Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by bit-tech, 29 Nov 2018.
Reason 1) you actually managed to get one
Reason 2) because Intel sent it to you
Reason 3) it's the best desktop cpu on the market
Only thing that interests me tbh is the box, and the one we got was a tray unit so GG
What I like about this CPU, is when you just want it to use minimum power and hardly effect it's gaming performance, you can set the ratio to say x40, and it won't break 40c, sitting at 0.9v on full load.
Add a Nofan cooler and 1050ti KalmX and you have the most ludicrous passively cooled gaming PC possible.
Its only about 20% faster than 2700x and nearly twice as much.....The 2700x is deffo the way to go and have change for beer and whores.
If you knock off lets say £200 from the CPU budget you can afford a better GPU (or a bigger SSD or whatever you fancy).
For approx £1100 you could get an i9-9900K and a RTX 2070.
For the same money you could get an i7-8700K and a RTX 2080 instead.
And which combo has the higher performance in games?
Everyone knows it is the 2nd option.
Just like the RTX cards the 9900k is an absolutely fine piece of technology that is priced at beyond hilarious levels.
Priced at say £450 it would have been expensive but much more acceptable. Beyond £600 for the retail version at launch when your direct competition is well under half the price.. yeah **** off.
Antony seems to like writing rather provocative columns recently.
I've got no idea about the price of stuff in the UK at the minute beyond general RRPs (prices in Japan don't correlate well - some stuff is the same, some stuff is much cheaper and some things are "You want how much?!") but it seems that the primary defence of the 9900K is "price and performance don't scale linearly"... which was ever the case, and I'm sure will ever be the case and thus, isn't really a good defence.
The segmentation of markets makes it more difficult; 25 years ago the choice for "IBM compatible" consumers was between 486 (DX2/DX4) and Pentium, for example, and speed of RAM wasn't really much of a concern. You bought what you could afford. But even within that (now defunct) labelling, use-case now needs to be examined more closely. Do you want to just do some browsing/email and a but of light Office work? Do you want to game? What kind of games? Do you want to do video editing? Audio editing? Data crunching? What kind of data? Streaming? HTPC duty? What programs you will use, since some work really well on Intel only, others don't care. What expansion ability do you want, because that will affect choice of chipset? Overclocking?
Choice is a good thing, but the market really does feel saturated at the minute; there are almost too many options, many of which overlap and can be quite confusing for people who don't research stuff well.
Worst thing about this Z390 platform, as far as I know, is that its a one shot deal, The 9900K will be as good as it will ever get on this socket, which will be dead within 12mths.
I think it's not, that's why alternatives have been highlighted in the thread.
Which is fine for Forbes but pissing in the wind with bit-tech...
Best save it for those with more money than sense Ant.
yea i wish i went amd. got 8600k at the moment as i got it on a deal, but ryzen 7 was my preferred option at the time
Did Tom's Hardware buy bit-tech? JustBuyIt2
Talks about platform cost and slim pickings AMDs on x4xx but disregards the fact that you can use 3xx board with new chips because AMD maintains compatibility, there isn't really a compelling reason to choose 4xx over 3xx, so in fact the pool of boards is quite large, doesn't end of life as rapdily or lock out like Intel, makes platform quite cost effective in the long run, X399 runs 1xxx and 2xxx, it is suggested it will run 3xxx, I think Intels HEDT has done similar? So you could say that HEDT platform are not that expensive and give you loads more for your money.
TBH, when you look at how well the Z68 platform performs in today's market, it makes it questionable whether all our upgrades over them years was really worth it?
Did anyone really moan about the price of the Extreme CPU's we had which was priced at £900+ RRP?
Cause I am sure I had my fair share of these expensive CPU's from the QX9650, 990X, 3960X and now the 9900K. Which when compared to the latter's, is actually priced better for an Extreme CPU which can be had for £499 on OCUK right now.
While the $1000 CPU has been a thing for many years (and not just from Intel, Athlon 64 FX 60 anyone?) don't forget that $1000 in recent times effectively became the bargain basement entry level HEDT when Intel priced the 18 core close to double the traditional $1000 top of the line price and with the upcoming "Hyper absurd HEDT" (or whatever it will be called) 28 core $2000 won't even buy you the right to smell the box it ships in.
I wish I had got the 8700k (2 games ksp and factorio ) but 1800k been fine overall for everything else and other games
Intel cpu has better latency then amd witch for me matters when lots of stuff is going on 2 threads (ryzen higher latency and ram controller latencies can be 30-40% slower then intel)
Separate names with a comma.