I am trying to pick the damn CPU and board for upgrade, but reading all the materials i didn't come closer to conclusion.
Motheboards are practically same, MSI Godlike either X570 or Z390, the disadvantage of intel is lack of WiFi 6 and some newer features. CPU of Gen 9 is simply older, no native PCI-E 4, mainly important for SSD such as Gigabyte Auros NVme SSD, that can pull 5000 read and 4500 write speeds. X570 supports up to 4800 OC DDR4/Intel 4600 DDR4, but it's useless to get memory above 3600 anyway.
AMD 3900x has 12 physical cores and 24 logical at most 4.6 ghz boost, but most likely not all of the 12 cores can work at this friquency, more cores is better for future? Also possible that no one is going to support that amount of cores. Question is even if all the cores is used what will be the friquency.
All of the Intel 9900ks cores can work at 5ghz boosted. Some overcloked to 5.2ghz. 8 cores and 16 logical. But people talking about that 9900 lasting at most 3-4 years and droping maximum friquency due to burned out cores from constantly working on the extreme levels.
Also Z390 and Intel 9900ks does not offer Wi-Fi 6 which i do have latest Asus router for.
Basically disregarding AMD having around 1 to 3% less fps than Intel in games, intel 9900k cannot beat non gaming software, such as rendering, decompressing and web. So basically it seems to me, as i do some 3d sometimes, that 12 cores, that lose a little bit in games FPS, has much more to offer for the price than Intel, perfect all round CPU compared to gaming only 9900ks.
I know all the Holy wars and i love intel kind of stuff, i also like intel, but AMD has more reasonable offer, seems like.
Anyone has any opinion on this matter? Or Just wait for 3950X that already got release date finally, 16 cores 32 logical up to 4.7ghz boost.
Motheboards are practically same, MSI Godlike either X570 or Z390, the disadvantage of intel is lack of WiFi 6 and some newer features. CPU of Gen 9 is simply older, no native PCI-E 4, mainly important for SSD such as Gigabyte Auros NVme SSD, that can pull 5000 read and 4500 write speeds. X570 supports up to 4800 OC DDR4/Intel 4600 DDR4, but it's useless to get memory above 3600 anyway.
AMD 3900x has 12 physical cores and 24 logical at most 4.6 ghz boost, but most likely not all of the 12 cores can work at this friquency, more cores is better for future? Also possible that no one is going to support that amount of cores. Question is even if all the cores is used what will be the friquency.
All of the Intel 9900ks cores can work at 5ghz boosted. Some overcloked to 5.2ghz. 8 cores and 16 logical. But people talking about that 9900 lasting at most 3-4 years and droping maximum friquency due to burned out cores from constantly working on the extreme levels.
Also Z390 and Intel 9900ks does not offer Wi-Fi 6 which i do have latest Asus router for.
Basically disregarding AMD having around 1 to 3% less fps than Intel in games, intel 9900k cannot beat non gaming software, such as rendering, decompressing and web. So basically it seems to me, as i do some 3d sometimes, that 12 cores, that lose a little bit in games FPS, has much more to offer for the price than Intel, perfect all round CPU compared to gaming only 9900ks.
I know all the Holy wars and i love intel kind of stuff, i also like intel, but AMD has more reasonable offer, seems like.
Anyone has any opinion on this matter? Or Just wait for 3950X that already got release date finally, 16 cores 32 logical up to 4.7ghz boost.
