4 ms·
First of all, the 9900k doesn't cost half the money. Second, you can also buy a 3900x if you want 12 threads with similar ST characteristics and pricing closer
by linkgoron 7y ago
First of all, the 9900k doesn't cost half the money. Second, you can also buy a 3900x if you want 12 threads with similar ST characteristics and pricing closer to the 9900k. There are other options.
If you want to game @ 1080p and do mostly single threaded work (without parallelism), this CPU is not for you. If do a lot of single-threaded jobs in parallel (for example, gaming + being a server or gaming and streaming) or anything multi-threaded, this CPU destroys the 9900k, while being just a bit weaker when doing just one or two single-threaded tasks.
- seminatl 7y agoLook I'm not arguing about which CPU is better. I'm arguing that taking the geometric mean of a bunch of completely unrelated benchmarks doesn't make any sense. There are clearly workloads in this very article where a cheaper part is better, sometimes even a cheaper AMD part.
- linkgoron 7y agoAnd the article states clearly: "[the Core i9-9900KS] does pull out ahead in a number of ST tests as well as in low resolution (CPU-bound) gaming." Regarding the geomean, they clearly state that their benchmarks prioritize multi-core benchmarks: "This metric also puts the 3900X above the 9900KS, because despite the 5.0 GHz all-core on 8-cores, moving to 12-core and 16-core at almost the same performance per core gives more of an advantage in our test suite's MT-heavy workloads." They're not hiding behind anything. Everything is clearly stated.