I agree, home users like gamers shouldn’t really bother with a 9900K basically.
I mean as far as gaming is concerned a 9700K or 9600K offer similar performance for less money,
or at least within a margin.
Still there are people who do more then just gaming, and some of them generally don’t mind paying extra for the best product.
3 Likes
The youtube effect. People on youtube say it’s the best, so that’s what you get, otherwise you might be laughed at when you go boasting about your sweet specs.
I’ve watched people going from the 7700k to 8700k to 9900k, upgrading every time something new is out, just because.
Meanwhile I have seen no compelling reason to upgrade from my i5 from 2012, except that AMD is really cool again…
To be honest, purely for gaming, the 9600k would probably be the best value to get, even over the AMD parts, especially if you’re looking to upgrade in the next 3-5 years, which let’s face it, if you’re a gamer, you probably are.
I will soon be upgrading to a 9900K due to my specialized CAD software being single thread dependent.
With my current workload a 5% increase in performance would pay for an extra $200 in less than a month.
1 Like
This is what i was talking about.
Another example i’ve chatted with a co-worker about for example is from oil and gas industry. They have a need for the fastest workstations they can buy to run some of their models. The money is there and if they can spend say $50-60k on a workstation to run the software faster, then the ROI is there to do it.
Same for high frequency traders - one bank/fund for example ran a new frickin undersea cable between the USA and Europe (for X millions/billions of dollars) to shave 4ms off their network latency so their trading algorithms could beat the other guys. The ROI was there so they did it.
Price:performance doesn’t ALWAYS matter. If you need maximum performance (typically this is definitely NOT the home user market), sometimes paying 2, 3 or even 10x the cost may be worth it if the return is there.
1 Like
Wages of the operator dwarf the cost of the system.
If you take a 3 year upgrade cycle and a 200 work days a year, the system only need to provide a productivity boost over those 600 days greater than the hardware cost to provide value.
1 Like
Because they’re a tech youtuber.
Or like intel.
Or can’t be bothered to try.
1 Like