JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
I can't wait for Leonidas to come in here and tell us that Rise of the Tomb Raider (the game Intel handily wins) is his favorite game and the game that matters most for all gamers.
Available at Microcenter, but I can't order online for store pickup. Newegg is sold out of the 3900X
Brick and mortar or online?got myself a 3900X.
Nope Im in the South. I'd give them a call and see what they can do for you.My microcenter isn’t open yet. If you are on the east coast can you let me know if you snag one? They always post they have items in store only but are usually not in stock in the actual store.
Thanks in advance!
Nope Im in the South. I'd give them a call and see what they can do for you.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider is a much better game and the best in the trilogy.I can't wait for Leonidas to come in here and tell us that Rise of the Tomb Raider (the game Intel handily wins) is his favorite game and the game that matters most for all gamers.
online i'm in the ukBrick and mortar or online?
Even a 3600 would blow the 3570K out of the water. Not sure what would impress you.Not that impressed with the gaming benchmarks. I think my 3570k survives another generation.
Waiting for prime day?AMD must not like Amazon, cuz their CPUs are still not available there.
Better gaming benchmarks than Intel.Not sure what would impress you.
here in the UK there are only bundles with a b450 board and 3000 ram lol.AMD must not like Amazon, cuz their CPUs are still not available there.
Waiting a full 10-days after everyone else is selling? Sounds like terrible business decision to me.Waiting for prime day?
Yet, what is available is much better than YOUR Intel CPU. Makes no sense.Better gaming benchmarks than Intel.
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.Leonidas meltdown incoming 5, 4, 3, 2, 1......
I'm looking forward to $329 9900KS this winterThe 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.Yet, what is available is much better than YOUR Intel CPU. Makes no sense.
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.Those CPU fall within what I expected them to be. In some games they are very close to the 9900K like Shadow of the Tomb Raider or even better than the 9900K in Resident Evil 2 Remake, but in others like Far Cry 5 they are noticeably worse.
Overall okay. I think the 3600 and 3700X offer good value, but the 9900K remains gaming king. It is going to be interesting down the line 2-3 years from now.
The 3900X is amazing if you do stuff that makes use of the 12c/24t, but for purely gaming it seems like a waste.
Power consumption and thermals make a good impression.
I can appreciate that. In many ways, I envy you because by the time you do upgrade it will be like night and day.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.
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....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.
To be clear, Steve at Hardware Unboxed is one of my favorite reviewers and his word carries significant weight.
....9700K still remains the best 'pure' gaming CPU money can buy.
Still going through videos here but Linus benched with RAM at 3600Mhz while Hardware Unboxed benched at 3200Mhz.Hmmm,
I just watched the Hardware Unboxed review and it's odd that his results gave Intel far and away the best performance results compared to others. His results make the 9700K look best for gaming.
Hardware Unboxed is one of my favorite reviewers and I trust his result.
So there's that.
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.Get outta here, Leonidas told me that real gamers play at 720p and 480p with their 2080ti's.....
Get outta here, Leonidas told me that real gamers play at 720p and 480p with their 2080ti's.....
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.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.
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 differenceI mean I play at 1440p with a card worse than a 2080 Ti and I am buying an AMD Ryzen 7 3700X, but what sense does it make to show differences of CPUs by running scenarios which are mostly GPU limited?
I could now scream LOOK AT THE 170$ 9400F BEING BETTER THAN THE 500$ Ryzen 9 3900X !!!!!!!!!!!!!! if we go by that chart.
The 9900K is the gaming king. There is no discussion about and seeing it any other way just means you are wrong.