So, 9900K? Or Ryzen 2700X?


What say you qt3?

I am pissed at Intel for selling 9900K so expensively because I have been waiting all year for it. But I might just bite the god damn bullet anyway - I would like it to last a decent number of years (my 2500K is 7 years in action…). Ryzen seems great, but I am a bit worried it could get below 60fps threshold significantly quicker.
Stupid disoptimized games like AC Odyssey can use every IPC they can get.


I’m still getting the 2700X due to its apparently better for streamers/recorders like me, and isn’t that much slower than the 9900K for a lot less money.


I’m leaning toward the i5-9600K at the moment to upgrade my i5-3570K. I don’t do streaming or similar workloads, so my impression is that the extra cores won’t do enough to justify their cost in normal gaming performance.

From the benchmarks I’ve seen, it seems like the 9600K is about 10% ahead of the 2700X in most games, and the 9900K only squeezes out another ~3-5% on top of that.

But of course, that’s with a setup designed to accentuate CPU differences, and real-world games are more likely to be GPU-constrained, so I might just go with the Ryzen 2700X to save a bit of money and hedge my bets in case the additional cores get better utilization in future games.


The Ryzen is just a fantastic buy. I wouldn’t recommend paying the Intel tax. My 2600 was less than the i5-9600K and came with a great motherboard, and has twice as many threads.


I would go for a 2700 and overclock it manually, personally. But if you want easy overclocking, the 2700X is a great choice.

The 9900K price is impossible to justify. 9700K is much easier, if you don’t need all the cores and just care about gaming performance. It also avoids a bunch of security problems with hyperthreading.


Also suggest the 2700! Go AMD!


Why’s that? My impression had been that the price difference between them was mostly wiped out by the need to add on an aftermarket cooler to the 2700, whereas the one that comes with the 2700X is pretty good.


It’s cheaper, and while the 2700X cooler isn’t bad, it doesn’t compete with something you might buy for $60. So you get basically the exact same CPU with a much better HSF, with the difference being you need to OC it yourself.


This is the minor non-factor I’m trying to use to convince myself to stick with the 9700K.

Anandtech actually did a Dolphin benchmark and they were pretty similar. I’m waiting for enthusiasts to run some RPCS3 numbers.


I mean, it’s still eight physical cores. Hyperthreading would help with productivity, rendering video, compiling code, but not desktop work or playing games.


Why is the price in that benchmark over $2,000 when it’s $580 on Amazon? What am I missing? I was going to buy the i9-9900K over the i7-9700K because it was only $170 more, but now I’m worried I’m looking at the wrong thing?

e: Oh, I see, that price is for a pre-built PC

e2: Those benchmarks make me more confident that upgrading to a 9900K (or even a 9700K if I wanted to put the extra $180 elsewhere) is a good idea for me. I have a 1080 Ti like they are testing with and the jump from even the 7700K to the 9700K is significant, and I have a 4770K so it’s an even bigger leap. I knew my CPU was my bottleneck.

I really just want to upgrade as an excuse to get an m.2 SSD, really. I built a new PC for my mother in law last year and that thing was crazy fast. Much faster than my aging Samsung 840.


Yes, the m.2 SSDs are amazing. It felt like as big of a leap as going from a HDD to my first SSD did.


I don’t know what you’re talking about. I have a NVME SSD and the performance increase is only noticeable in benchmarks over my old SATA one.


My previous SSD was old, a Crucial M4 256GB. I definitely noticed a significant bump in speed when I got the m.2.


All I know is what I experienced first hand. It was crazy. 5 minutes to install Win10, 15 seconds boot into it from a cold boot. My own PC with the 840 (500MB/s and 250MB/s write/read speed) is very fast, don’t get me wrong - but it’s more than double those numbers. The Win10 install blew my damned mind. The 970 is 3500MB/s, which looks to be like what NVME is supposed to be?

Maybe NVME isn’t as fast? That can’t be right, I’m looking at an article right here that claims NVME is significantly faster than SATA SSD (which is what I’m using with my 840). Maybe it’s not really in practice?


No, it’s technically much faster, it’s just that SATA is fast enough that it’s tough to tell any difference.

The improvement when I first upgraded from a magnetic disk to a SSD was truly transformative, it’s like the sky opened up, the sun shone, and I was bathed in the light of a loving God for the very first time. The warmth, the love, the acceptance. I ascended to the heavens on a cloud made of adoration and the purest, nearly-sexual pleasure.

The improvement when I upgraded from a SATA SSD to NVME was… measurable in benchmarks. I guess maybe if you’re doing sustained multi-gigabyte copies it might be noticeable. I don’t do that very often.


That was my experience too. Minus all the weird stuff. HD to SSD, yay. SSD to M2… fine.


HDD to SATA SSD — 480p to 1080p
SATA SSD to M.2/NVME — 1080p to 1440p



I want that analysis with the 9700K and the 9900K.