A little work and $550, yeah. Without all the current-gen goodies like PCI-E 4.0. And zero resell value when the system itself becomes legacy.
Intel teases Core i9-11900K beating Ryzen, high-end Tiger Lake H35 laptop CPUs
- Thread starter Scorpus
- Start date
Irata
Posts: 2,288 +4,002
Like I said, will upgrade when prices are lower, so counting on 400ish.
Still, that would be easier and cheaper than building an all new PC. Yes, I won't have PCIe 4. If I built new, I'd get it but am OK as is since fortunately the 2700x already features 4 lanes from the CPU for storage, so that should still be fine for direct storage.
In my case, I never sell my old PC - I gift them to family and friends. Selling used just doesn't seem worth the hassle.
Edit: Since I‘ll be getting a 47% gaming performance improvement and an even better improvement in MT for € 400ish, I feel that this is pretty good value for money.
Last edited:
Shadowboxer
Posts: 2,074 +1,655
I know I know, everybody knows you shouldn’t buy AMD if you’re a gamer!
wiyosaya
Posts: 9,760 +9,644
Sorry sIntel. Not interested - even if I were planning on making a new build in the near future.
You're giving credit to Intel engineers but you're actually really giving credit to Intel marketing.
If engineers were that good, they wouldn't be on 14+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ nm still.
antiproduct
Posts: 311 +439
With the heat being generated from the Core i9-11900K, if you don't already have the KFC Consle (https://www.techspot.com/news/88071-kfc-console-built-chicken-chamber-real-intel-nuc.html), then it'll turn your regular case into one. Probably nice in the winter, but not something for summer.
On the plus side, at least this might ease up on demand for the R9 5900X so I could actually buy one.
On the plus side, at least this might ease up on demand for the R9 5900X so I could actually buy one.
StrikerRocket
Posts: 226 +186
Just bought an 3900X, installed on a MSI MAG Tomahawk wifi X570 motherboard, so, at least for the next upgrade, I'll stick with AMD! Next upgrade when those CPUs are way cheaper, will be a 5950X. But for now, I'm waiting till graphics cards become available again.
This is a real pain, in my 37 years of computing, I've never seen a shortage of supply like this!
This is a real pain, in my 37 years of computing, I've never seen a shortage of supply like this!
Sorileus86
Posts: 42 +15
That's a lot of *Intel* slides, I'll wait for Real world benches, and I'd rather have 12 cores then 8 cores, especially since I like encoding video's those extra cores come in handy 
.
.
Reehahs
Posts: 1,297 +970
In my case when it was possible to upgrade generation by generation for PC components, I did bit by bit. In the time period of LGA775 my upgrades look like the following starting with family's OEM PC:
Pentium 4 single core 2.93 GHz
2 GB RAM DDR2
LGA775
+2GB RAM
GeForce 2 MX AGP
New PSU
GeForce 6200 AGP
Replacement PSU
E2180 dual core 1.8 GHz
New Mobo with old DDR2 RAM
New DDR3 RAM
Overclocked E2180 to 4.2 GHz (What a beast!)
New PSU
Q6600
PCIe GeForce 7600GT
GeForce 280GTX
Then a hiatus on the CPU side till Ivybridge, Phenom weren't that good at the time.
My Ivybridge build had new mobo and PSU but reused DDR3 RAM, GPU, SSD, and HDD.
Since then I have only been upgrading GPU because CPUs stagnated.
My next build is going to be Ryzen 5xxx but split on the GPU side. Can't build without availability of components anyway.
Colonel Blimp
Posts: 90 +77
Yes, include me in that.
1600 to 3600.
Rdmetz
Posts: 425 +211
Um yes we would.
For a gaming pc the only thing that matters is performance even if pricing were the same I'd take the faster gaming chip in my gaming computer.
Heck I had 4 core 7700k (with a huge oc) all the way up til may last year and I was still faster than the majority of gaming pc's with double the cores.
If I can sell my current 10900k for 80% or more of its cost I'll be glad to upgrade from my 10 core to this 8 core.
Cores don't equate to better in all situations.
Rdmetz
Posts: 425 +211
People like yourself deserve for amd to continue their moves towards taking yall over the barrel.
I personally am glad both exist and continue to compete it was ultimately amd's fault that Intel got so bad without good competition no company is going to go out of their way to throw profits away.
Just look at amd they barely start pulling their own weight once again and within 2 seconds they instantly going from the great value leader to a equally if not higher priced "competitor"
I'll always go with whichever provides me the best benefits for my money in the specific ways I need them to.
So far for 20 years that's been Intel but I'm happy to switch to amd the minute they can finally do all the things I need AND provide the better value.
For me switching to them just cause it's the cool thing to do by the bandwagon doesn't work for me not when with every amd build I've built or dealt with in the last 3 years has had multiple issues with booting / stability not to mention the terrible resale value my friends 2017 ryzen build found last year compared to my 2017 Intel 7700k one.
I got back 83% of what I spent meanwhile he wasn't even able to get 30%(he got 27%)
Rdmetz
Posts: 425 +211
Yea but they promised my friend upgrades through 2020 and when he wanted to get rid of his 1800x in the last part of 2020 he was told it wasn't possible to upgrade to the current chips (even though they had said when he bought it he would be good THROUGH 2020)
Rdmetz
Posts: 425 +211
Hahaha sure!
Even though I'm running a 10900k at 5.3 all core @1.32v and only see temps go up to around 63c and that's with an air cooler as well.
Room mate has 5800x and both of the rooms they are in are both roughly the same size and temps rise almost exactly the same amount comspred to the rest of the house (2-4 degrees over ambient) when we do testing.
This is funny when right now we're hearing about all the complaining happening with zen 3 chips and temps in the 90-95c area and it getting so bad they had to issue a statement.
Just saying yalls jokes don't really work in the real world and time after time it tends to come back to bite you.
Intel isn't running at 2x power all the time and looking at things like "max" power is always going to be deceitful.
On average they end up about the same overall when using a real world example and I don't need to read some fanboys post online to know as I've got the hardware here in hand to see for myself.
antiproduct
Posts: 311 +439
Yup, and I have a Dell Precision at work running i7-8700 (granted it's rather old, but still 14nm just as the new one will be) that frequently idles at about 80C and maxes out (with moderate use) at 99C. So I also know of some toasty Intel chips, could be craptacular cooling on Dell's end, but anyway. I'm sure there's a lot of differing factors at play between them all that make a big difference in overall temps.
One other thing you can examine is the system power consumption. According to another techspot article https://www.techspot.com/review/2134-amd-ryzen-5800x/ , the overall power consumption under load of your/their Intel system is about 301W vs 206W from the Ryzen 5800X. So nearly 100W of additional heat to dissipate would require some extra cooling I'd imagine.
mrvco
Posts: 279 +291
It will be interesting to see what AMD announces and/or ships (albeit to bots) between now and when the i9-11900K ships in ~three months.
Nobody buys the top end CPU to play at 1080p and if they do then they prolly don't have a top end GPU. We are talking about a huge difference in multithreading perf.
In your case I bet you wished your 7700K actually had 2 more cores so you could keep it for longer.
kmo911
Posts: 352 +44
I dont know if it was windows updates that made it unstable or ram was bad. I had to run a i7-10900 no k version to get it running. userbenchmark tell me I have 1024 mhz ram when im on 2133 and 3200 ram. blue screen view filled faster up then I could read them on net driver bug problems. the unstable x570 series with tha extra 4 pin are a Max payne in the *****tt ***=ace
Morphine Child
Posts: 174 +324
Engineers do what they are told to do. It's probably not as simple as that, but in the end their word is definitely not the last one. And trust me, no engineer will say let's not innovate and release same crap year after year...
And considering they squeezed this level of performance out of ancient process... just saying - credit where credit's due.
What's there to consider? 14nm++++++++ was always meant to be high performance process = high clock speeds and so high performance are expected. That ancient part is however evident when looking at power consumption and core count...
Neatfeatguy
Posts: 1,616 +3,045
I don't get it. The 10th gen from Intel generally out performed Ryzen on 1080p resolutions by 3-8% in a lot of games.
This shows us nothing new.
This shows us nothing new.
well it looks like you will end up without any platform then
The limit on the core count is more to do with the layout design, that Intel have been following since Skylake, rather than just the process node. Here's a quad core model of that era:
Intel just pack the cores between the GPU (on the left) and the system agent (on the right). This is how that actually pans out in reality:
Intel hasn't altered the logic and SRAM density by very much (if any at all) between Coffee Lake and Comet Lake, so we can assume with a reasonable degree of confidence that a core pair adds around 2.5 mm to the height of the die (this can be verified by comparing i5 models to i7/i9 ones, for the respective architecture).
So a 12 core 10900K would be 25 mm tall, a 14 core would be 27.5 and a 16 core (to match a Ryzen full house) would be a ridiculous 30 mm. The package itself is 37.5 mm tall, so that would leave just 3.75 mm above and below the die.
While a die shrink would certainly help here, a full redesign of the chip layout would be better (although the use of the ring interconnect system makes this tricky).
Similar threads
