ringbus (higher than MOST!) - and for cooling I use a Noctua NH-D15 that I paid $70 for off of Amazon! So NO! The 8700k is not THAT HARD TO COOL! And it is NOT that expensive - especially when an ASRock Z370/390 Extreme4 has MORE than enough Juice to get even the 9900k to 5 GHZ (with SOME amount of airflow in the case of course) and costs just $160

I think for folks who would go balls to the walls spec for their beastly gaming PC, I don't think they even care about price at this point. So far as I know the i9-9900K is capable of clocking 5GHz on all 8 cores thanks to the soldered IHS, unlike the i7-8700K where you need to delid it in order to reach the same level of performance. Same core & thread count as the R7 2700X but has way higher turbo boost frequencies & sustains it better. Also, you don't need to spend more money on Ryzen-optimized RAM kits... even a typical 2666MHz DDR4 RAM kit does the job.

YOU DO NOT NEED TO DELID 8700k!! I HAVE ONE - 5 GHZ all core, Noctua NH-D15 and it NEVER gets hotter than 87 C in Prime95 FFS!!

 

[lexluthermiester]

WRONG ON BOTH COUNTS! I HAVE an i7-8700k - NOT delidded it easily hits 5 GHZ all core and 4.7 GHZ Ringbus (higher than MOST!) - and for cooling I use a Noctua NH-D15 that I paid $70 for off of Amazon! So NO! The 8700k is not THAT HARD TO COOL! And it is NOT that expensive - especially when an ASRock Z370/390 Extreme4 has MORE than enough Juice to get even the 9900k to 5 GHZ (with SOME amount of airflow in the case of course) and costs just $160

YOU DO NOT NEED TO DELID 8700k!! I HAVE ONE - 5 GHZ all core, Noctua NH-D15 and it NEVER gets hotter than 87 C in Prime95 FFS!!

Ok, forum etiquette advice, whenever you do all caps for more than one word it's considered screaming/yelling. Please tone it down.

 

[eidairaman1]

WRONG ON BOTH COUNTS! I HAVE an i7-8700k - NOT delidded it easily hits 5 GHZ all core and 4.7 GHZ Ringbus (higher than MOST!) - and for cooling I use a Noctua NH-D15 that I paid $70 for off of Amazon! So NO! The 8700k is not THAT HARD TO COOL! And it is NOT that expensive - especially when an ASRock Z370/390 Extreme4 has MORE than enough Juice to get even the 9900k to 5 GHZ (with SOME amount of airflow in the case of course) and costs just $160




YOU DO NOT NEED TO DELID 8700k!! I HAVE ONE - 5 GHZ all core, Noctua NH-D15 and it NEVER gets hotter than 87 C in Prime95 FFS!!

Most are not going to delid a cpu.

 

[king of swag187]

No need to delid a 8700K unless you're seeking maximum thermals. My 8700K @ 4.8ghz 1.33V never hits above 70C in stress tests with a Thermalrite Macho Rev B

 

[notb]

Ok, forum etiquette advice, whenever you do all caps for more than one word it's considered screaming/yelling. Please tone it down.

And what about @eidairaman1 's signature? What do you think about it?

 

[DysphoricSmile]

Ok, forum etiquette advice, whenever you do all caps for more than one word it's considered screaming/yelling. Please tone it down.

Right right. Sorry. Just trying to emphasize this misinformation that the 8700k is hard to cool and hard to hit ~5 GHZ with unless delidded. I have not delidded, my exact specs are ASRock Fatal1ty Z370 Gaming K6, DDR4-3200, and my CPU is 5 GHZ all core, 4.7 GHZ Ringbus speed, 1.34 Vcore with Flat Load Line (level 1 in ASRock Case) - and even Prime95 AVX - the most unrealistic of unrealistic workloads, does not manage either Thermal or VRM throttling after even ~3 hours. Of course I DO have quite a good deal of airflow.

 

[lexluthermiester]

And what about @eidairaman1 's signature? What do you think about it?

I don't see sig's(turned them off in the site settings) so I can't comment. However, I think the rule is whatever is in someones sig is fair game as long is it doesn't break the site rules because a sig isn't direct communication to any one person. That's only my guess, but we're off topic and I digress...

Right right. Sorry.

No worries, it was just a friendly heads up.

Just trying to emphasize this misinformation that the 8700k is hard to cool and hard to hit ~5 GHZ with unless delidded.

Actually I disagree. The 8700k is not difficult to cool even when OC'd and cooled on air. I've built more than a few systems with that chip and OC'd nearly every one of them, most with a voltage bump. 5Ghz is not difficult to reach on air(presuming a quality cooler) and temp never reach or even get close to an unacceptable level.

 

[TheMadDutchDude]

The fact remains that it will be cooler with a delid, though...

 

[GoldenX]

I remember people complaining that the 980X, a 6 core at 45nm was overheating, we are now with a 6 core at 14nm, and they still overheat...

 

[TheMadDutchDude]

Yep, that’s because there is a much higher frequency coupled with a much more dense focus of heat. It can only escape through silicon so fast, and I think we are reaching that point.

 

[GoldenX]

Yep, that’s because there is a much higher frequency coupled with a much more dense focus of heat. It can only escape through silicon so fast, and I think we are reaching that point.

That sounds too Pentium 4 to my taste.
I hope Intel is working on a successor to Core.

 

[TheMadDutchDude]

It’s just facts, dude...

 

[hat]

That's true. The higher the density, the more heat is concentrated into a small area. I'm guessing this is the reason early processors ran upwards of 3v, yet didn't even require a cooler (or, if they did, they were very basic, small passive coolers). With such a large process size and not many transistors compared to today, it simply wasn't necessary.

 

[GoldenX]

That's true. The higher the density, the more heat is concentrated into a small area. I'm guessing this is the reason early processors ran upwards of 3v, yet didn't even require a cooler (or, if they did, they were very basic, small passive coolers). With such a large process size and not many transistors compared to today, it simply wasn't necessary.

My Pentium MMX can confirm that. Little 200MHz old champ.
Is the problem just the density/complexity of the design, or is it just the high frequency?

 

[notb]

That's true. The higher the density, the more heat is concentrated into a small area. I'm guessing this is the reason early processors ran upwards of 3v, yet didn't even require a cooler (or, if they did, they were very basic, small passive coolers). With such a large process size and not many transistors compared to today, it simply wasn't necessary.

Voltage is like momentum in mechanics. You have to apply enough voltage to get past the potential barrier. We're improving the technology and learning to control it better. And we can utilize transistors with lower potential barrier.
Power consumption grows because there are more transistors in the CPU (more circuitry).