add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

Comments

Comments

Comment reply on Forum Topic "figuring gpu's value for 4k gaming"

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

SOL - it is slang. Basically bleep out of luck.

Racing? I can run Forza 7 at high settings 4K with a GTX 1080. A few drops here and there but 60fps or better. RTX 2080 will certainly run most racing games very well indeed.

My hardware that I game with at 4K is i7-7820X/Nvidia Titan/64GB 2933MHz. Basically I am at RTX 2080 level.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "figuring gpu's value for 4k gaming"

  • 7 months ago
  • 2 points

Do not bother about average fps. Utterly meaningless statistical measure for this scenario. If we plan for Winter, do we worry about average temperature over the whole year or worry about a December/January/February average high and average low?

Worry about the frame rates for particular games you want to play.

4K gaming is not conquered territory. No GPU you buy, now or in the forseeable future, will hit 60fps min at ultra settings for all possible games. There will be some that will run > 60fps, some will run like sludge. A modern GPU like the GTX 1080 TI or RTX 2080 / 2080 Super will certainly run AAA titles at better than console frame rates - that is, at 30fps or more. In many cases considerably higher than that and at ultra settings. If you have been or are still currently a console gamer, this aspect should not disturb you so much. If you are absolutely dead set on 60fps plus at the highest possible in-game settings for every single title out there, available now or released in the next two years, you will be SOL.

I game at 4K. I personally believe unless you are a competitive first person shooter (I am not) and prefer the single player RPG type titles (which is me), 4K is extremely worthwhile. I can never go back to 1080p or 1440p.

I believe the 2080TI is overpriced and underwhelming. I think if you wish to enjoy a very good 4K gaming experience, the RTX 2080 is the sweet spot factoring in investment.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "budget stream/editing cpu"

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

As kschendel said, if you end up with Ryzen you will need a VGA to display on monitor. This need not be an expensive GPU, something like gt710 would do the job. Beyond that a GPU can be used as a computational resource (gaming essentially is a set of computations that transform matrices and so on). Streaming/encoding can be implemented on GPU and so can editing software. The level of GPU you need will depend on application and your performance expectations. You could be as low as a 6 core CPU and GT 710 and as high as a 28 core Xeon Processor and Titan RTX in SLI config.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "budget stream/editing cpu"

  • 7 months ago
  • 2 points

On Intel side, the i5-9400 falls in budget.

On AMD side Ryzen 5 2600, 2600X and Ryzen 5 3600.

Ryzen 5 3600 will need X570 mobo which will make first time adoption more expensive unless you can get X470/B450 board with bios already updated.

Ryzen 5 2600 and 2600X are more affordable once mobo factored in. 2600 in particular is a good deal.

Intel i5-9400 can be implemented on Intel's H310 or B360 mobo's and is an extremely cost effective and well performing budget build. Some may argue better than a 2600 build because of Ram but given DDR4 prices this has narrowed.

If you game as well, get the i5-9400. If not, get the Ryzen 5 2600.

6 core CPU's are a solid beginning to streaming/editing. Hyperthreading offer's a performance bump but not on all applications. Research your software/benchmarks and determine whether the 9400/2600 would offer satisfactory performance and which processor would perform better with the application at hand.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Workstation GPU"

  • 7 months ago
  • 2 points

You can use any GPU with the right drivers. I recently switched out the Titan V on one of my older builds for an RTX 2060. I would expect for the same budget the RTX 2060 to comfortably outrank the P1000 in computational potential. My experience is it was only slightly slower than the Titan V on workloads I was putting through it.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "new cpu ?"

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

I also get that with an i9-9900K as well. Only difference is the fps is higher but it drops frames all the time, sometimes half. It is what it is, gaming on a PC is like that and there is no such thing as a constant frame rate no matter what CPU and GPU combo you come up with. Getting a better CPU will push higher frame rates but will not buck the "dropping frames" issue. You are going to get that no matter what, just minimum and average frame rates are higher with a better CPU.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "2080 Super review"

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

They must have compared an overclocked aftermarket RTX 2080 with stock FE RTX 2080 Super. Otherwise to win the Darwin Awards this year, upgrade from RTX 2080 to the 2080 Super.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "No signal"

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

Did you plug the 8 pin connector from the PSU into the GPU? Most GPU's do not draw all their operating power from the slot. This is the easiest beginner mistake to make and is the issue most easily fixed.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Best GPU combo with i9 9900k?"

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

At < $800 it will be between RTX 2080/2080S and Radeon VII. Used market, potentially could add in the 1080TI to the mix.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Looking into team red"

  • 7 months ago
  • 2 points

Go with a single more powerful GPU versus SLI. For $400 you are in RTX 2070 territory and on AMD side the 5700XT.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Looking into team red"

  • 7 months ago
  • 2 points

At $200 budget, a GTX 1060 or RX 590 will be the best you can get. Unless you get a great deal on used market for a better GPU. Research the software and get an idea on benchmarks with GTX 1060 / RX 590 and then get the card based around that (or if research suggests you up your budget to something else then consider that). Performance Goals and getting to within an acceptable MOE is a reasonable approach to building a system and keeping a budget streamlined.

Additionally, how much should be spent on the CPU and GPU(e.g. 50%-50%, 40%-60%)

No rule needs to be set. An $8000 GPU can be paired with a $200 6 core CPU while a $100 GPU can be paired with a $10,000 CPU. It all comes down to what you want your system to do. Performance and meeting expectations. Usually this correlates well with common sense approaches you see around here. There is a reason why dual cores are not paired with RTX 2080's. There is a reason why a 32 core Threadripper could be paired with a $100 GT 1030. It is all about performance and achieving goals.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "GPU memory clock spikes to 100%"

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

Spikes are nothing to worry about. The measurement itself can be modelled as a stochastic process - in a continuous sense it has a state space model with additive noise, in a discrete sense it is a hidden markov model. The measurement data is subject to a moving average to smooth anomalies but when the shift register memory elements are flushed with zeros, new measurements coming in will deviate considerably from the average. Result = spikes on a diagram depicting the time series expansion. Nothing to worry about, normal operation from gathering sampled data.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "i5 9400f vs 5 3600x"

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

The problem with the i5 - 9400f is it can be got for cheap. The motherboard will not cost much either. If one is on a strict budget the i5 here is a very attractive option. Performance wise the Ryzen 5 3600/3600x wins quite easily on most tasks but for gaming not so much and they will trade blows. I would be surprised if you actually noticed the difference.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "3900x or the I9-9900k"

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

More expensive alternative? :-P

I cannot disagree with you at all even though saying so negates my prior claim. But, I have my reasons for saying it. Long story short I did not like the performance of the cooler with the 3900X and ended up pursuing another solution.

Also consider, that a LGA1151v2 socket board has reached its limits as future CPU upgrades concerns.

That is true but if you build a gaming rig now, your next upgrade will focus on DDR5 compatibility. Either way, AMD owner or Intel, if you want the latest and greatest you will be dumping gear in the next couple of years.

Last but not least, for OCing an i9-9900K you definitely need a good board and a good cooler.

True but you do not have to OC much for the chip to run well. If anything it is OP for gaming even on stock settings. Although there is this "do not buy a K unless you overclock" mentality I do not treat it as a golden rule.

So at the end, you will pay much more with an 9900K and an appropriate board-cooler compo than with an 3900X.

You certainly can spend more than double the X570 build if your intention is to take the chipset to it's limits. Nothing in the rulebook says you have to though. A bare bones approach with Z390 can be cheaper than current X570. Yes there is a free cooler that comes with the CPU but it is not free, the cost is just hidden in the price of chip + cooler. Tempered glass build? Aesthetics differ from user to user, I ignore the cooler that comes with AMD CPU. It gets put away with the box it came with. I would throw it away but it is better for resale down the pipeline.

The 9900k does better in gaming but only when the GPU is not the limiting factor.

Indeed. Particularly when the majority of builders end up going for GPU's that typically are not chosen for 1080p builds. The 240Hz/1080p is a gaming rarity. i9/Ryzen 9 are overkill for gaming if that is your reason for buying them.

The difference between a 3700X and a 9900K with a lower grade GPU (but still powerful enough for today games), is not even worth mentioning.

Or even for that matter a 2K or 4K panel and higher grade GPU. The area where a 9900K will really show a frame rate improvement is niche. To that rare gamer, i9-9900K > R9 3900X. If you Stream and Game the R9 3900X could well step ahead here.

I think the CPU hierarchy is blown out of proportion for gaming. I would rather argue with my wife over which Toilet Paper to buy for our restroom than argue with folks here over the few fps you gain with one choice versus another. Yawn........

Comment reply on BirdSoldier's Completed Build: Darth Maul - 5.0GHz - 41% Overclock

  • 7 months ago
  • 2 points

Very cool build indeed. I really dig it. Epic Star Wars character as well so very good choice. I thought Maul was killed in EP 1 but then shows up in the end of Solo. Your PC is a straighforward clean and good build with a cute little kitty cat on the CPU block. Much unlike the Star Wars Character Arc for Maul where he seems to be Schrödinger's cat.

Comment reply on Jubesta's Completed Build: i9 9900k + 2080Ti

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

Monitor: Dell - AW3418DW 34.1" 3440x1440 120 Hz

GPU: RTX 2080 TI.

I would say a good match here unless the OP is only going to run Fortnite or Indie 8bit pixel games.

Comment reply on Jubesta's Completed Build: i9 9900k + 2080Ti

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

I don't know what else to say)

I will say it for you. Friggin awesome build and epic. Featureworthy? I would say yes.

Comment reply on aonarch's Completed Build: Mini ITX Ultra 1080p Gaming Rig

  • 7 months ago
  • 2 points

There is one area case designers really need to address. The placement of the PSU and the cables. In your scenario we have a mini ITX case with a PSU designed with cables to run through full towers if need be. A full tower worth of cable length in a mini Itx case. The way around it is very expensive - custom length cables for your very application. Other option is to build your own cables. Other than the psu cables too long and nowhere to go issue (common in 99% of builds), you did a good job.

Comment reply on bigfatmonkey's Completed Build: Team Red

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

Like the rig. More pics since it looks very clean.

Comment reply on Mooposity's Completed Build: The Panther

  • 7 months ago
  • 2 points

Yes, if some $$$ comes your way, do update your GPU and monitor to really make the graphics in your games pop. Other than that your build kicks butt. Even then the 1660 is no slouch, it is a very very good GPU for the money and will eat 1080p like I eat my Wheaties (not sarcasm, I actually like Wheaties a lot and can chow two or three full bowls in one sitting :D). Thanks for your comments on my build for my nephew. I actually have 4 completed builds and pictures since then but am far too lazy to upload ;).

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Why is the 7 2700x more expensive than 5 3600x"

  • 7 months ago
  • 2 points

5 3600X is not necessarily better than 7 2700X. CPU's can work with other applications outside of gaming.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "3900x or the I9-9900k"

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

I would go with the i9-9900K. Ryzen 3900X is an awesome chip if you have applications demanding it. Otherwise it is a more expensive alternative offering little to no benefit for your use scenarios.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "3900x bottleneck Vega 64?"

  • 7 months ago
  • 2 points

Depends on resolution and games in question. At 1080p and 1440p you should be mostly fine.

Comment reply on GentlemanJD's Completed Build: Pink Ambiance, Revised!

  • 7 months ago
  • 2 points

Clean, cable management good, nice color scheme, overall great job.

Comment reply on Mooposity's Completed Build: The Panther

  • 7 months ago
  • 2 points

I would be proud of this build as well - excellent job.

Also, excellent job on benchmarking your build. I love that you did that. It is "the new build's test drive".

Comment reply on sayakei's Completed Build: First Ever Build

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

This is an awesome first build - excellent job here. If you have some frame rate hitches on certain games install another 8GB to fix.

I notice Razer has some Quartz Pink products out. I quite like the aesthetics.

Comment reply on M14WARRIOR's Completed Build: Father and Son Build

  • 7 months ago
  • 2 points

Awesome job. Nice to spend some time with your father as well.

Comment reply on noahweinberger's Completed Build: My Dream Build - White Iverson

  • 7 months ago
  • 2 points

Extremely clean and pleasant aesthetic, particularly sleeving an All in One (I bet you wanted the all white Corsair H100i platinum but found the price hike of nearly $40 to be a bit rich for what is "a paint job").

I would say this could be a feature worthy build, you did a very good job on it.

Comment reply on MedicalFlyer's Completed Build: Red Dwarf - Back In The Red

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

That is a pretty friggin cool build.

Red Dwarf? You do know that going to red alert will mean changing the light bulb.

Such a classic show they do not make comedy like this anymore.

Comment reply on Millipedeman's Completed Build: FRANCIS - i9 Nvidia RGB Rig for 2019

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

The build looks clean and aesthetically pleasing. The only thing it needs are more pictures to show off your workmanship.

Sorry to hear about your Grandfather, I sincerely hope he wins his battle against cancer. God bless.

Comment reply on l3eans's Completed Build: LIQD: Lian Li Dynamic X Ryzen

  • 7 months ago
  • 3 points

Every time I think the time is nigh to abandon this hobby for the sake of my savings account I come across a build like this which validates my expendatures, time and enthusiasm for it.

Comment reply on Huntersforlife's Completed Build: My first Gaming PC

  • 7 months ago
  • 2 points

Nice set up here, well done on your first build. I kept my Ps4, Switch, and Xbox. Xbox I still keep for sake of Red Dead Redemption which may/may not come out on PC. Halo will be coming out on PC, so that is one less console exclusive for team Microsoft.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Trying to Complete my build.. GPU needed"

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

I do not see a problem, one or the other.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "GPU for 1440p?"

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

I would always go for the best card I could afford for challenging settings. I assume you have a decent CPU. Outside of 2080/2080TI, next consideration could be the Radeon VII/GTX 1080TI. If these two are a little out of your price range, then give the RTX 2070S / 5700XT a try.

My personal recommendation is the RTX 2070/2070S.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Trying to Complete my build.. GPU needed"

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

You already have your monitor picked out. 1440p 155Hz. Go with the strongest card you can afford. 2070S will get the job done at this resolution on ultra. 2060S will as well but you will be playing with settings for some titles.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "2060 super vs 5700rt"

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

No need to overthink the problem. If the 5700xt you want is not out for a while then just get another card. We do not need to be stuck on brand/form. This is not like the 2080TI where it is the only player in town. At the performance level you want there are at least 3 or 4 competing cards at different price points. Go with an Nvidia card then. Nvidia GPU's work perfectly well on AMD boards and they support freesync as well if that is your monitor. Purchasing an Ad Hoc / temporary solution makes little sense unless there is a very particular reason to own the 5700xt (I am struggling to see why one would have a particular reason holding out for what is a fairly middle of the road card). I do recommend the 5700xt over a stock 2060Super if both are sitting on a shelf right in front of you. If the 5700xt is going to make you wait two months, the 2060Super should get your business. At end of day, two Restaurants, one will serve you in an hour and is debatedly better food, the other will serve you immediately and still be tasty. You are hungry. What do you do?

Comment reply on Forum Topic "What to expect for an upgrade"

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

Windows installs are particular to the hardware. Hardware differs one to another. I moved an install from Z370 to Z390 and it booted up straight away. Another time I moved from X299 board to Z390 and I had to completely reinstall Windows. Just clone your drive in case.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "What to expect for an upgrade"

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

If you are talking about moving your boot drive from one motherboard to another, given both motherboards are different, then do not expect it to be a simple case of plug and play. Two things could happen => 1. Some drivers update and you will be good to go, 2. You will need a completely new install of Windows. Option number 2 is more likely.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Best gpu for 1080p -300"

  • 7 months ago
  • 4 points

You probably could get there with a GTX 1660 if 60fps high settings is the target @ 1080p. For even less money the RX 580 will get you there as well. This for the most part, 99.99% of titles.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Intel still better?"

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

Yes you should be able to at least run all cores at 5 - 5.1GHz. For higher overclocking work, i.e. driving 5.2GHz and over, you might have to invest in a custom loop. I have not owned a 280mm AIO but did own the 240mm incarnation. i9-9900K got too hot once I went over 5.1GHz. That said, i7 runs cooler.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Will the RTX 20 series be obsolete by 2020"

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

It is not unreasonable to think that next gen consoles are going to draw blood with the best PC's today. I expect the next gen of consoles to be like it was when the Xbox 360 and PS3 came out. Both consoles put a hurting on the best PC's of the day, it took around $5000 in today's money just to reach parity. It took 2 to 3 years for PC's to catch up - at least for the average consumer who did not SLI. So yes, I fully expect the new Xbox and PS4 to have at least Radeon VII equivalent GPU, probably will be a custom GPU with 2080TI level or even slightly more (not much more though). Your 4K numbers are optimisitc, not going to happen. You can double the performance of the 2080TI and still not hit 120fps at 4K for some titles. We are not talking about Fortnite. We are talking games with next gen level of realism and realistic physics/AI. To expect console to do 4K 120fps with fully Ray Traced scenes as well, not a chance, zero in fact. We are years away from that. 4K 60fps and some ray traced scenes. The Xbox One X was the test, the PS5/new Xbox will be the realization. Still though, to answer your original question, yes the GPU's of today are going to be underpowered for the AAA titles that will come out on the new consoles in 2021. That does not mean the games will not run. Rather, the gamers/hobbyists will adopt new hardware (which they do every generation anyway) while those that do not can adjust settings to run everything smoothly.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Intel still better?"

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

Not a huge difference between Intel and Ryzen anymore running at stock settings. However an unlocked Intel chip, a solid cooling solution, and a little luck on the silicon lottery will net you a very nice performance gain. The i7-9700K even with a strong overclock will not beat the Ryzen 3700X over an 8 core workout but will certainly be 10% or more faster at single core. At stock settings the Ryzen 3700X is about similar to the i9-9700K single core speed (within 5% or less). If you are not going to overclock get the Ryzen chip, if you are going to overclock, Intel will be your chip.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "1070 VS 1080"

  • 7 months ago
  • 3 points

1060 / 1660 is where I would be looking for this build. RX 570/580/590 as well. Unless you are getting a bargain for the GTX 1070/1080 it makes no sense cheaping out everywhere to make up deficits for a slightly higher end GPU. Whatever the case, look at upping RAM to 16GB (for only $20 more than 8GB) and you definitely want a 128GB/250GB SSD to boot the system. Not sure you getting a good deal on that 5400RPM HDD, WD Blue 7200RPM 1TB can be got for $40.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Best GPU for 700$"

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

RTX 2080 TI or RTX Titan at the moment, neither will hit anywhere near that fps on some titles, even in SLI.

On the other hand, less demanding games such as Fortnite you will be good to go with an RTX 2070. RTX 2070 will also net 60fps plus on more demanding games.

My recommendation => RTX 2070.

If you are willing to pay more, the RTX 2070 Super might be worth a look.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Best GPU for 700$"

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

Monitor - Resolution / Refresh Rate? Without it we can start at the GT1030 and go all the way up to Titan RTX.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "2080 Ti vs 2080 Super"

  • 7 months ago
  • 2 points

Would be a shocker if it were. Likely between 2080 TI and 2080.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Will the RTX 20 series be obsolete by 2020"

  • 7 months ago
  • 2 points

Apply discrimination to content you find out there. I have read all kinds of things regarding the new consoles. The latest is 8K gaming at 60fps even with Ray Tracing enabled. Another cited the CEO of Sony suggesting 4K gaming at 120fps. It is all BS. Even accounting for Sony and Microsoft taking massive hardware losses, there is no chance that such technology will be on a console for $500. The random musings citing anyonymous sources are in reality two or three generations away. Not next gen.

While Ray Tracing is a real technology and area of R&D, it will be a feature that can be applied by developers for the new consoles. It does not mean AAA titles will be sporting fully ray traced scenes at 4K Ultra running at the smooth 60fps or 120fps being touted [if there were such scenes I would bet on FMV versus real time rendering]. Rather, like today, some scenes will have some Ray Tracing in them. Of course, for publicity sake, Sony and Microsoft are going to sell this to the masses. Like advertizing that milk will make your bones strong or Slimfast will give you lean muscle mass (ignoring that you actually have to exercise).

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Ryzen 7 2700x or Ryzen 5 3600?"

  • 7 months ago
  • 3 points

If you are worried about longevity then the Ryzen 7 2700X will not become obsolete any faster than Ryzen 5 3600. The Ryzen 5 3600 is a faster chip in some applications. If performance in these applications were deeply concerning, you would have saved up for a better CPU than the Ryzen 5 3600/ 7 2700X. You did research, certainly enough to establish a hierarchy/pecking order and where your needs fit in. Gaming wise, unless you plan throttle a 240Hz 1080p monitor, arguing which is better is an exposition in trivia. Next year, year after, it is fair to say the Ryzen 5 3600 is going to tumble down the pecking order. It is what it is, nature of this industry, engineers are paid to conduct R&D, the fruit of their labor eventually shows up on the market. You establish a requirement for the here and now and then purchase accordingly. I do not see how a Ryzen 5 3600 in a casual gaming situation can break the deal over a Ryzen 7 2700X forcing you to return your equipment. If I had a Ryzen 7 2700X, you would actually have to compensate me to the tune of $200 to do what you are thinking of.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Graphics Card Question (Noob)"

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

Emulation wise, there are only a few that require hardware specifications like you are planning- Cemu, Citra, Dolphin, PCSX2, CXBX, Xenia, and RPCS3. I was doing Arcade Emulation on a PC as old as a Pentium 3/Voodoo 3 around the millenium. An i3 dual core processor with HD 3000/4000 graphics is an order or two of magnitude more powerful than what I originally had. The most demanding emulation withArch might be the Naomi or Dreamcast, both well within range of a dual core processor clocked at 3.4GHz. The SNES emulation part, which is cycle accurate, will likely be beyond your CPU's ability to emulate at full speed. But there exist other SNES emulators that will on a 1GHz single core processor. You do not need cycle accurate emulation for the SNES. Even the SNES Mini, which is an official Nintendo product, does not accomplish this level of precision.

I would say the Dell Inspiron 3847 itself, no addons, no extra RAM or GPU, will play the vast majority of arcade titles out there, at least the vintage ones pre 2000'ish at their native resolutions. I can get Soul Calibur running at/close to full speed on a Laptop i3 from 2011.

Conversely, to build an emulation rig capable of covering all consoles / acrade units at 1080p, you are basically looking at a machine specced similarly to a mid range gaming rig today. I would not attempt PS3 emulation with anything less than an i5-7600K. Same goes for Wii U - it takes Ryzen or quad core intel CPU's to get this at full speed.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "9900KF vs 3900X"

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

Gaming? 9900kf @ $430 is a no brainer choice in my opinion. While the 3900X beats it in many/most workloads, even in some gaming scenarios, the overclock potential with the 9900kf cannot be denied. Now if you had workloads that you rated more important than gaming, particularly workloads that scale performance wise with cores, that would change the choice outcome entirely....

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube