Intel core i9 9900k or a amd processor for high performance gaming?

[ThO.]

^

[Jasper]

I would buy a 3900x instead.
12 cores at 3,8 - 4,6 turbo
vs
i9 9900
8 cores at 3,6 - 5,0 turbo

The even bigger difference is that the 3900x is like 100$ cheaper, where i live at least.
Personally i don't think you need anything like this for gaming, it's nice to have but it's not necessary imo.
I have a 3700x and i can't see why i need anything better.

[C2Dan88]

AMD Ryzen 3600x/3700x
MSI Tomahawk Max B450 Mobo
16GB 3600Mhz memory

[Jasper]

Originalmente postado por meh:

Originalmente postado por Jasper:

I would buy a 3900x instead.
12 cores at 3,8 - 4,6 turbo
vs
i9 9900
8 cores at 3,6 - 5,0 turbo

The even bigger difference is that the 3900x is like 100$ cheaper, where i live at least.
Personally i don't think you need anything like this for gaming, it's nice to have but it's not necessary imo.
I have a 3700x myself and i can't see why i need anything better.

The 3900x offers around 2% gaming performance difference than the 3700x, and I would say that's down to the ~200mhz boost difference. The price difference between these chips is high, so why buy a 3900x for gaming?

I wasn't aware of that, in that case definitely go for a 3700x

[Autumn_]

You want an Intel CPU, i7-9700k or 9900k.
But, only if you're willing to overclock it.
If not, then better to opt for a 360xx/3700x/3800x

[hawkeye]

It doesn't really matter as the limitation is that graphics cards are a step behind cpus in performance. Currently the cpu won't make much difference as long as it's a good one. If/when nvidia launches 3 series and amd launches navi gpus then cpu performance will be more important.

If you want highest performance gaming then it's the 9900k or 9700k now or better still the 10900k in 6 weeks time if intel announces 10th series at the end of April. The 10700k will beat the 9900k too as it is supposedly just a faster 9900k. However intel might throw in some other tech advances which could also improve performance.

AMD performance is slightly lower both in fps and smoothness in AAA games. The 3700x would be my choice. The 3800x is slightly faster but draws a lot more power. The 3900x is probably to be avoided as it is 2 cpus talking to 1 memory controller which isn't ideal for gaming.

[Randy Lahey]

Only a tool buys a 9900K (they love telling everyone about it too). Have a look at these ACTUAL gaming benchmarks and tell me which one makes the most sense (hint: it's the 3600):

https://www.techspot.com/review/1968-ryzen-3600-vs-2600-gaming-scaling/

The difference between the 3900X and 3600 is about 2 fps (I game at 1440p). BEST case scenario you get maybe 10 more fps for almost quadruple the price for the 9900k. And overclocking these days makes almost ZERO difference in-game, look it up. But, they do manage to convince people to spend hundreds more on water cooling and other such nonsense. Suckers...born every minute.

[Jasper]

Where did you get the 2fps from?
There's a difference of 17 fps average on the 2080Ti, according your link.

[Randy Lahey]

Originalmente postado por Jasper:

Where did you get the 2fps from?
There's a difference of 17 fps average on the 2080Ti, according your link.

Not at 1440p there isn't. Most of those games show less than a 4fps difference between the 3600 and 3900x. Price (just checked Newegg): 3900x - $450USD, 3600 $175USD. And if Assassin's Creed is your thing, the 3900X actually beats the 9900k, and only beats the 3600 by 4 fps. Look at the cards compared. Really worth triple and quadruple the price for a 9900k and 2080ti?! Not in my lifetime. What moron buys a 2080ti to play at 1080p and medium settings?? The sweet spot is clearly a 3600 and 5700 card. With what you save on the CPU you can get a much better vid card.

[xSOSxHawkens]

Go AMD. Get more for your money all around. Jumped from i7 4c8t @4.8 to a stock 3900x and am happy as can be.

[Jasper]

Originalmente postado por Randy Lahey:

Originalmente postado por Jasper:

Where did you get the 2fps from?
There's a difference of 17 fps average on the 2080Ti, according your link.

Not at 1440p there isn't. Most of those games show less than a 4fps difference between the 3600 and 3900x. Price (just checked Newegg): 3900x - $450USD, 3600 $175USD. And if Assassin's Creed is your thing, the 3900X actually beats the 9900k, and only beats the 3600 by 4 fps. Look at the cards compared. Really worth triple and quadruple the price for a 9900k and 2080ti?! Not in my lifetime. What moron buys a 2080ti to play at 1080p and medium settings?? The sweet spot is clearly a 3600 and 5700 card. With what you save on the CPU you can get a much better vid card.

I agree with you that pricewise amd makes way more sense. That's why i switched to amd a couple months ago.
Besides that, the stock cooler for amd actually does a good job on cooling. Wich will save you even more money on a CPU cooler.

[Grimy_RIck]

I personally have an i9-9900k, but i would say at this moment i would go with AMD, intel still trumps AMD (in my opinion please don't shoot me) but not massively, and the price/performance with AMD is much better, if i could turn the clocks back i may have went with the 3800x, but i am an intel fanboy so maybe i would still have got the i9 but i am currently building for a friend who i convinced to go AMD and its a very nice build with the 3600.

[Jamebonds1]

I9-9900K is not better than i7-9700K for gaming performance unless there is more than just for gaming purposes.

[r.linder]

Originalmente postado por Grimy_RIck:

I personally have an i9-9900k, but i would say at this moment i would go with AMD, intel still trumps AMD (in my opinion please don't shoot me) but not massively, and the price/performance with AMD is much better, if i could turn the clocks back i may have went with the 3800x, but i am an intel fanboy so maybe i would still have got the i9 but i am currently building for a friend who i convinced to go AMD and its a very nice build with the 3600.

Intel wins in gaming performance on the desktop platform, but that's about it. Ryzen 9 has very similar gaming performance to the 9700K and 9900K but the 3900X is faster in workloads that benefit from its higher core/thread count. Ryzen 9 is an overall performance king, Ryzen 5 is a price/performance king, and Ryzen 7 is an in-between that takes elements from both.

For users not even concerned with the higher multi-core performance, have the money but want maximum gaming performance regardless of pricing, a 9700K or 9900K is ideal. Multi-core performance won't mean anything to them if they aren't doing work.

[BOT Steven]

AMD is hot right now, but deciding between those two you honestly cannot go wrong.

[Autumn_]

Originalmente postado por Grimy_RIck:

I personally have an i9-9900k, but i would say at this moment i would go with AMD, intel still trumps AMD (in my opinion please don't shoot me) but not massively, and the price/performance with AMD is much better, if i could turn the clocks back i may have went with the 3800x, but i am an intel fanboy so maybe i would still have got the i9 but i am currently building for a friend who i convinced to go AMD and its a very nice build with the 3600.

It's not an opinion, Intel is OBJECTIVELY better for performance (in gaming workloads.)

Fellow Intel fanboy here; but you can still be a fanboy and still recommend the competition, support them, and hope they do well.
I love Intel for their performance, not their pricing, given the chance I would take an Intel CPU over an AMD one in a heartbeat, simply for that performance.
But, I would happily buy an AMD CPU, because it gives me what I need, while Intel doesn't (in this price range.)

Being a Fanboy isn't a bad thing, so long as you're honest. And being a Fanboy isn't bad so long as you don't blindly follow the company and constantly kiss it's arse.