The only thing I’m still contemplating is 8700k z370(mid-high end) or 9900k z390. I do want to save money and you are convincing me to do so with 8700k.
I will want to upgrade only when I see performance degrade. Which I started to notice in one specific thing recently with my current rig which I bought a little over 5 years ago. I want it to be high performing for at least 4-5+years. I am willing to upgrade ram or gpu if needed soon but I don’t want to upgrade anything else.
Time and high-performance are mutually exclusive in computer technology. By the time software matures enough for the 9900k to be noticeably faster than the 8700k, future midrange CPU’s will have long since overtaken the 9900k in performance. So, if you’re more serious about not upgrading, you can get the 9900k at the detriment of graphics power now, and it might buy you a couple of months, maybe a year, but neither CPU will be high end by then. But if you’re serious about being high-end and getting high framerates, upgrades are inevitable, and come with the territory of being high-end. I’ve kept my 2500k for 7-ish years, and a 2600k might’ve staved off an upgrade for another couple of months, but I’m only targeting 60-70FPS and with AC: Odyssey and new Battlefront 2, and Battlefied, my neither my CPU nor GPU could keep up, but at the end of the day, a $165 Ryzen 5 2600 was twice as fast as my 2500k, and 60% faster than 2600k, which was $317. Of course, that’s based on synthetics, but in game, The Ryzen 2600 will still provide 15FPS more than 2600k, and will continue to outpace them as newer APIs and optimization utilizes more threads (and thus Ryzen) better.
About the RAM, unless that 3600 is the same price as 2933, again, you’re wasting money. Even Ryzen, which is particularly memory speed sensitive (as the CPU core interconnect is reliant on memory speed) does not scale well beyond 2933. Even new APU’s don’t really scale well beyond 3200 (and that is with a memory starved GPU on board with the Ryzen CPU). Intel platforms cares less, and scale worse with memory speeds. Best case scenario, 3200 is the point of diminishing returns. With Intel, 2667 is pretty much the sweet spot for speed. Even 2933 is kinda dubious if it comes at any sort of significant premium (10%).
From what I can tell it was $20 difference from 3000 to 3600 memory.
If getting the 9900k now over the 8700k will buy me some time in the future that is what I want. That it was I was trying to explain earlier with performance slow down over a long period of time(years). If it will out perform the 8700k for months or even years then that is what I would prefer to get. I want this pc to stay high end as long as possible to delay upgrades. I would like it to stay a power house for 5+ years or so.
If you’re looking ahead up to 4 years, you should be considering that if you were to buy a decent AM4 board, you’ll be able to pop in an 8+ core Ryzen 3000 series CPU (maybe up to 16 core, depending on motherboard) this year for performance that will smoke the 8700k/9900k, especially on anything multi-threaded. You will get PCIe 4.0 support as well.
An 8700k (or 9900k) plus intel board is a dead end.
IMHO if you buy an intel mainstream board today with the intent of keeping it for 4 years and expecting it to be competitive, you’re making a terrible mistake.
Buy intel if you want max clock speed TODAY.
If you’re looking any further ahead than say, 6 months… Ryzen.
Ya I think I’m doing it before the next generation comes out for ryzen. I don’t necessarily want to keep any hardware either 5+ years down the road unless it still performs well. I don’t need to drop in a cpu upgrade and keep moving. I would want new cpu/Mobo/ram if it’s better. @thro
That is at least 6 months away from the release of the new ryzen CPUs. The thing is I’m selling my current rig and putting that money towards the upgrade. So I don’t want to go without a PC and can’t wait that long.
Maybe I wasn’t clear - you will only be able to stave off an upgrade if you’re okay gaming at compromised details and framerate down the line - both 9900k and 8700k will likely reach the point of reducing frame-rate at about the same time - if you’re okay with that, then go ahead with the knowledge that, relative to future hardware, you will loose overall performance; it won’t be long until mid-range and even entry level chips will outperform the 9900k (which is already based on a 3 year old architecture). Again your money, but personally I think it’s pretty moot to stave an upgrade by a couple of months, especially over a span of years, and it’s a poorer value overall.
But that also changes the premise of my original advice, and AMD will actually make more sense - since you’re prioritizing staving off a platform upgrade over framerate, AMD will make more sense as AM4 platform will be supported for longer, and will certainly outlive LGA 1151. A CPU swap on the same platform isn’t particularly difficult, especially if there is a cutout in the case for the motherboard’s CPU socket area - then you won’t have to remove the motherboard from the case. Just undo cooler, release CPU, place new CPU, redo cooler, and done.
So drop in a cheap r5-1600 today (which will still run most games on ultra at > 90 fps with a decent GPU), and upgrade to an r5-3600x or r7-3700x in 6 months?, and (or) maybe even an R5-4xxx or R7-4xxx or RX-5xxx in 18-36 months?
If you go intel, that’s the end of the line. disassemble entire machine, replace motherboard, etc.
The engineering sample (rumoured to be an R5-3600X spec) AMD demonstrated at CES outperformed the 9900k in half the power. That’s a consumer-mid-range CPU.
9900k performance is going to be AMD consumer-mid-range inside of 6 months. If you think intel aren’t going to do their best to follow suit ASAP (putting out stuff that renders the 9900k low-end, even if they take a massive hit to margin), well…
Right now is a bad time to buy a CPU. Its an OK time to buy an AM4 or TR4 board. But if you’re an intel customer, even if you plan to stay intel - wait for the inevitable price crash (and/or new chipset/motherboard and processor this year).
The 9900k will deliver good performance now, the platform is dead in the water though (Like others have said).
For maximum FPS in current games and very limited possibilites for upgrades, this is a waste of money. the 8700k makes more sense here.
As you mentioned using the machine for 4 to 5 years, AM4 makes more sense. There are lots of motherboards to choose from and a lot of affordable CPUs (for example: R5 1600).
AMD said AM4 to be supported until 2020, so the Ryzen 4000 series will also work on current mainboards. So when you buy a higher-end mainboard (X470 chipset) now, you can put in something like the 1600 or 2600X when you want to max out FPS and upgrade just the CPU in 2020 to the latest and greatest.
I am trying to delay upgrade(5 years or so) while getting high framerate. I know performance will always degrade with time. My MAIN goal is best performance all around(regular consumer use) & gaming. So it seems I will be going 8700k from everyone’s advice.
If the new ryzen chips were out, I probably would buy one but they don’t come out for 6 months at least. If I went AMD what would I do buy an ok cpu and wait for the new ones? If I buy an ok cpu now I would want to buy the best new one later this year so that probably would cost more than the 8700k. Also we dont know how well it will perform compared to 8700k.
Lots of boards do autoOC, all of them give waaaaaay too much voltage in doing so.
Just do it manually, it is not that hard. Conservative voltage is better than magic smoke.
Have to agree. Its better to never get a stable OC because you dont know what you’re doing than leave it up to a bios that may or may not get it right and then 6 months later your chip is so degraded that you can only run stock speeds at now higher voltages.
In my honest opinion… Run an air cooler… You likely wont need to OC much… go to 16 gb of ram… Look for a ROG STRIX series gaming motherboard (might be cheaper) balance the build out and up the graphics card much more. I would argue moving to a core i5 9600K and opting for the RTX 2080 just saying… Its a decision for the money that you would be much more happy with
I like it… If you are gonna OC that 6 core I would consult @MisteryAngel in motherboard power delivery. Ive fallen behind in the power stage design and she is rather knowledgeable on the topic… Other then that I see no really issue … She might point out a better mainbord
Unless you plan on running 1080p with a 1080ti or higher (and you’re not, you list a 2070 for a start), a 2700/2700x is equivalent to an 8700k in games today - and 20-30% cheaper on CPU with a cheaper board required.
A 2600/2600x will also be very close at approximately half the cost for CPU. Again, if you’re not trying to run 1080p on a 1080ti (and if you’re running a 1080ti you’re likely trying to push higher res than that).
With the money saved, drop in a future CPU any time within the next few years to get at least 8 and likely up to 16 cores at 4.5ghz or more. On the same board.
Seems like I’m going 8700k if I gwet it now. Or wait to see what amd has mid year and or if Intel responds to amds new CPUs. What would be a good Mobo to get for 8700k?