RedEye9 wrote on Oct 20, 2018, 13:39:Pigeon wrote on Oct 20, 2018, 13:18:If you're already running an ssd, the move to m.2 won't be as big a jump as it was from hdd to ssd but it will still be noticeable on some things. Don't get me wrong, m.2 drives are amazingly fast but the big kick in the pants was moving from spinners to chips.
Right, still using an i5 4690k, which I'm questioning whether upgrading to a 2700x. The memory speed is bottle-necking the GPU performance in games a little bit, but not sure its enough for the ~$860 upgrade (adding an m.2 drive and new copy of windows onto the CPU/MB/RAM). As hyped as I am for shiny new computer parts that's a tough sell. So I'm certainly not going to shell out $300 for a CPU then another $300 a year or two later.
All in all, if you're happy where your at, waiting a couple more years is the way to go. imho
CJ_Parker wrote on Oct 20, 2018, 13:57:Pigeon wrote on Oct 20, 2018, 13:18:
adding an m.2 drive and new copy of windows onto the CPU/MB/RAM
Not sure if I misundastoodz something here but you don't need a new copy of Windows (10). If you are using Windows 10 with a local account then right before upgrading just create a Microsoft account or change your account settings to log in with your existing MS account. That way you will bind your Windows copy to your MS account.
Then upgrade your hardware and when reinstalling Windows log in with the same account to bind your new hardware to your existing Windows license.
You can go back to using a local account afterwards. In typical MS fashion I got error messages on the 'Activation' tab under 'Update and Security' in 'Settings' the last time I did this but those went away with one of the ensuing Windows updates.
Pigeon wrote on Oct 20, 2018, 13:18:
adding an m.2 drive and new copy of windows onto the CPU/MB/RAM
Pigeon wrote on Oct 20, 2018, 13:18:If you're already running an ssd, the move to m.2 won't be as big a jump as it was from hdd to ssd but it will still be noticeable on some things. Don't get me wrong, m.2 drives are amazingly fast but the big kick in the pants was moving from spinners to chips.
Right, still using an i5 4690k, which I'm questioning whether upgrading to a 2700x. The memory speed is bottle-necking the GPU performance in games a little bit, but not sure its enough for the ~$860 upgrade (adding an m.2 drive and new copy of windows onto the CPU/MB/RAM). As hyped as I am for shiny new computer parts that's a tough sell. So I'm certainly not going to shell out $300 for a CPU then another $300 a year or two later.
jdreyer wrote on Oct 20, 2018, 12:34:HorrorScope wrote on Oct 20, 2018, 12:24:That's my contention too. I'm still on a Haswell proc, if I'd gone with AMD back then, I would still have to get a new mboard today for threadripper.Ozmodan wrote on Oct 20, 2018, 09:12:jdreyer wrote on Oct 19, 2018, 22:12:
Seems like the best bang for the buck is the Core i5 9600K.
Not hardly. You need a new motherboard and the Intel motherboard prices are much higher. AMD is still the king when it comes to price point.
And guess what, that AMD motherboard will work fine with the AMD 7nm process cpus coming next year, not so with anything Intel.
I do agree AMD does a much better job with MB/Ram compatibility gen to gen. BUT it only matters if you update CPU's semi-regularly. For ex. I'm sitting with my main with a 6 year old i7 cpu. When I bought it I thought to myself, "will I have to buy new MB/Ram if I upgrade in a year or two or even say three?". With Intel that is in question more I do agree. But when you wait many years I bet you even outlast AMD's MB cycles to.
Are CPU's performance gains good enough that you really upgrade ever year or couple of years? Personally I'm saying they haven't been lately (~10 years at least), so mb compatibility value isn't as good as it appears. Sort of like when we were buying GPU's years ago... get the SLI/Crossfire MB, because I can just put in a second GPU later to kill it. In the end we decided that wasn't worth the headache and just got the upgraded single GPU.
Luke wrote on Oct 20, 2018, 05:41:
And here we go whining about the high price while Nvidia cards 2080 is bought without any....ahh forget it
HorrorScope wrote on Oct 20, 2018, 12:24:That's my contention too. I'm still on a Haswell proc, if I'd gone with AMD back then, I would still have to get a new mboard today for threadripper.Ozmodan wrote on Oct 20, 2018, 09:12:jdreyer wrote on Oct 19, 2018, 22:12:
Seems like the best bang for the buck is the Core i5 9600K.
Not hardly. You need a new motherboard and the Intel motherboard prices are much higher. AMD is still the king when it comes to price point.
And guess what, that AMD motherboard will work fine with the AMD 7nm process cpus coming next year, not so with anything Intel.
I do agree AMD does a much better job with MB/Ram compatibility gen to gen. BUT it only matters if you update CPU's semi-regularly. For ex. I'm sitting with my main with a 6 year old i7 cpu. When I bought it I thought to myself, "will I have to buy new MB/Ram if I upgrade in a year or two or even say three?". With Intel that is in question more I do agree. But when you wait many years I bet you even outlast AMD's MB cycles to.
Are CPU's performance gains good enough that you really upgrade ever year or couple of years? Personally I'm saying they haven't been lately (~10 years at least), so mb compatibility value isn't as good as it appears. Sort of like when we were buying GPU's years ago... get the SLI/Crossfire MB, because I can just put in a second GPU later to kill it. In the end we decided that wasn't worth the headache and just got the upgraded single GPU.
Ozmodan wrote on Oct 20, 2018, 09:12:jdreyer wrote on Oct 19, 2018, 22:12:
Seems like the best bang for the buck is the Core i5 9600K.
Not hardly. You need a new motherboard and the Intel motherboard prices are much higher. AMD is still the king when it comes to price point.
And guess what, that AMD motherboard will work fine with the AMD 7nm process cpus coming next year, not so with anything Intel.
jdreyer wrote on Oct 19, 2018, 22:12:
Seems like the best bang for the buck is the Core i5 9600K.
HorrorScope wrote on Oct 19, 2018, 15:40:
Tell me people of Blues News...
Being a gamer/general user why am I getting anything other than a:
2600X ($230) or 9600K ($240)?
And which would you choose between them?
HorrorScope wrote on Oct 19, 2018, 15:40:
Tell me people of Blues News...
Being a gamer/general user why am I getting anything other than a:
2600X ($230) or 9600K ($240)?
And which would you choose between them?
HorrorScope wrote on Oct 19, 2018, 15:40:Future proofing.
Tell me people of Blues News...
Being a gamer/general user why am I getting anything other than a:
2600X ($230) or 9600K ($240)?
And which would you choose between them?
HorrorScope wrote on Oct 19, 2018, 15:40:
Tell me people of Blues News...
Being a gamer/general user why am I getting anything other than a:
2600X ($230) or 9600K ($240)?
And which would you choose between them?
CJ_Parker wrote on Oct 19, 2018, 16:05:
So, if you are a no compromises enthusiast who has a very high end GPU like a 1080Ti or 2080+ then Intel may be the way to go if you want to get the most out of your gaming system. You are only bound by availability and pricing of the Intel CPU.
Anyone else should seriously look into AMD, especially if you are a 4K gamer where the GPU is the limit anyway. AMD is currently far better in price vs. performance and it offers the better upgrade path, too.
jdreyer wrote on Oct 19, 2018, 12:28:Graham wrote on Oct 19, 2018, 12:17:BIGtrouble77 wrote on Oct 19, 2018, 10:16:
Gaming at 4k will not see any noticeable advantages with these chips, but they carry a massive price premium. Seems like a Ryzen (for gaming) or even a Threadripper(for content creation) is a better bet for most people if they have moved on to 4k.
I've been an Intel guy pretty much my entire life.
My current system has a Ryzen 1600 and it spits out 4K/60 just fine in most games. Can't justify the bunnysuit premium anymore.
Yeah, processor has been less relevant for gaming for years, and finally AMD is offering decent CPUs ( although they use more power). It will be interesting to see what the delta is for Intel vs AMD with this proc both running a 2080ti for example.
The direct competitor will be the Ryzen 7 2700X, that puppy is priced roughly 150 USD cheaper though as its MSRP is 329,- It's all about your install base though; if you use a graphics card in the Vega 64 or GTX 1080 range, that Ryzen will be fine. However, as our game benchmarks have shown, graphics cards that are not GPU limited will benefit from the high turbo frequencies that Intel can apply.
So for that uber-expensive desktop market and the guys and girls that have a GeForce GTX 1080 Ti or GeForce RTX 2080 (Ti), that's where this processor series starts to make really significant differences.