AMD have closed the gap and taken the lead

[TechguyMaxC 516]

23 hours ago, GHarrall said:

Agreed with a few of caveats:

1) 9900K at 5.4 GHz requires major cooling horsepower. Not all will hit this.

2) 3700x system cost approx $150 less than even a 9700K system would have let alone factoring price of 9900K into it.  (even going crazy with the X570 board)

3) Either way, its far superior to the 6700K I replaced. Sure, if budget was no concern I would have gone 9900KS and the gold plated kitchen sink to go with it 🙂

4) 4th gen should be a slot in to the X570 board so upgrade in future should be fairly cheap and easy.

1-2) This is an expensive hobby.  $150 isn't really meaningful if you ask me.  That's the cost of one complex add-on.  It's not enough to buy a single component in any of my systems, except for a few fans or a single smallish storage drive, maybe a power supply.  Nothing that contributes to performance.  

3) No one is saying Ryzen 3000 chips are bad for gaming.  If $500 CPUs = golden sinks to you, you don't want to know how much my 120TB, 16-core, water-cooled media server cost 😄

4) meh.  PCI-e speeds aren't really relevant to graphics card performance nowadays, it basically only matters for RAID on a card PCI-e SSDs.  Besides PCI-e 5 is right around the corner, Intel decided to skip the 4th gen.  

[GHarrall 494]

9 hours ago, TechguyMaxC said:

1-2) This is an expensive hobby.  $150 isn't really meaningful if you ask me.  That's the cost of one complex add-on.  It's not enough to buy a single component in any of my systems, except for a few fans or a single smallish storage drive, maybe a power supply.  Nothing that contributes to performance.  

3) No one is saying Ryzen 3000 chips are bad for gaming.  If $500 CPUs = golden sinks to you, you don't want to know how much my 120TB, 16-core, water-cooled media server cost 😄

4) meh.  PCI-e speeds aren't really relevant to graphics card performance nowadays, it basically only matters for RAID on a card PCI-e SSDs.  Besides PCI-e 5 is right around the corner, Intel decided to skip the 4th gen.  

I do more than game. Therefore the multi core perf is important to me. That was the 9700k at $150 more not the 9900k which I’m currently at least equal to in multi core perf. Therefore the cost would have been much more than $150 for a 9900K vs the 3700x

i didn’t imply anybody thought Ryzen was bad. My last 3 builds have been intel anyway.

Last point, I was referring to Ryzen Gen4 not pcie. That was just a nice bonus on the x570 chipset. The next gen of Ryzen is supposedly out next year and should slot straight into the x570 boards

As for budgets and golden sinks it’s all relevant. My budget is based on 6 mouths to feed so it is what it is. Therefore value is important to me. On this particular build AMD were offering more value.

 

 

 

[TechguyMaxC 516]

Just now, GHarrall said:

I do more than game. Therefore the multi core perf is important to me. That was the 9700k at $150 more not the 9900k which I’m currently at least equal to in multi core perf. Therefore the cost would have been much more than $150 for a 9900K vs the 3700x

i didn’t imply anybody thought Ryzen was bad. My last 3 builds have been intel anyway.

Last point, I was referring to Ryzen Gen4 not pcie. That was just a nice bonus on the x570 chipset. The next gen of Ryzen is supposedly out next year and should slot straight into the x570 boards

As for budgets and golden sinks it’s all relevant. My budget is based on 6 mouths to feed so it is what it is. Therefore value is important to me. On this particular build AMD were offering more value.

 

 

 

I do more than game also.  I choose to have multiple systems though, best tool for the job.  16-core i9 7960x 120TB media server, i9 9900k RTX 2080 Ti game/sim machine.  I don't have any other hobbies so that helps.  Income is a factor too.  I have 7 kids, oldest is 6 years old.