Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Hardware
Hardware Discussions
Should I buy a Core i9 9900K or wait for core i9 10900K for few months?
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dex4Sure" data-source="post: 858392" data-attributes="member: 79841"><p>First of all, depends on the workload. On multithreaded workload, nope.... 3900X will still beat 10900K. Single threaded yes, but only slightly... 3900X was not that far from 9900K in IPC and if 10900K really is only 2% faster in single threaded performance its a very, very tiny upgrade. Then factor in the likelihood of security patches and threat mitigation updates to quickly eat those 2% performance gains in the next years and you already start to see why this is a bad deal.</p><p></p><p>14nm is "bleeding edge" only for Intel. We are talking about 5 year old manufacturing process. Its by no means bleeding edge by today's standards. TSMC and Samsung are both far ahead these days, at 7nm EUV and beyond. If Intel doesn't catch up soon, they might have to ditch their own foundries and start to use TSMC or Samsung as well. Will be a costly endeavor for them, considering how much money they have invested into their foundries. AMD did that years ago when they ran out of options due to financial reasons, and its paid off now.</p><p></p><p>30% faster on multicore than 9900K won't be enough to even match 3900X, let alone 3950X. And AMD will have their 4000 series out as an answer soon enough as well. On workstation side the difference is even more staggering, with 64 core 128 thread Threadripper totally destroying Intel's offerings, including all Intel's server CPU's (Xeons). If Intel is only able to increase their IPC by 2% in their 10th gen, AMD has a real chance to overtake them even in single threaded performance this year. AMD has been increasing their own IPC much faster in each generation than Intel now.</p><p></p><p>Again, nothing is stopping Intel from also using TSMC 7nm instead of their own crappy 14nm+++++. Its not an argument in Intel's favor to point out AMD has "unfair" advantage. Its entirely Intel's responsibility to keep up with rest of the market, and if they fail to do so then they are not getting my money. Simple as that. Excuses or no excuses. NVIDIA beats AMD despite being on 1 generation older manufacturing node on GPU side, they don't need to make up excuses despite being on TSMC 12nm instead of TSMC 7nm. It showcases if the architecture itself is efficient, it can still beat rival whose using smaller (more advanced) manufacturing process.</p><p></p><p>Not to mention 10900K is probably gonna be so overpriced you can get 3950X for same price, especially once 4000 series launch 3000 series prices will go down noticeably.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dex4Sure, post: 858392, member: 79841"] First of all, depends on the workload. On multithreaded workload, nope.... 3900X will still beat 10900K. Single threaded yes, but only slightly... 3900X was not that far from 9900K in IPC and if 10900K really is only 2% faster in single threaded performance its a very, very tiny upgrade. Then factor in the likelihood of security patches and threat mitigation updates to quickly eat those 2% performance gains in the next years and you already start to see why this is a bad deal. 14nm is "bleeding edge" only for Intel. We are talking about 5 year old manufacturing process. Its by no means bleeding edge by today's standards. TSMC and Samsung are both far ahead these days, at 7nm EUV and beyond. If Intel doesn't catch up soon, they might have to ditch their own foundries and start to use TSMC or Samsung as well. Will be a costly endeavor for them, considering how much money they have invested into their foundries. AMD did that years ago when they ran out of options due to financial reasons, and its paid off now. 30% faster on multicore than 9900K won't be enough to even match 3900X, let alone 3950X. And AMD will have their 4000 series out as an answer soon enough as well. On workstation side the difference is even more staggering, with 64 core 128 thread Threadripper totally destroying Intel's offerings, including all Intel's server CPU's (Xeons). If Intel is only able to increase their IPC by 2% in their 10th gen, AMD has a real chance to overtake them even in single threaded performance this year. AMD has been increasing their own IPC much faster in each generation than Intel now. Again, nothing is stopping Intel from also using TSMC 7nm instead of their own crappy 14nm+++++. Its not an argument in Intel's favor to point out AMD has "unfair" advantage. Its entirely Intel's responsibility to keep up with rest of the market, and if they fail to do so then they are not getting my money. Simple as that. Excuses or no excuses. NVIDIA beats AMD despite being on 1 generation older manufacturing node on GPU side, they don't need to make up excuses despite being on TSMC 12nm instead of TSMC 7nm. It showcases if the architecture itself is efficient, it can still beat rival whose using smaller (more advanced) manufacturing process. Not to mention 10900K is probably gonna be so overpriced you can get 3950X for same price, especially once 4000 series launch 3000 series prices will go down noticeably. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top