Nope Im in the South. I'd give them a call and see what they can do for you.
Yep. I'm good with my 8700K @4.8 GHz on all cores and there's no reason for me to question my new Z390 build
Shadow of the Tomb Raider is a much better game and the best in the trilogy.
Even a 3600 would blow the 3570K out of the water. Not sure what would impress you.
here in the UK there are only bundles with a b450 board and 3000 ram lol.
Waiting a full 10-days after everyone else is selling? Sounds like terrible business decision to me.
Yet, what is available is much better than YOUR Intel CPU. Makes no sense.
If he goes by the Hardware Unboxed results, then he will have plenty to gloat about. For some reason it seemed like Steve (the reviewer) got results much more favorable to Intel and he mentioned he was disappointed in several games. The 9700K and 8700K came out looking pretty good in his results. The 3700X is indisputably a better value than the 9900K.
I have yet to have any issues getting the performance I want out of my 3570k and 980ti for games at 1440p. So, unless something looks particularly impressive, I'm not inclined to upgrade.
The worst thing the 9900K has going for it is that it's pretty much a dead end as far as upgradability. That probably doesn't mean much though.
I can appreciate that. In many ways, I envy you because by the time you do upgrade it will be like night and day.
Depends on the game. If Tomb Raider, Far Cry and Hitman are YOUR games and all that matters Intel performs remarkably well in those.Difference in gaming is 1-2% average at 1440p, and that's benching using a 2080 Ti....so much for the 9900K 'gaming king'.
Steve is a mixed back. One can't argue with his numbers, but sometimes his choices for testing and his conclusions are a bit awkward. I'll use a GPU example... When he revisited the GTX 970 this year, he somehow decided to compare it to the R9 290 instead of the R9 390, despite him comparing it to the R9 390 all the years prior. When multiple people said he should have included the R9 390 (not replaced the R9 290 with it), he called those people fanboys and that the R9 390 and 290 perform the same and there's no reason to test both. I think the reason for that article/video was more about getting views than really putting the 970 against its competition. He simply didn't want to put any bad light on the GTX 970. Oddly enough, he shortly after releases a video comparing two exact same nVidia RTX 2060 GPUs where only the brand is different, to see if branding matters....
www.kitguru.net
Still going through videos here but Linus benched with RAM at 3600Mhz while Hardware Unboxed benched at 3200Mhz.
Got a link to the main article? Image is hotlink protected.Another one for you guys. 3900X draws less power than the 9900K despite 4 more cores!
My new nickname should be cherry, as I like cherry-picking
I can't say I've ever gotten that impression about Steve. I've felt that he does his best to keep AMD fans happy.Steve is a mixed back. One can't argue with his numbers, but sometimes his choices for testing and his conclusions are a bit awkward. I'll use a GPU example... When he revisited the GTX 970 this year, he somehow decided to compare it to the R9 290 instead of the R9 390, despite him comparing it to the R9 390 all the years prior. When multiple people said he should have included the R9 390 (not replaced the R9 290 with it), he called those people fanboys and that the R9 390 and 290 perform the same and there's no reason to test both. I think the reason for that article/video was more about getting views than really putting the 970 against its competition. He simply didn't want to put any bad light on the GTX 970. Oddly enough, he shortly after releases a video comparing two exact same nVidia RTX 2060 GPUs where only the brand is different, to see if branding matters....
For CPUs it's the same. It's not really consistent. So the best thing is to look at his numbers and draw your own conclusion, rather than following his conclusions and stories he wants to tell. He actually tries to gain more views by feeding the fanboy wars multiple times.
Get outta here, Leonidas told me that real gamers play at 720p and 480p with their 2080ti's.....Difference in gaming is 1-2% average at 1440p, and that's benching using a 2080 Ti....so much for the 9900K 'gaming king'.
Can't tell if you genuinely don't understand, or are purposefully ignoring just to troll as usual, but here.
I am upgrading from that CPU. For me the system has some aging issues. It stutters on some games even at 1080p/ It also seems to have EMI problems ( thunderstorms cause flaky HDMI response). The system is so old it barely had any USB 3.0 ports which makes it annoying to have to dig to find a fast port for drives. Plus the thing has dust from both sides of the country in it. The biggest upgrade though is the PCIe Gen4 M2 drives. Pricey, but I really want to see how fast the thing responds. I just did a 9500k build for the family room TV and the Gen3 M2 drives are great compared to my old SATA SSD. And like the last system, I intend to keep it for 8 or so years so I am using that fast drive as the excuse to upgrade now as the x570 is the first chipset to enable that. Plus I hate intel. I worked there and it was a sweat shop for PhDs and the 9500k had a flaky GPU that wasted so many hours of my life and caused me to have to spend on a dGPU when all I wanted was decent iGPU for a media center. This also caused an unnecessary RMA for a mobo manufacturer because nobody expects the CPU to be bad. 5 defects per million my ass.
JohnnyFootball
he even recommends the same motherboard you did for this CPU, the MSI B450 Tomahawk, because of the BIOS flashing without CPU.
Difference in gaming is 1-2% average at 1440p, and that's benching using a 2080 Ti....so much for the 9900K 'gaming king'.
the 9900k is the gpu king but in average only for the 2%, while for the whole system usage that pci e 4.0 may do a big difference
