Yea, the GTX 1050 Ti is like one of the worst value buys. It’s like all these people buying entry level BMW’s or Mercedes cars that are arguably worse than a Honda Accord.
1 Like
Eh, I’d probably trade my 17 Civic Si for a 17 Acura ILX.
No more turbo nonsense, VTEC sounds, and you can get it with a DCT instead of Civics CVT on non Si models.
I’m getting tired of the stick again after almost 2 years. Reminds me why I stopped driving stick the first time, second time, and third time.
1 Like
You mean how they butchered the 9700k by giving it no hyper thread and have to pay the Intel tax for the 9900k for hyper threading ![:rofl:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/rofl.png?v=6" ":rofl:")
9900k should have been the 9700k
Should have left the i9 series to x299
1 Like
I agree with this.
They should have just pulled an Nvidia and AMD amalgamation.
I wouldn’t buy the 9900k at the price they are asking as an existing 8700k owner (although 7700k owners didn’t buy 8700ks really either). The i7-9700 should never have existed, and they should have just shifted the product segment down like they did for 8th generation.
As an 8th generation buyer, I wouldn’t have been upset.
9th gen shoulda been:
EDIT: processing
Pentium G6550 (locked 3.5ghz, 4 cores) $129
would directly complete with Athlon 200GE/Ryzen 3 2200G/2400G
i3-9100 (locked 4.1/4.0/3.9ghz, 4 cores, 8 threads) $169
Would directly compete with Ryzen 5 2600
i3-9100k (unlocked 4.5/4.4/4.3ghz, 4 cores, 8 threads) $199
Would directly compete with Ryzen 5 2600x
i5-9600 (locked 4.6/4.5/4.4ghz, 6 cores, 12 threads) $299
Would directly compete with Ryzen 7 2700
i5-9600k (unlocked 4.7/4.6/4.5ghz, 6 cores, 12 threads) $349
Would directly compete with Ryzen 7 2700x
i7-9900 (locked 4.7/4.6/4.4ghz, 8 cores, 16 threads) $399
Would mostly defeat 2700x in every scenario
i7-9900k (unlocked, 5.0/4.9/4.8ghz, 8 cores, 16 threads) $459
Would be the “one step up”
This lineup gives intel an answer for every category without feeling terrible.
Basically I feel SMT/HT should exist on all SKUs above entry level. So only Pentium here for Intel. AMD would have iGPU advantage on the entry level SKUs and count count advantage until i7. They would trade blows between core count and frequency, until i7.
It would be “pulling an nvidia” because the i5-9600k == i7-8700k, just $10 cheaper and comes with solder.
The i9-9900k is new, and cost almost 32% more. Kind of like the 2080 ti.
3 Likes
Next generation specualtion:
Next generation Intel lineup fun speculation, Single Core Turbo/All Core Turbo, in USD:
Pentium G6550 - 4.0Ghz, 4 core $99
i3-1110: Locked, 4.0/3.9ghz, 4 core, 8 thread $149
i3-1110k: Unlocked, 4.1/4.0, 4 core, 8 thread $179
i5-1160: Locked, 4.5/4.1ghz, 6 core, 12 thread $229
i5-1160k: Unlocked, 4.7/4.3ghz, 6 core, 12 thread $299
i7-1180: Locked, 4.5/4.0ghz, 8 core, 16 thread $349
i7-1180k: Unlocked, 4.7/4.2ghz, 8 core, 16 thread, $399
i9-1190k: Unlocked, 5.0/4.3ghz, 10 core, 20 thread, $549
awesome video, thanks for sharing. i love stuff like this tbh.
edit:
danggg it looks like nvidia is pretty much owning ati/amd at this point. i didnt know it was that bad!!! dang!!!
AMD essentially is terrible at marketing, despite the fact their 1080p cards are faaar superior to nvidia offerings in performance and value.
The high end doesn’t matter obviously as we can see the 1060 is top dog.
Not in every scenario. I have a RX 460 in my HTPC for H264/HEVC decoding and while it works most of the time, the times it doesn’t work is glaringly annoying. AMD’s UVD is inferior to Nvidia’s Purevideo.
Probably looking to pick up a used GTX 1060 3GB or something.
I mean… we’re talking gaming not streaming when we say amd’s 1080p offerings are superior. Most people running a cheap (600-700 dollar) setup who are using these parts aren’t looking to stream.
1 Like
Lately they are Pyro. You got to realize our generation may not really stream much, but the younger kids are crazy about it.
It’s kind of a funny situation then, the 570 ($120) may not stream well (idk actually know how bad the 560-590 streaming is, my Vega 64 is all I have for amd and it streams superbly) but you pair that with an AMD processor like the 2600 (165) like a lot of people on a budget would and you can EASILY do 1080p/30 or 720/900p60
It’s all about how you spend your resources, even if they’re limited.
1 Like
Yeah it’s kind of changing now, part of the reason ryzen is so good is because its better for streaming than most intel cpus. Personally I don’t stream and probably never will, but I understand lots of people do now.
Where’s my damned cloud at
1 Like
Ryzen is significantly worse at streaming than Coffee Lake refresh. For instance, compared to the 2700x (and everything is stock), 8700K is about ~20% faster in 1% lows and 9900K is ~50% faster in 1% lows using 1080p fast preset.
One of the few use cases where 9900K actually is ‘worth’ the extra money.
Price differentials though.
8700k (6c/12t) - 369 bucks
9900k(8c/16t) - 498 bucks
That’s your multithreaded offerings atm from intel, and something like streaming benefits from multithread. But that’s also not budget, you’re not going to start streaming off one of those.
2600 (6c/12t) 165 will definitely get you started on a budget build. Which is what we’re talking here. We’re also talking more 720/900p60, not full 1080
Btw… I’m not seeing the’s 20% faster in 1% lows from Gamersnexus on the 2700x vs the 8700k, they’ve got lower streamer side FPS but if you’re just using it to stream, not to play, they’re both encoding and displaying equally at full 60fps with no frame drops. and the 2700x comes in at 300 vs 369.
I mean if money were no thing you can now get a 9990xe system paired with a 9600k system for the low low price of 13k euros.
Though, we just stream to a streaming PC set up with a 5820k and 1060-6gig through a good switch and cat-6, works amazingly, and cost us nothing extra because it’s just reusing parts we had.
Sadly, we cannot use external links here, but just search ‘Gamersnexsus 8700K streaming’ or ‘gamersnexus 9900K streaming’.
Using CPU stock settings and PubG, 1080p with ‘faster’ preset:
8700K > 69 fps 1% low; 124 fps avg
2700X > 51fps 1% low; 101 fps avg
1% low favors 8700K by ~35%, and 23% for average fps.
Using Fortnight 1080p High/fast preset, and everything stock:
9900K > 110 fps 1% low, 188 fps avg
2700X > 71 fps 1% low, 124 fps avg
1% low favors 9900K by ~55%, and ~51% avg fps.
So lets tabulate price/performance. On Amazon/Newegg, the 2700X is $295, 8700K is $365 (23% more expensive), 9900K is $480 (62% more expensive). If we’re just looking at streaming performance at stock settings, the 8700K is actually better value per money and 9900K is okay value for money compared to the 2700X.
That’s streamers side, that’s what they’re seeing IN GAME.
Both the 2700x and 8700k are providing the same amount of frames to the viewer.
Ofc the 8700k is going to play the game itself better at 1080.
But you still miss the ENTIRE point, we were talking budget options, not 365 dollar processors.
Actually, 2700X does not have 100% encode rate.
Idk what you’re reading, but on GN’s own tests both the 8700k and 2700x had 100% encode rates.
The 8700k also gets DESTROYED at medium preset.
I can’t post pictures but here’s GN’s own words on it
For the viewer-side, things change a lot – and quickly. First off, both the 8700K and 2700X stock CPUs deliver 100% of frames to the stream at our 10Mbps Faster preset, with 98% to 99.7% of frames delivered within our 16.7ms target. This is excellent performance for each CPU, and either is fully capable of gameplay while streaming.
Notice, however, that the 8700K crumbles when pressed with H264 Medium and 12Mbps encoding. We end up at 32.4% of all frames delivered, meaning that the stream drops 70% of frames. We’ll show those videos side-by-side now (see video). We overclocked the 8700K to see if performance could meet the stock 2700X, and found that it still under-delivered at 84.2% of all frames. This disparity is partially a result of the 2 fewer cores, and partially a result of scheduling. More resources were spent on the game than OBS. This can be rectified with manual affinity and priority tuning for OBS, but it’s extra work for the streamer.
there’s a 2 core deficit there.
how does it compare with the 2600x?
and it seems twitch limits at 3500kbps? that’s a far cry off of 12mbps, unless i’m looking at the wrong data.
i don’t do streaming because i have a real job.