I'm in the position where I am still on sata3 and on 5 year old tech (3770k) and I still don't know what to do now, I waited for Ryzen 3 with all this talk of "5ghz 16 core for half the price!!1111" and it hasn't materialized nor has 5ghz on any of the AMD chips for that matter, so 9900k is still king for games.
Think Ima just pick up a 9700k or even 9600k whilst everyone is "upgrading" to 3700x+.
"and an NF-F12 PWM as the cpu fan"
This is actually an NF-S12A.
If occasional then 2x8GB DDR3866 or higher and downclock it would be optimum.
A lot of people bought 9900k and 16GB of 3200C16 and aren't seeing the performance the 9900k is capable of, because they skimped on ram performance. As for Ryzen it loves low latency fast ram, 3200C14 is optimum, and it makes more sense to buy 3866C18 or higher and downclock it than it does to buy 3200C14.
Right but enabling / disabling HT is only a few clicks away in bios, so what do you have to lose?
If you play, and only play, Arma 3 or Dayz, for example, which many people do, you would be better off with HT disabled and a faster OC. This can specifically help not only FPS but the frame latency.
"but there isn't a magic value you can arbitrarily assign to games or "most" games either. Clearly we want more than two cores for gaming now, "
You speak as if the 9900k is a dual core cpu with HT disabled. Did you forget about the other 6 cores?
BF1 is THE GAME that supposedly, the more cores or threads the better, but the 9900k actually performs worse than the 9700k, despite having 8 more threads and more cache. Not only that but the frame latency is almost half; 4.7ms vs 9ms in some cases. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=568uEmI-et4
GTA 5, 9700k 108fps 9900k 115fps, however 9700k always 1 second of latency less at the same fps. https://youtu.be/568uEmI-et4?t=85
The difficult thing to know is whether the extremely slight FPS increases in favor of the 9900k are due to the extra threads or the extra cache. My guess would be the cache because HT introduces latency which you can see in the video on each game.
4.7ms vs 9ms is a BIG difference on a 1ms gaming display.
Not in a lot of games though. Most games use 2 cores maximum (leaving 6 more physicals to handle system tasks) and those games run smoother the more mhz you run.
9900k also has more cache.
Good choice! There's also some promising results that if you turn the HT off, it acts like a speed binned 9700k, ie higher quality silicon = better clock speeds.
Damn missed that :/
It seems cheaper to buy something like 3866 CL18 and tune it down to 3200 CL14 or lower (someone elsewhere claimed he got 3200 CL12 out of such a set) than it does to buy 3200 CL14 straight out.
Unless you are editing huge image sets in Photoshop or video in other software, 32GB is a waste. Though there are some reports of 32GB working better in Escape from Tarkov purely because it has memory holes.
"If I were to get a laptop for $2000 I would have to pay affirm about $100 per month for two years."
Is this $2400 + $2000 or just a total of $2400?
If the former, seems ridiculous.
And revenue figures are pointless, you could make $1300 a month with $1299 operation cost.