So my desktop is starting to show it's age.
I do video encoding as a side job time to time, and do gaming from time to time, so I am sort of stuck in the middle of single threaded performance and multi threaded madness.
I could easily side one way or the other.
Upfront I know the 2700x has the better price vs performance. It simply costs less, and if you take its performance numbers divided by its cost its a better value than the i9 9900K. This is even further enhanced by the fact that the motherboards for AMD are generally cheaper and the 2700X includes it's own cpu cooler.
So you would think that it should be an easy pick? But not so much...
I am still rocking a 2600K, and while in the past I used to make it a habit to build a new computer every few years, as a family man my priorities have changed. So I would not be surprised to see the next build need to survive another 5 years just like this one did (minor upgrades aside)
So given the upfront investment difference, down the road over 5 years it may make up for itself. Faster video encodes, maybe just a bit more CPU power for that next game, etc.
That alone throws a monkey wrench in the decision making process, but let me throw the whole monkey in there.
I know that AMD has the ROME processors on the 7nm process for Servers. This same tech is supposed to filter down to desktops and I assume just like how the server chips are going to be a drop in replacement for the current socket, desktop should be the same as well.
Intel has a bad habit of requiring a new motherboard and chipset to utilize a new CPU, and even if the next gen Intel is a drop in replacement for the 9900K it is only going to be 10nm fabrication. Intel CPU's tend to be better compared directly to AMD in the same technical range, but 7nm vs 10nm is a clear technical separation between the two that should easily give AMD the reach it needs to surpass Intel in power consumption and possibly performance.
Add the fact its going to be a drop in replacement, and probably priced cheaper than what ever competing Intel chip hits the market, and I really wonder if next year AMD steals the crown from Intel?
So what do you guys think?
Given a $2K budget for the whole build the $300 savings does not make a huge difference, but the path chosen will make a great impact on the over time aspects of the system.
Either way will be a nice upgrade, but I would enjoy seeing how everybody else weighs in on the decision.
I do video encoding as a side job time to time, and do gaming from time to time, so I am sort of stuck in the middle of single threaded performance and multi threaded madness.
I could easily side one way or the other.
Upfront I know the 2700x has the better price vs performance. It simply costs less, and if you take its performance numbers divided by its cost its a better value than the i9 9900K. This is even further enhanced by the fact that the motherboards for AMD are generally cheaper and the 2700X includes it's own cpu cooler.
So you would think that it should be an easy pick? But not so much...
I am still rocking a 2600K, and while in the past I used to make it a habit to build a new computer every few years, as a family man my priorities have changed. So I would not be surprised to see the next build need to survive another 5 years just like this one did (minor upgrades aside)
So given the upfront investment difference, down the road over 5 years it may make up for itself. Faster video encodes, maybe just a bit more CPU power for that next game, etc.
That alone throws a monkey wrench in the decision making process, but let me throw the whole monkey in there.
I know that AMD has the ROME processors on the 7nm process for Servers. This same tech is supposed to filter down to desktops and I assume just like how the server chips are going to be a drop in replacement for the current socket, desktop should be the same as well.
Intel has a bad habit of requiring a new motherboard and chipset to utilize a new CPU, and even if the next gen Intel is a drop in replacement for the 9900K it is only going to be 10nm fabrication. Intel CPU's tend to be better compared directly to AMD in the same technical range, but 7nm vs 10nm is a clear technical separation between the two that should easily give AMD the reach it needs to surpass Intel in power consumption and possibly performance.
Add the fact its going to be a drop in replacement, and probably priced cheaper than what ever competing Intel chip hits the market, and I really wonder if next year AMD steals the crown from Intel?
So what do you guys think?
Given a $2K budget for the whole build the $300 savings does not make a huge difference, but the path chosen will make a great impact on the over time aspects of the system.
Either way will be a nice upgrade, but I would enjoy seeing how everybody else weighs in on the decision.
