Very short fused decision: CPU, i9-9900K vs. Ryzen7 2700X vs. Threadripper 2920X vs ???

Discussion in 'Desktop Hardware' started by rlk, Mar 9, 2019.

  1. rlk

    rlk Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    84
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    178
    Trophy Points:
    56
    Well, it looks like my venerable i7-5820K is biting the dust. I've had several early morning lockups this morning; the system was good enough to stay up long enough for me to get a syslog message indicating a soft CPU lockup. That's likely a hardware problem in my view. I'm running the 5820K at a modest overclock, which I need in order to process multiple video streams and such (stock is not quite fast enough) running Linux. This isn't for gaming; it's more of a server workload.

    So, now the decision time. I was hoping to do the upgrade this summer after the Ryzen 3000 comes out, which sounds very impressive (if the buzz is to be believed). But I don't have that option; I have to look at what's around, and probably today. But if I build a new system now, I'm not going to for several years.

    Upgrading the 5820 doesn't look like a very good option. The only upgrade that looks significant is the 6950X, which is very expensive. The 6850K and 5960X aren't cheap, either. Of course, new processor means new motherboard, so that adds to it, but Broadwell/Haswell is obviously a dead end.

    The Ryzens look attractive in thread count and total throughput, which is mostly what I need. The 9900K has very fast single thread performance and apparently much lower TDP, but with Intel's propensity to obsolete sockets with each generation (and desktop vs. HEDT) and the 9900K being the top of the line, that's probably a cap. The 9900X is much more expensive, as are the Threadrippers (the 2920X isn't all that much more, but also apparently not all that much faster, even factoring in threads).

    One option might be a Ryzen 2700X, which I'm pretty sure would be fast enough and is cheap, which I could later upgrade to a faster processor (albeit without PCIe 4.0).

    Thoughts?
     
  2. Raiderman

    Raiderman Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    594
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    2,216
    Trophy Points:
    156
    I would go with the Ryzen. At least you are guaranteed one more upgrade in the near future. Im a little biased though as I own the 2700X :) If predictions are true, you should be able to buy a 16 core 32 thread Ryzen for around the same cost as the 9900K. For your purposes its a no brainer to me. Thats my .02 cents .
     
  3. saturnotaku

    saturnotaku Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    3,873
    Messages:
    7,217
    Likes Received:
    2,718
    Trophy Points:
    331
    If you need cores/threads, I would look at a first-gen Threadripper. The 1920X (12c/24t) and 1950X (16c/32t) are available on Newegg for $435 and $575, respectively.
     
    Talon likes this.
  4. rlk

    rlk Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    84
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    178
    Trophy Points:
    56
    I wound up going with the Ryzen 2700X, with the intent/possibility of upgrading to a Ryzen 3000 (or potentially 4000) later. The mainstream Ryzen ecosystem is a lot cheaper than the Threadripper. The main disadvantage of the mainstream is a limit of 64 GB, but I'm not too concerned; that's enough to let me run a fair number of decently large virtual machines or even a decent Kubernetes/OpenShift cluster-in-a-box (the other highly parallel things I do are not particular memory hogs).

    I think the i9-9900K will be a dead end. Intel seems to change its sockets with every generation, so I doubt there will be materially faster processors compatible with that, and the 9900K is not a big enough jump for the next 5 years in my view. If the Ryzen 3000 really is what's being kicked around, that will be a big jump, and AMD has apparently pledged to maintain compatibility through 2020, which might mean a Ryzen 4000.

    The other less serious problem with the AM4 boards is that they only seem to have 1 NIC, and I really do need the second NIC. I bought a cheapo, and that wouldn't link up, so I made a second trip to get a proper Intel NIC that works fine (modulo that OpenSUSE wanted to turn the firewall back on when I changed the NICs, which caused me a lot of DNS grief until I figured out what was going on).

    The 2700X is significantly, but not overwhelmingly, faster than the 5820K. 1 hour of 1080p video takes about 16 minutes to transcode on the 5820K at stock, or 14 minutes at 4.2 GHz boost. It took 11.5 minutes or so on the 2700X at stock, but (so far) I'm just reusing my existing DDR4-2400 RAM.

    The motherboard decision appears to be a lot more important on AMD, with the variety of chipsets available.
     
    Raiderman and jclausius like this.
  5. User32

    User32 Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    38
    Messages:
    629
    Likes Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    56
    Crosshair VII + 2700X, some high end (3466+ B-Die) and call it a day. Don't go with Intelel in 2019, that's a retard move unless you're a gamer.
     
  6. rlk

    rlk Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    84
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    178
    Trophy Points:
    56
    I've ordered some G.Skill F4-3000C16D-32GVRB's from Newegg (the price was especially good) but haven't received them yet and can return unopened if I so decide. Are there really significant differences in reliability/substantial performance differences between different models at the same nominal speed?

    What I see on e. g. https://tekeverything.com/ryzen-ram-test-2400mhz-vs-3000mhz/ is that synthetic tests do show a significant increase from certain synthetic benchmarks, but the real world performance increase (e. g. Cinebench) is rather smaller, on the order of 1%. That (or an additional increment over that) isn't particularly worth spending a lot more money on, assuming that that's representative.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2019
  7. Talon

    Talon Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    1,129
    Messages:
    3,114
    Likes Received:
    3,540
    Trophy Points:
    331
    9900K or go with Threadripper if you need tile based rendering prowess.

    2700X while cheaper is slower at everything compared to the 9900K even at stock. The 9900K is also deadend while the 2700X could provide an upgrade path if you're into wanting to reuse a motherboard. With DDR5 and PCI-E 5.0 both on the horizon, who really gives a ****? Get the best chip now that suits your needs. If you need something faster in the future, well then you can upgrade your board and get both DDR5 and latest gen PCI-E.
     
  8. rlk

    rlk Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    84
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    178
    Trophy Points:
    56
    As I said, I went with the Ryzen 2700K. It was about $250 cheaper than the i9-9900K. It's considerably faster than my old i7-5820K and meets my needs at present.

    I wasn't planning on doing the upgrade quite yet, although the 5820K was right on the edge of my needs. So I wanted, for better or for worse, to keep the price down and go with something that gives me more options later.

    PCIe gen 4 devices are going to be scarce on the ground for quite some time yet, and DDR5 is out in the future too.
     
    Raiderman and Talon like this.
  9. all9everything

    all9everything Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    7
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ryzen 2700x on stock clock should breeze gaming as well for the foreseeable future... but Ive always been a big proponent of not OC'ing unless you're trying to milk a little extra time out of a cpu... I'm still using a factory clocked 2700k i7 on my rig & have yet to bottleneck & gaming is all I do (+ 1080/16gb ram build)

    but maybe i'm the minority? clean system goes a long way i guess...
     
  10. rlk

    rlk Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    84
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    178
    Trophy Points:
    56
    I agree with you (and I'm most emphatically not a gamer). I overclocked my 5820K out of necessity; the 2700X has ample headroom for my current needs. I would have use for more processing power, but it is not essential at present.
     
Loading...

Share This Page