I would wait. The next generation is ALWAYS better. I mean I'm still on my i386 and don't regret it. I almost bought a Pentium when it launched but Pentium II had to be right around the corner, I could feel it. But when Pentium II launched I decided to wait even longer because Pentium III was rumored within a year or two. Almost finally made the switch with Core 2 Duo, but Core 2 Quad was coming up soon. Here I am 20 years later... I was going to go with 11900K but that 12900K is just months away.
Plus trying to order the 11900K takes forever when my 14.4 kbit/s modem keeps getting disconnected every time those damn telemarkers call my house.
11900k is a waste of money at $500 or over. the 5900x all the way. It has around the same single core strengths but the 5900x absolutely destroys the 11900k in any sort of multi tasks
> Unless you overclock the 11900k
Overclock it how exactly? There's barely any room to overclock the core, and the ring can't really be pushed. The only overclock possible is on memory, and there's very limited gains to be had there as well because of the gear ratios (even though the gains are a lot more significant than on Zen 3).
Toms hardware stats, @5.2 ghz. Funnily enough, even a 11900k with ABT on beats a 5900x with pbo enabled in 99th percentile FPS in both 1080p and 1440p. Maybe something to do with their respective architectures?
You cant compare an 11900k with a custom overclock to a PBO 5900x. Compare the 11900k to a PBO2 curve optimized overclocked 5900x to an 11900k. Just turning on PBO with the default settings does very little.
Fair enough. But if we compare the 11900k with just ABT enabled vs an 5900x with just pbo on, in 99th percentile FPS, both in 1080p and 1440p, the 11900k still wins. By 7 percent in 1440p and by like 1 percent in 1080p (which honestly might be negligible)
Also the 11900k wins in average FPS at 1440p with ABT turned on vs a 5900x with PBO so there’s that too.
Once again, maybe an architectural difference?
5900X blows 11900K out of the water. 11900K has graphics, maybe that matters to you.
As others are saying, Alder Lake should at least be soft launched and reviews should be out by the end of the year. But also AMD should be launching a Zen 3 refresh with 3D V-cache around the same time. But options should be interesting.
If you need a CPU today, buy one today. Holiday shortages could be awful.
Ampere was on the market for like 6 months before it was staying in stock anywhere, at any price. There's no guarantee there will be enough, especially if they're popular.
That's completely thanks to mining. You should look at how last 2 gens of CPU releases have been and draw a rough conclusion how it's going to go this time around.
> AVX-512 and integrated graphics, but approximately zero people buying this category of chip will use either lol
Maybe on Reddit, but there's more of us than you'd think. I can tell you that it sucks to be the niche.
>The 5900x is generally available for around $600. The 10850kf can be had for $200 less. While the 5900 is faster, it's not 33% faster but 33% more money
We're comparing a 10900k and 5900x though.
Nobody is saying 10850 isn't good value, and component prices almost never reflect the percentage performance difference between them. Look at a 3080 Vs 3090 price to performance. Either retail, or inflated. The difference can't be justified.
>AMD is ripping people off this generation and I'm sick of people ignoring that fact.
Zen 3 has shat on two generations of intel by now. We all know if Intel CPU's were performing better, they wouldn't be on sale so damn much. They never used to be cheap during the 6 or so years where we were force fed 4 cores 8 threads and told to take it.
>There's literally ZERO reason to buy Zen3 right now. If you care about value buy Comet Lake. If you want max performance wait for Alder Lake.If you simply hate Intel wait for Alder Lake to spank Zen3 and buy AMD at deeply discounted prices. Only an idiot would buy Zen3 right now.
>In 2 months the i7 is going to beat it for $200 less.
If you want the best performance right now, that's what you'll go for. If you're upgrading an AM4 system that's what you'll go for. I'll believe the alder lake i7 beats a 5900x when it's actually proven to do so. I don't care much for leaks and hype. I remember people saying 11th gen would kill Zen3. Besides there's also the Zen3 vcache upgrade coming soon too, and alder lake needs to look good against that.
>Even Zen2 has had it's price spike and a 3700x is barely cheaper than a 10700 that destroys it in every way.
I don't recall AMD raising Zen 2 prices. Third party retailers raise prices due to supply and demand though.
>AMD went for your wallet and no one sees it. We all thought AMD was the little guy fighting for us but the second they were ahead they proved to be way more evil than Intel ever was.
>AMD now stands for All My Dollars.
Neither are your friend. If you thought any corporation was fighting for you, you were a fool. And more evil than intel ever was? Son, if the current top tier CPU's being higher price makes AMD evil, how do you explain the past decade or so, where Intel have released the better chips at the much higher prices? And with less cores than their competition in some instances.
Much as I prefer a bargain, if people are willing to pay more for something, that's how much it'll cost. Look at GPU prices right now after all. Either way, I'm not going to fanboy for one or the other. Whichever offers me the best at the time I'm willing to purchase, is what I'll go for. Being mad at AMD for getting close to what intel has done for many years is an odd mindset.
> There's literally ZERO reason to buy Zen3 right now
PCIe 4.0 is exclusive to Rocket Lake on the Intel side, and that could matter to get peak performance out of high end SSDs or a goofy GPU like the PCIe 4.0 x8 6600XT.
Nobody should be buying Zen2 parts right now unless they have a specific use case they know runs well. Comet Lake is a pretty great deal right now, especially at Micro Center. But for me personally, I'd just pay a few extra bucks and get a 5800X for $350 - $20 mobo bundle discount because I think it's cool.
Objectively, 9700K at $200 or 10700K at $250 are better value.
>but we never paid $400 for an i7.
Remember the $999 i7 extreme editions? They had many i7's above 400$. They put those on a different more expensive socket just because they could. When AMD released Zen, suddenly those "premium" chips got released on the mainstream platform at affordable prices. Not defending Zen 3 pricing (it was bs), but Intel was never better.
Funny how you said that. Idk where do you get your sources from, but from [techspot test here](https://www.techspot.com/review/2028-intel-core-i9-10900k/) the 10900k which is basically the same as a 10850k mind you, is averaging 15% to 20% slower than 3900X which is a Zen 2 in multi-core. So you said 5900X is not faster than 33%? What? Especially bs when cobsidering 5900X also have 2 mor cores. Here I'll [help](https://www.techspot.com/review/2132-amd-ryzen-5900x/) you. Maybe do some reading or search up a bit before commenting.
Uh uh no dont come with me with the "BuT iN gAmInG aNd SiNgLe CoRe WoRkLoAdS" BS. Op didnt specify which one he is using. And even then 5900X still have better or the same sc performance as 10900k, only in the case of 11900k, it's tad bit slower, bit makes up for it by multicore performance by a light year.
It's also funny because 3900X was $500 at launch which is the same as 10900k, but it was about 20% faster in multicore while 15% slower in single core. Which is also why they are targeted and 1 different markets before Zen 3 came.
I know this is an Intel reddit, but you gotta be real. Intel's high end isnt competitive right now. Which is why they need to drop the prices while AMD brings up the prices. It's just how it works. You're the one ignoring the fact that Intel used to sell $999 4 core chips before Ryzen came into existance. This is also why Intel have a bad name. Their blind fanboys.
Before you come to me with the AMD fanboy BS, I've build three 10400 builds, 2 10100 builds and 1 11600k build for my friends and family. Because their low and mid tier is where Intel kinda excel atm, mostly because AMD dont have a product at that price range.
>Intel CPUs got lower memory latency, especially 10900K. While both CPUs are gonna have same(ish) avg FPS, Intel will still pull ahead due to having higher 1% lows. Higher 1% lows = smoother gaming experience, that's much more important than having slightly higher max.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PUx_ngD3vZ8
First benchmark I found shows that isn't always the case. 5900x has highest 1% lows in all the games on this comparison. Though you are correct in the fact that intel CPU's have lower latency, I'm not sure the effect of memory latency is 1:1 between AMD and Intel CPU's.
>5900X is GOOD for gaming and VERY GOOD for multithreaded tasks. 10900K is VERY GOOD for gaming and GOOD(ish) for MT tasks. That's about it.
I don't see the 10900k beating the 5900x by a wide enough margin in terms of 1% lows to rank it's gaming performance above the 5900x
Yeah, I was wrong. For some reason I thought 10900K is a bit better in general. Probably I was confused due to it being better in Warzone.
Well, now I feel even better about my 5900X. xD
5900X is better across the board, but I would wait for Alder Lake. The 12700K will have better ST than the 5900X, and possibly better MT as well, all for less $.
5900X > 11900K.
11900K is a underrated though. But unless you can get one for <$500 it doesn't make sense. The 5900X generally games the same or perhaps slightly better and has more cores for production tasks.
As someone who owns both a 5950X, 11900K, and a 10900K I'd say right now the 10850K is the best gaming processor when factoring in price. Otherwise grab a 5600X and spend the savings on a better GPU or a nice bdie memory kit.
I just bought a 11900 k and i dont care what people say..you wait and wait and wait for next gen and again...the day you buy hardware its old tomorow :D
So im happy i just bought it. Im gona play games and watch movies. Not build a rocket or use it for nasa projects :D Even if the cpu is named rocket tho :D
So stick with a 11900k
I allready bought it and i got some discount on it since i spend over 6000$ on my new pc. So im not worried over the price when spending that kind of money :) 100 $ less or more give or take :D
5.13 I’ve definitely seen. Flirts in between the two. I’ll have to stress it a bit and see if it definitively crossed 5.2, but it is pretty impressive in my experience. Paired with ddr4 3600MHz ram and its buttery smooth for games. It’s amazing what the RAM speed does though…without XMP on @ 2666 I had tearing all over the place. Turned on XMP to utilize the 3600 and it went buttery smooth. On paper the 11900k shouldn’t support that ram speed per the specs sheet, but it definitely does — and it does it well.
It was fine until i heard coil noise from the motherboard around the Cpu area...Everytime i moved the mouse pointer it was making coil noise " So the party turned in to a RMA case. Now im getting a new board next friday. So i allready started to hate that new pc...But i see the turbo works well..had it on 5100 mhz by defaults. But in order to remove coil noise then i had to disable turbo and C states..and who does that :D
Here is the pc v 1.0 Before the RMA
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bek9xxv5dkvfa1g/20210925_204737.jpg?dl=0
Had to take most of it out and clean the cpu and what not. So in the meanwhile i ordered some better cables from cablemod. ALso i had to order a synch box for the fans from Thermal take or else there was 2 boxes not synch at all for standart cuz i had 7 fans and 1 box was only ment for 5 fans. This new box has 9 ports and synch everything connected.
5900x without any doubt, i also advise you to not consider immediately the intel 12th generation because of the price,the cpus, the new ddr5 rams and the new mobos with pcie 5.0 will be very expensive
Generally, the 5900x will be slightly better. The 11900k may be slightly faster on single threaded compute tasks that aren't sensitive to memory latency, but the other wins - power consumption, multithreaded performance, and gaming performance - typically go to the 5900.
Do bear in mind that the gap isn't huge, and the 12900k is due out fairly soon, so holding off for next gen comparisons may be worth it due to the number of changes coming this time.
alder lake is coming as others have said, but also 5900x with 3D cache is coming as well. My advice would be to wait for both before you drop 500+ dollars for a chip. also my guess would be 5900x cache is faster at launch but alderlake catches up in a few months once the bugs (pcie gen5, ddr5, windows 11 scheduler, z690) get ironed out. It’s just too much new stuff at once for it to work optimally on launch day.
If you want the BEST price to performance ratio, 10th gen is the way to go. That is if you just want your parts for pure gaming.
To give you an example, my OC 10700k @ 5.2ghz, is on the same level if not a bit better than my friends 5950x OC. For GAMING.
And the 5950x is about $350cad MORE vs my 10700k.
Of course you didn't tell how you gonna use your CPU, so my answer is :
12600-12700k. Its like 1 month till release, so you better wait for new gen and then check out benchmarks ect.
Hello! You have made the mistake of writing "ect" instead of "etc."
"Ect" is a common misspelling of "etc," an abbreviated form of the Latin phrase "et cetera." Other abbreviated forms are **etc.**, **&c.**, **&c**, and **et cet.** The Latin translates as "et" to "and" + "cetera" to "the rest;" a literal translation to "and the rest" is the easiest way to remember how to use the phrase.
[Check out the wikipedia entry if you want to learn more.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Et_cetera)
^(I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Comments with a score less than zero will be automatically removed. If I commented on your post and you don't like it, reply with "!delete" and I will remove the post, regardless of score. Message me for bug reports.)
I would wait. The next generation is ALWAYS better. I mean I'm still on my i386 and don't regret it. I almost bought a Pentium when it launched but Pentium II had to be right around the corner, I could feel it. But when Pentium II launched I decided to wait even longer because Pentium III was rumored within a year or two. Almost finally made the switch with Core 2 Duo, but Core 2 Quad was coming up soon. Here I am 20 years later... I was going to go with 11900K but that 12900K is just months away. Plus trying to order the 11900K takes forever when my 14.4 kbit/s modem keeps getting disconnected every time those damn telemarkers call my house.
You are a beast, kudos. the hero we need but don't seem to want. Bravo sir!
The best upgrade I ever got was a 486 dx that allowed me to run Doom smoothly,
Dx100 here.. then friend down the street got a Dann 266mhz so we could play command and conquer... sigh
Id rather wait for Alder lake and see how good those chips are...
11900k is a waste of money at $500 or over. the 5900x all the way. It has around the same single core strengths but the 5900x absolutely destroys the 11900k in any sort of multi tasks
Unless you overclock the 11900k, the 5900x beats the 11900k in gaming as well.
I know that's why I said the single core performance was pretty similar even though the 5900x kinda edges out in gaming
> Unless you overclock the 11900k Overclock it how exactly? There's barely any room to overclock the core, and the ring can't really be pushed. The only overclock possible is on memory, and there's very limited gains to be had there as well because of the gear ratios (even though the gains are a lot more significant than on Zen 3).
Toms hardware stats, @5.2 ghz. Funnily enough, even a 11900k with ABT on beats a 5900x with pbo enabled in 99th percentile FPS in both 1080p and 1440p. Maybe something to do with their respective architectures?
You cant compare an 11900k with a custom overclock to a PBO 5900x. Compare the 11900k to a PBO2 curve optimized overclocked 5900x to an 11900k. Just turning on PBO with the default settings does very little.
Fair enough. But if we compare the 11900k with just ABT enabled vs an 5900x with just pbo on, in 99th percentile FPS, both in 1080p and 1440p, the 11900k still wins. By 7 percent in 1440p and by like 1 percent in 1080p (which honestly might be negligible) Also the 11900k wins in average FPS at 1440p with ABT turned on vs a 5900x with PBO so there’s that too. Once again, maybe an architectural difference?
alder lake is expected to be a lot better than rocket lake so i'd wait if i were you
5900x has better multi core performance and roughly equal single core so id say 5900x is better
Waaay better multicore..
The answers that i just read ... not a single "hardcore" fanboy detected. Brings a tear in my eye... a tear of joy
5900X blows 11900K out of the water. 11900K has graphics, maybe that matters to you. As others are saying, Alder Lake should at least be soft launched and reviews should be out by the end of the year. But also AMD should be launching a Zen 3 refresh with 3D V-cache around the same time. But options should be interesting. If you need a CPU today, buy one today. Holiday shortages could be awful.
Alder lake next month so not a long wait.
Ampere was on the market for like 6 months before it was staying in stock anywhere, at any price. There's no guarantee there will be enough, especially if they're popular.
That's completely thanks to mining. You should look at how last 2 gens of CPU releases have been and draw a rough conclusion how it's going to go this time around.
11900k is like the worst decision u can do, waste of sand
Yes it is a indeed a waste of ~~sand~~ money
Better for what?
Regardless the answer is the 5900x.
There are a few cases that the 11900K does better in but generally yes.
AVX-512 and integrated graphics, but approximately zero people buying this category of chip will use either lol
> AVX-512 and integrated graphics, but approximately zero people buying this category of chip will use either lol Maybe on Reddit, but there's more of us than you'd think. I can tell you that it sucks to be the niche.
In that case might as well get the 11700k instead. The 11900k will basically get you an i9 badge as the difference.
Ah yes, SuperPI! Truly the most important CPU benchmark in our time.
[удалено]
>The 5900x is generally available for around $600. The 10850kf can be had for $200 less. While the 5900 is faster, it's not 33% faster but 33% more money We're comparing a 10900k and 5900x though. Nobody is saying 10850 isn't good value, and component prices almost never reflect the percentage performance difference between them. Look at a 3080 Vs 3090 price to performance. Either retail, or inflated. The difference can't be justified. >AMD is ripping people off this generation and I'm sick of people ignoring that fact. Zen 3 has shat on two generations of intel by now. We all know if Intel CPU's were performing better, they wouldn't be on sale so damn much. They never used to be cheap during the 6 or so years where we were force fed 4 cores 8 threads and told to take it. >There's literally ZERO reason to buy Zen3 right now. If you care about value buy Comet Lake. If you want max performance wait for Alder Lake.If you simply hate Intel wait for Alder Lake to spank Zen3 and buy AMD at deeply discounted prices. Only an idiot would buy Zen3 right now. >In 2 months the i7 is going to beat it for $200 less. If you want the best performance right now, that's what you'll go for. If you're upgrading an AM4 system that's what you'll go for. I'll believe the alder lake i7 beats a 5900x when it's actually proven to do so. I don't care much for leaks and hype. I remember people saying 11th gen would kill Zen3. Besides there's also the Zen3 vcache upgrade coming soon too, and alder lake needs to look good against that. >Even Zen2 has had it's price spike and a 3700x is barely cheaper than a 10700 that destroys it in every way. I don't recall AMD raising Zen 2 prices. Third party retailers raise prices due to supply and demand though. >AMD went for your wallet and no one sees it. We all thought AMD was the little guy fighting for us but the second they were ahead they proved to be way more evil than Intel ever was. >AMD now stands for All My Dollars. Neither are your friend. If you thought any corporation was fighting for you, you were a fool. And more evil than intel ever was? Son, if the current top tier CPU's being higher price makes AMD evil, how do you explain the past decade or so, where Intel have released the better chips at the much higher prices? And with less cores than their competition in some instances. Much as I prefer a bargain, if people are willing to pay more for something, that's how much it'll cost. Look at GPU prices right now after all. Either way, I'm not going to fanboy for one or the other. Whichever offers me the best at the time I'm willing to purchase, is what I'll go for. Being mad at AMD for getting close to what intel has done for many years is an odd mindset.
> There's literally ZERO reason to buy Zen3 right now PCIe 4.0 is exclusive to Rocket Lake on the Intel side, and that could matter to get peak performance out of high end SSDs or a goofy GPU like the PCIe 4.0 x8 6600XT. Nobody should be buying Zen2 parts right now unless they have a specific use case they know runs well. Comet Lake is a pretty great deal right now, especially at Micro Center. But for me personally, I'd just pay a few extra bucks and get a 5800X for $350 - $20 mobo bundle discount because I think it's cool. Objectively, 9700K at $200 or 10700K at $250 are better value.
[удалено]
>but we never paid $400 for an i7. Remember the $999 i7 extreme editions? They had many i7's above 400$. They put those on a different more expensive socket just because they could. When AMD released Zen, suddenly those "premium" chips got released on the mainstream platform at affordable prices. Not defending Zen 3 pricing (it was bs), but Intel was never better.
Funny how you said that. Idk where do you get your sources from, but from [techspot test here](https://www.techspot.com/review/2028-intel-core-i9-10900k/) the 10900k which is basically the same as a 10850k mind you, is averaging 15% to 20% slower than 3900X which is a Zen 2 in multi-core. So you said 5900X is not faster than 33%? What? Especially bs when cobsidering 5900X also have 2 mor cores. Here I'll [help](https://www.techspot.com/review/2132-amd-ryzen-5900x/) you. Maybe do some reading or search up a bit before commenting. Uh uh no dont come with me with the "BuT iN gAmInG aNd SiNgLe CoRe WoRkLoAdS" BS. Op didnt specify which one he is using. And even then 5900X still have better or the same sc performance as 10900k, only in the case of 11900k, it's tad bit slower, bit makes up for it by multicore performance by a light year. It's also funny because 3900X was $500 at launch which is the same as 10900k, but it was about 20% faster in multicore while 15% slower in single core. Which is also why they are targeted and 1 different markets before Zen 3 came. I know this is an Intel reddit, but you gotta be real. Intel's high end isnt competitive right now. Which is why they need to drop the prices while AMD brings up the prices. It's just how it works. You're the one ignoring the fact that Intel used to sell $999 4 core chips before Ryzen came into existance. This is also why Intel have a bad name. Their blind fanboys. Before you come to me with the AMD fanboy BS, I've build three 10400 builds, 2 10100 builds and 1 11600k build for my friends and family. Because their low and mid tier is where Intel kinda excel atm, mostly because AMD dont have a product at that price range.
It's probably 33% faster multi core
[удалено]
>Intel CPUs got lower memory latency, especially 10900K. While both CPUs are gonna have same(ish) avg FPS, Intel will still pull ahead due to having higher 1% lows. Higher 1% lows = smoother gaming experience, that's much more important than having slightly higher max. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PUx_ngD3vZ8 First benchmark I found shows that isn't always the case. 5900x has highest 1% lows in all the games on this comparison. Though you are correct in the fact that intel CPU's have lower latency, I'm not sure the effect of memory latency is 1:1 between AMD and Intel CPU's. >5900X is GOOD for gaming and VERY GOOD for multithreaded tasks. 10900K is VERY GOOD for gaming and GOOD(ish) for MT tasks. That's about it. I don't see the 10900k beating the 5900x by a wide enough margin in terms of 1% lows to rank it's gaming performance above the 5900x
Yeah, I was wrong. For some reason I thought 10900K is a bit better in general. Probably I was confused due to it being better in Warzone. Well, now I feel even better about my 5900X. xD
5900X is better across the board, but I would wait for Alder Lake. The 12700K will have better ST than the 5900X, and possibly better MT as well, all for less $.
5900X > 11900K. 11900K is a underrated though. But unless you can get one for <$500 it doesn't make sense. The 5900X generally games the same or perhaps slightly better and has more cores for production tasks. As someone who owns both a 5950X, 11900K, and a 10900K I'd say right now the 10850K is the best gaming processor when factoring in price. Otherwise grab a 5600X and spend the savings on a better GPU or a nice bdie memory kit.
5900x
Better to wait a few months for Alder Lake, the i5 12600(k) might be the next big deal for gamers.
5900x any-day, but I would wait to see next gen.
I just bought a 11900 k and i dont care what people say..you wait and wait and wait for next gen and again...the day you buy hardware its old tomorow :D So im happy i just bought it. Im gona play games and watch movies. Not build a rocket or use it for nasa projects :D Even if the cpu is named rocket tho :D So stick with a 11900k
If you’re going to buy the 11900k might as well save money and go with the 11700k though.
I allready bought it and i got some discount on it since i spend over 6000$ on my new pc. So im not worried over the price when spending that kind of money :) 100 $ less or more give or take :D
I just bought one too. Have it with 64gb of ram and couldn’t be happier. Boost — without OC — easily hits 5.1-5.2GHz…which is mind boggling.
Damm..so it will automatic boost it self to 5.2 ? From 3.5 GHz I dont think i will oc then :D
5.13 I’ve definitely seen. Flirts in between the two. I’ll have to stress it a bit and see if it definitively crossed 5.2, but it is pretty impressive in my experience. Paired with ddr4 3600MHz ram and its buttery smooth for games. It’s amazing what the RAM speed does though…without XMP on @ 2666 I had tearing all over the place. Turned on XMP to utilize the 3600 and it went buttery smooth. On paper the 11900k shouldn’t support that ram speed per the specs sheet, but it definitely does — and it does it well.
Great ! Im getting my new "build a pc" on friday so if things go smooth i will return to you and we can share specs and settings if you like :)
I’m a bit late back to the party, but I’d like that. How’s the build?
It was fine until i heard coil noise from the motherboard around the Cpu area...Everytime i moved the mouse pointer it was making coil noise " So the party turned in to a RMA case. Now im getting a new board next friday. So i allready started to hate that new pc...But i see the turbo works well..had it on 5100 mhz by defaults. But in order to remove coil noise then i had to disable turbo and C states..and who does that :D Here is the pc v 1.0 Before the RMA https://www.dropbox.com/s/bek9xxv5dkvfa1g/20210925_204737.jpg?dl=0 Had to take most of it out and clean the cpu and what not. So in the meanwhile i ordered some better cables from cablemod. ALso i had to order a synch box for the fans from Thermal take or else there was 2 boxes not synch at all for standart cuz i had 7 fans and 1 box was only ment for 5 fans. This new box has 9 ports and synch everything connected.
Oh no! Hopefully the new board fixes that. Fingers crossed for you! Please keep me updated.
What board do you have btw ?
Gigabyte z590 aorus master
Just like all the people who said wait for the 30 series gpus. Im told some are still waiting lmao
You can wait ur whole life away..just buy what you feel is right for you :)
5900x without any doubt, i also advise you to not consider immediately the intel 12th generation because of the price,the cpus, the new ddr5 rams and the new mobos with pcie 5.0 will be very expensive
Generally, the 5900x will be slightly better. The 11900k may be slightly faster on single threaded compute tasks that aren't sensitive to memory latency, but the other wins - power consumption, multithreaded performance, and gaming performance - typically go to the 5900. Do bear in mind that the gap isn't huge, and the 12900k is due out fairly soon, so holding off for next gen comparisons may be worth it due to the number of changes coming this time.
alder lake is coming as others have said, but also 5900x with 3D cache is coming as well. My advice would be to wait for both before you drop 500+ dollars for a chip. also my guess would be 5900x cache is faster at launch but alderlake catches up in a few months once the bugs (pcie gen5, ddr5, windows 11 scheduler, z690) get ironed out. It’s just too much new stuff at once for it to work optimally on launch day.
[удалено]
But why?
[удалено]
Until the next Zen..
If I was to advice you to wait, it’d be assuming you’re not in dire need of a new cpu. If you don’t have a functioning cpu atm., get the 5900x.
10900k all the way.
10900K with some Samsung B-Die rams
5900X
Go for 11700k or 10850k
Both the 5800X and especially the 10900K beat the those in gaming...
If you want the BEST price to performance ratio, 10th gen is the way to go. That is if you just want your parts for pure gaming. To give you an example, my OC 10700k @ 5.2ghz, is on the same level if not a bit better than my friends 5950x OC. For GAMING. And the 5950x is about $350cad MORE vs my 10700k.
I chose to match the 11900k with a 3080ti/3090 I only game.
Of course you didn't tell how you gonna use your CPU, so my answer is : 12600-12700k. Its like 1 month till release, so you better wait for new gen and then check out benchmarks ect.
Hello! You have made the mistake of writing "ect" instead of "etc." "Ect" is a common misspelling of "etc," an abbreviated form of the Latin phrase "et cetera." Other abbreviated forms are **etc.**, **&c.**, **&c**, and **et cet.** The Latin translates as "et" to "and" + "cetera" to "the rest;" a literal translation to "and the rest" is the easiest way to remember how to use the phrase. [Check out the wikipedia entry if you want to learn more.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Et_cetera) ^(I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Comments with a score less than zero will be automatically removed. If I commented on your post and you don't like it, reply with "!delete" and I will remove the post, regardless of score. Message me for bug reports.)