I would say that is as valid a use case as someone who may need to do video rendering on a budget, in which case Ryzen would be a good choice.
Not saying its not valid, not sure where I stated that.
possibly there. But I am arguing, which is pointless.
False, Intel is better at some productivity stuff, like I mentioned in my previous reply.
This is not a productivity CPU, in the slightest. Intel is not marketing it as a productivity CPU. Intel did not do a shitty benchmark and advertise shitty benchmarking on productivity titles, they did it on gaming. Sure YOU may find SOMETHING productivity wise it does better or is good for YOUR workload but this is a CPU for gaming, just ask Intel.
How is marketing relevant to what it’s good for? “Gamers” are sheep for marketing, hence they market it like that. It doesn’t change the fact that it’s just so much better for a lot of productivity stuff.
Marketing is very relevant. Nothing to do with calling everyone sheep… it is designed with gaming in mind. That’s why they didn’t release bullshit productivity benchmarks, they released bullshit gaming benchmarks. It’s just like telling me your case is a high airflow case… and it doesn’t flow fuck all for air. You are marketing your product for a specific group… and failing epicly at it. If your workload works congratulations, for most productivity the bang for the buck is going to be questionable at best. Go out and buy it but Intel ain’t aiming these at you, they are aiming them squarely at gamers.
In my mind, if your focus is entirely on getting every possible frame from your hardware in games, Intel wins, no question.
For someone like me that plays games, edits videos, is interested in virtualization, and cares about how much money I spend in the process, AMD is very compelling.
With the increased core/thread count of Intel, they may be worth a look if the value to performance is superior to AMD. At this point, and based purely on speculation, I dont think Intel is there yet.
Disclaimer, I have never built an AMD pc. If the current trends continue into the timeframe of my next build, it will most certainly be AMD. Not because I am a new fanboy, but because it fits my application specifically.
Overall, I hope the new Intel parts are not a complete flop. Competition is good.
I appreciate the Linux developer perspective to this discussion.
With a system within the i9 price range, I doubt that some last gen used graphics card would break the bank for any build. But, if you hate gaming and only want your machine for development, I get it.
I’m surprised that a six core performed 3/4 of what a quad core did. Like you suggest, I guess the cost of moving work between threads was stupid high on AMD for the workloads you were doing?
Funny that you said “Linux developer”, since I’m mostly developing on Windows I love Linux nonetheless, I probably spent most of my total dev time on it, but I prefer Windows at the moment for several small reasons.
- Well, I like to play games, but mostly indie and old stuff. The integrated graphics is enough. When I bought my PC, I had a limited budget, and even if one spends a lot of money on their development machine, “a couple hundred bucks” can get you some significant upgrades. The graphics card was out of the question, I could get one and a weaker processor, but dev time savings and how much I enjoy working on a computer are extremely important, way more important than “let’s buy a graphics card because why not”. I saved on stuff like the case, GPU, monitor and RAM (just temporarily, RAM is quite important too, just way easier to upgrade) but instead got a super fast NVMe SSD, an i7 and quitet Noctua cooling.
- I have no idea why that was, but that doesn’t really matter to me - what matters is that I have the best dev experience I can.
Gaming is the only thing we currently have to go on with the i9-9900K, regardless of what it may turn out to be good at. We actually have no idea whether it will be proficient for other tasks or not at this point, better or worse or the same as AMD offerings.
I’d point out though that if you were actually in a “money is no object” situation, and wanted the “absolute best” even for gaming, you might not go with either the i9-9900K or R7 2700K. You might, instead, go with something like a new Threadripper, maybe particularly the ones coming out that are geared more towards gaming (though, just like the i9, we currently just have marketing to go on, so we don’t know if they make much of a difference), or maybe an i9-9960X. Maybe even the highest end of an Epyc or Xeon processor, even though those aren’t designed for gaming so you’d be wasting a good bit of money on features that won’t matter to you (I don’t know how they perform with games though, maybe it’s terrible?).
It’s like they read my post:
This sums up the Internet.
And keep in mind this was recorded before Steve was bombarded with the Principled Technologies stuff. He was still happy about the setup Intel gave for the press day.
I wouldnt buy a 9900k … but I would consider the i7 8c/8t cpu…
I’m actually in the midst of building a new gaming machine and was debating a new 9900k or a threadripper 2950X so the 9900k is seemingly a better option in terms of price and perf.