CPU/Mobo Intel i9 9900K vs Ryzen 5600X

[formula1]

I am amazed that you are still relying on MHz and GHz. I do understand though. In early Intel Core days, AMD would boast about MHz because their CPUs could not match Intel's in pure real world performance. Now, the things are other way. AMD is not even pushing for 5GHz because their chips are easily beating Intel chips that have more cores and more MHz.

We are in a world where IPS (instructions per second) matter more than MHz and GHz and this is where Core 'was' so good at and Ryzen is better at now. Now that tables have turned, Intel camp started saying 'look, I can hit 5GHz, AMD cannot even hit 4.5GHz). The reality is that AMD at 4.5GHz beats Intel chip at 5GHz. So, why even care about higher clock? As I said many times, IPS efficiency trumps paper frequency count.

Look at this for example.

View attachment 102878

It is hard to believe that even the 5600X is faster than Core i9-10900K. It is what it is right now. AMD has better single thread performance at lower clock speed compared to Intel and this equates to lower top level GHz and less number of cores to beat Intel. Why else would Intel even think of selling a Core i9 chip under 500$.

If you remember, it was exactly like this when Intel came out with Core microarchitecture back in 2007??? Intel was beating AMD fair and square with lower frequency and then it went to an extent where Intel could beat AMD with 30% less cores and lower clock speed. Thats what efficiency does. It makes clock speed comparison a waste of time.

yes the zen 3 is brilliant in single thread but other than adobe photoshop export what games and productivity apps use only a single thread ask you self, absolutely none because everything is absolutly multi threaded

5600x vs 10700k(9900k) multithreaded

https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-5-5600x-review,9.html


once again 5600x and 5800x are slightly overpriced and definitely over hyped by amd marketing machine.

 

[desiibond]

yes the zen 3 is brilliant in single thread but other than adobe photoshop export what games and productivity apps use only a single thread ask you self, absolutely none because everything is absolutly multi threaded

Either you are not getting the point or you are trying to twist it to prove your point. Zen 3 is so good in single thread performance that it is translating into better multi core performance. Intel is struggling to compete with AMD in single core and x-core:x-core performance. The end result:

AMD has taken both gaming and productivity performance crown. AMD's 6 core chips are faster than Intel's 8 core chips. AMD's 8-core chips are faster than Intel's 10 core and 12 core chips. AMD's 16core 5950X is undisputed champion right now. The best part is that none of these chips are trying to hit 5GHz. They are not even pushing for that.

Also, new leaks show 25% increase in IPC for Zen 4 when compared to Zen 3. That was a shocker even to hardcore AMD fans. This is how amazing the Zen architecture is. Intel themselves decided to go with AMD's chiplet based packaging for 2022 or 2023 chips (which was used back in Pentium 4? ). I remember Intel using Chipset packaging, do not remember when.

 

[formula1]

Either you are not getting the point or you are trying to twist it to prove your point. Zen 3 is so good in single thread performance that it is translating into better multi core performance. Intel is struggling to compete with AMD in single core and x-core:x-core performance. The end result:

AMD has taken both gaming and productivity performance crown. AMD's 6 core chips are faster than Intel's 8 core chips. AMD's 8-core chips are faster than Intel's 10 core and 12 core chips. AMD's 16core 5950X is undisputed champion right now. The best part is that none of these chips are trying to hit 5GHz. They are not even pushing for that.

Also, new leaks show 25% increase in IPC for Zen 4 when compared to Zen 3. That was a shocker even to hardcore AMD fans. This is how amazing the Zen architecture is. Intel themselves decided to go with AMD's chiplet based packaging for 2022 or 2023 chips (which was used back in Pentium 4? ). I remember Intel using Chipset packaging, do not remember when.

i think you are not getting the point that not everything in computing life is about single threaded performance rather apps are now mostly multithreaded. and if you are getting a 9900k slightly cheaper with 23% more multithreaded performance then your efficiency argument doesn't hold any value. if Indians can buy something reasonably cheaper they'll buy it regardless.

 

[desiibond]

yes the zen 3 is brilliant in single thread but other than adobe photoshop export what games and productivity apps use only a single thread ask you self, absolutely none because everything is absolutly multi threaded

5600x vs 10700k(9900k) multithreaded

View attachment 102883
https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-5-5600x-review,9.html


once again 5600x and 5800x are slightly overpriced and definitely over hyped by amd marketing machine.

Overpriced, yes. Definitely overpriced. Hyped, absolutely not. You know what is also overpriced? A 1.5 year old 9900K that was RMA'ed. Isnt that what my point has been. That your 9900K is overpriced for a second hand CPU that is already RMA'ed?
However you try to change the narrative, a 9900K is gone case and it will be antique by the time its warranty is over in 18 months.

Now that you have compared 10700K with 5600X (not sure why). A 10700K costs 31k-33k (varies each day), which is 3k-5k more than the 5600X? There is absolutely no doubt that 10700K is a better buy than the 5600X. But then, I can get 5800X for 39k, . We all know how this comparison turns out. You should see one review of Intel Rocket Lake saying "this is waste of sand".
So, why should anyone pay 25k for your used RMA'ed CPU that has only half warranty left. If one is going for Intel, he/she would rather pay little extra for 10700K and if going with AMD, he/she would pay just a bit more to go with 5600X. Either way buyer is getting better CPU with full warranty.

To reiterate. Intel chips are in a bad shape. Zen 3 is the current go-to platform. And your deal for 9900K is overpriced.

i think you are not getting the point that not everything in computing life is about single threaded performance rather apps are now mostly multithreaded. and if you are getting a 9900k slightly cheaper with 23% more multithreaded performance then your efficiency argument doesn't hold any value. if Indians can buy something reasonably cheaper they'll buy it regardless.

I am literally ROFLMAO at your "look at Cinebench, this one has 23% more performance" when Techpowerup real world gaming stat shows that 9900K and 5600X and neck-to-neck. We use CineBench to test stability of system. We never use it to showcase speed. When I was tuning my 5800X for better performance and lower heat dissipation, I relied on Cinebench run to monitor temperature, max clock speed and how the R23 final score compares with 5800X chip scores published. It is a reference that one can use to tune their system. To give you more detail, my 5800X was hitting 90 degress. So, I used cinebench to run after multiple undervolting settings to get that optimum performance out of 5800X. I do not see any other use with Cinebench other than to get a reference on how your particular build is when compared to other builds with same CPU.

Now, I run 20-30 tabs in firefox, run three dozen docker containers, 2 VMs, kubernetes cluster, see youtube video or OTT stream in chrome and still the CPU stays under 30% load. After this tuning, I completely forgot about Cinebench.

Buddy, you have lost this argument. Accept and move on.

 

[formula1]

Overpriced, yes. Definitely overpriced. Hyped, absolutely not. You know what is also overpriced? A 1.5 year old 9900K that was RMA'ed. Isnt that what my point has been. That your 9900K is overpriced for a second hand CPU that is already RMA'ed?
However you try to change the narrative, a 9900K is gone case and it will be antique by the time its warranty is over in 18 months.

Now that you have compared 10700K with 5600X (not sure why). A 10700K costs 31k-33k (varies each day), which is 3k-5k more than the 5600X? There is absolutely no doubt that 10700K is a better buy than the 5600X. But then, I can get 5800X for 39k, . We all know how this comparison turns out. You should see one review of Intel Rocket Lake saying "this is waste of sand".
So, why should anyone pay 25k for your used RMA'ed CPU that has only half warranty left. If one is going for Intel, he/she would rather pay little extra for 10700K and if going with AMD, he/she would pay just a bit more to go with 5600X. Either way buyer is getting better CPU with full warranty.

To reiterate. Intel chips are in a bad shape. Zen 3 is the current go-to platform. And your deal for 9900K is overpriced.

I am literally ROFLMAO at your "look at Cinebench, this one has 23% more performance" when Techpowerup real world gaming stat shows that 9900K and 5600X and neck-to-neck. We use CineBench to test stability of system. We never use it to showcase speed. When I was tuning my 5800X for better performance and lower heat dissipation, I relied on Cinebench run to monitor temperature, max clock speed and how the R23 final score compares with 5800X chip scores published. It is a reference that one can use to tune their system. To give you more detail, my 5800X was hitting 90 degress. So, I used cinebench to run after multiple undervolting settings to get that optimum performance out of 5800X. I do not see any other use with Cinebench other than to get a reference on how your particular build is when compared to other builds with same CPU.

Now, I run 20-30 tabs in firefox, run three dozen docker containers, 2 VMs, kubernetes cluster, see youtube video or OTT stream in chrome and still the CPU stays under 30% load. After this tuning, I completely forgot about Cinebench.

Buddy, you have lost this argument. Accept and move on.

why are you even concerned about my sale thread dont you have better things to do ?
my simple argument is that when all cores are loaded 9900k is simply a faster processor 5g all core which is easily achievable and is an viable alternative for cheapish processor and a much stbler platform compared to whats out there.

 

[desiibond]

why are you even concerned about my sale thread dont you have better things to do ?
my simple argument is that when all cores are loaded 9900k is simply a faster processor 5g all core which is easily achievable and is an viable alternative for cheapish processor and a much stbler platform compared to whats out there.

I suggested that you offer better price to get better sale and you started this Intel is better than AMD, mine is more stable.

Let me close this on one thing. What you call as Ryzen Hype or Zen 3 hype.

Intel has changed CEO, changing their core business, adopting chiplet design, opening their factories for others. They are completely transforming the company. Zen 3 is real, they hype is real. It has made Intel completely change the way they do business.

FairChild Semiconductor company was based on 'open innovation, freely implement ideas, do not be rigid'. Somewhere down the line, Intel became too rigid and they are now feeling that burn. Lets hope that they get their innovation back and start competing with AMD. Till then, every single CPU they produce is waste of sand.

 

[formula1]

I suggested that you offer better price to get better sale and you started this Intel is better than AMD, mine is more stable.

werent you the one that shit posted in my sale thread
but i have posted with clear facts why intel is simply a more stable and slightly faster platform as well when all cores loaded (at 25k pricing i am offering)

 

[desiibond]

werent you the one that shit posted in my sale thread
but i have posted with clear facts why intel is simply a more stable and slightly faster platform as well when all cores loaded (at 25k pricing i am offering)

Shitposting is me saying 'your 9900k is junk, i am ready if you give it for 10k'.

I just pointed out that there are better chips available than RMA'ed half warranty 9900k. You posted assumptions and I corrected you througout. Still, I do not see how your RMA'ed 9900K for 25k is better buy than brand new 10th gen new Intel chips or brand new 5600X that cost a bit more. Heck, I can even look for used 10700K or 5600X and get better deal.

You should've just considered what I said instead of starting this "my Intel build is stable (though your killed your CPU) and my old 9900K is better than new 5600X". Looks like I hurt your ego, though I pointed out a valid reason.

 

[formula1]

nope you did not hurt my ego or anything i was only countering you with facts that intel for the most part just works out of the box and compared to 5600x the 9900k IS the faster processor

i hope i havent hurt your ego for calling you out for buying your overpriced 5800x

 

[desiibond]

nope you did not hurt my ego or anything i was only countering you with facts that intel for the most part just works out of the box and compared to 5600x the 9900k IS the faster processor

Looks like you are out of points to argue with and started this new direction. Good that you have finally understood that you cannot deny the fact that your RMA'ed 9900k (which first came out in 2018) cannot be compared to new chips.

This would've been just a bit different If you were comparing with newer 10th gen chip.

With a two generation old CPU that is based on dead platform that Intel itself is abandoning, your quote is overpriced. Especially given that you killed the actual CPU (so much for most stable platform), RMA'ed unit only has 18 month warranty left and I can any day buy new current generation chips with full warranty by paying just a bit more.

 

[formula1]

but ive already provided proof that 9900k is a faster processor in my earlier posts than 5600x atleast what more do you want and b450/b550.x570 is also a dead platform (except pciexppress 4 which doesnt work reliably on amd)
zen 4 is going to bring a new x670 chipset with a different socket layout.

the 5600x at 28k is a poor choice except warranty offcourse. when it matters the 9900k is almost always faster in raw performance .

 

[desiibond]

but ive already provided proof that 9900k is a faster processor in my earlier posts than 5600x atleast what more do you want and b450/b550.x570 is also a dead platform (except pciexppress 4 which doesnt work reliably on amd)
zen 4 is going to bring a new x670 chipset with a different socket layout.

the 5600x at 28k is a poor choice except warranty offcourse. when it matters the 9900k is almost always faster in raw performance .

Nope, I have not seen any proof that your used 9900k is better than new chips. All I see is your assumption that zen 3 and b550 are hyped and bad. And warranty does matter, given the low difference between your price and new chip pricing.

Still saying, 5600x matches 9900k. Yours is used RMAed 9900k with half warranty gone. Selling it for just 3.5k under 5600x is overpriced. Also, given that b450 boards are super cheap, my assessment is accurate.

 

[formula1]

please read my earlier posts about gaming and multi threaded performance and my 9900k is brand new from rma. if i dont get a buyer who is willing to pay 25k in a few months i am open to price adjust accordingly . what do you think i should sell it for anyways. the 5600x at 28k looks good against a retail 9900k at 35k agreed. but at my price ?

p.s i dint mean to offend you in anyway from my posts (just mentioning it) . just putting facts out there.

 

[desiibond]

bump
since i cant edit my original post

potential buyers pleas take a look at this video to compare the overpriced and overhyped 5600x(28k) vs 9900k cyperpunk eats cores for breakfast 5600x 109 vs 9900k 130 enough said.

Lol. So you want buyer to pay 25k for your RMAed cpu that died halfway through warranty and only has 18 month warranty when one can get cheaper 5600x build with full warranty, and feel no difference in gaming. Even intel buyer would rather buy 10700K by paying bit more and they get a CPU with full warranty, better cpu and stay away from RMAed cpu.

I wanted to leave that discussion there but as you unnecessarily provoked, I am ready to show how your price is grossly high for a RMAed 'old' cpu that will be antique in less than a year.

Intel cote i7 10700K : 31k for brand new retail unit. 3 full year warranty.
Ryzen 5 5600x : 28.5k with 3 full year warranty

Sharing screenshot that you yourself shared yesterday. Relative gaming performance difference is minimal between your old RMAed cpu and new ones that are better, come with full warranty.

 

[desiibond]

lol desiibond what is your problem i dont want to provoke anybody man take a chill pill .
i just wanted to show buying 6 core 12 thread is waste of money in 2021 when my 9900k still relevant and faster when cores matter at a cheaper price

And I am showing that you are overpricing your product.

I know very well why you added that youtube link. I just added a bit to give clarity to whoever want to lose money on 9900k. I would not have cared two hoots if you had put proper detail and not tried to pull this 5600x vs 9900k and saying things like 9900k eats blah blah. A proper comparison over myriad of showd both are similar and 5600x and 10700k come with full warranty. No, you would not do that because you want to distort facts and try to find some sheep.

Again, your 9900k comes with half the warranty, is RMAed unit and is from 2018 lineup. Cannot compare it with brand new retail units that are more efficient and come with full 3 year warranty.

 

[desiibond]

where are the mods this guy is now assuming things and posting his own distorting facts .

There it is. Again, when questioned or asked for proper details, escape without showing why one should pay this much for your rmaed cpu. I got my answer.

Mods: I believe I have every right to ask question when seller is distorting facts and using that to sell.

 

[formula1]

but you are not even interested in buying the product and are just moral policing of some sort . if a buyer feels he/she is ok with the price who are you to complain.

and mods please feel free to move my post no 7 to the other thread in the computer hardware forums. if its not relevant for a sale thread.

 

[desiibond]

but you are not even interested in buying the product and are just moral policing of some sort . if a buyer feels he/she is ok with the price who are you to complain.

I am 'The Equalizer'.

Jokes apart

For 20 years, I have been helping hundreds to get the right product for the right price. Many a times, I have seen friends 'almost' duped into buying something that is not worth the price tag or something that they do not need at all. When I saw this 'my old 9900K is better than brand new 5600X, though 5600X is similar and comes with warranty', I added a footnote for those who are looking to buy one, to make sure that they know what they get into.

This is an open forum. Just because you have put something for sale does not mean that everyone shut their mouth and keep quiet when distorted facts are produced to showcase your product.

 

[formula1]

you really think people who use forums like these are not capable of doing their own research?

besides the 9900k is objectively faster than 5600x . the issue only remain of warranty yes. so let the buyer decide that no?

 

[desiibond]

you really think people who use forums like these are not capable of doing their own research?

There are many who come here for help as they do not have the necessary knowledge to differentiate and to know what is right for them. Look at the suggestion sub-forums and how much can I sell this for thread. Not everyone who come here is a geek and many on the forum who have 'relatively' better experience, help them day in day out.

you really think people who use forums like these are not capable of doing their own research?

besides the 9900k is objectively faster than 5600x . the issue only remain of warranty yes. so let the buyer decide that no?

You came down from eats to far better to objectively better. Yes, if someone is strictly looking for the 9900k, that is his/her decision. Mine is to correct your distorting statement.

potential buyers pleas take a look at this video to compare the overpriced and overhyped 5600x(28k) vs 9900k cyperpunk eats cores for breakfast 5600x 109 vs 9900k 130 enough said.

I clearly explained to you that the 5600X is not overhyped and yes, it is overpriced right now because there is no competition at that price. One can wait a month and get 5600X for price that is lower than what you are offering for your 9900K. They can even wait one month and buy 10700K which will be available under 30k.
FACTS!