We will be getting some Kaby Lake processors in to test and I am expecting them to perform better than Skylake but I don't expect much improvement out of the Quick Sync encoding/playback. If you are comparing processors for playback then sometimes it is better to get a higher powered CPU rather than rely on Quick Sync since the high powered CPU soups up all kinds of footage rather than just H.264 based footage. With playback, Quick Sync lets me playback 2 streams of 4K video in a 4K project on an Skylake processor which is about the same as I can manage with an 8 core (and more expensive) Broadwell-E, which does not have Quick Sync and just uses the CPU. With Quick Sync the encoding is WAY faster than not using Quick Sync but some people choose other methods because they can get better quality in other ways, especially at lower bit rates (there are quite a few threads about this on the forum). I doubt whether any editing program will take advantage of the H.265 abilities yet. I am not sure whether there are any changes to do with H.264. The new thing with Kaby Lakes is that they have support for playback of H.265 video in the processor. Get the 9900K and don't look back.Quick Sync is a lot faster for encoding than a using just an nVidia card and it will be the same for the Kaby Lake processors. Then we can see the value of those extra cores and if they useful in general situations or only useful in specialist use cases.įor you, from what you said. I think the benchmarks we are missing would be ones showing game play while doing other things. and I don't have any issues or problems gaming with all that in the background. I run a 4770K still and I regularly have 40+ chrome tabs, 6+ VM's running various Linux, Outlook, Excel, Steam, Googlearth, VNC, etc, etc, etc. If you render 1 video a month as a hobby, then you won't go wrong with the 9900k, it's not like it can't do the task. Though there are other high core CPUS to consider if you are in such a business situation. If you are making a living from such activities then the 3900x would be better. What you need to balance is just how much rendering of 3D objects or creating content do you do. It's based on benchmarks of dedicated multithread apps. Whole 'productivity' angle is one that can skew things and causing confusion. O With Ryzen you get more cores for the same money, more bang for buck O For Gaming the 9900k is the best option O AMD 7nm as almost caught up with Intel 14nm technology My read on the whole situation right now is this: Btw did they fix that problem with AMD's bios' on MB's? I'm an Intel user since the failure of FX's from AMD and it was a good choice as for my needs so far but with new AMD CPU's came out new MB's X570 with PCIe 4.0 which might be used in the future (like 2019/20) by new GPU's and I do intend to change GPU in that time for another high-end card.įirst of all, I've wanted to get Ice Lake CPU but I don't intend to wait that long for the release.Ĭan You guys help me in choosing between those two? I'm also interested in OC'ing the CPU's but I've heard that AMD isn't actually very good for this atm. I'm not a streamer but I'm using shitton of apps during my gameplay like 40+ open chrome cards which contain FB/youtube and other social stuff most of the time. Lately, a release of new AMD CPU happened - 3900x in which I'm also interested after watching dozens of gameplays/benchmarks and reading some discussions as well as checking it on CPU charts on PassMark ($ - performance).ģ900x is around the same price as i9 9900k and I mainly need my PC for gaming in 1440p (sometimes on 3 displays), only from time to time I'm using Photoshop CC2019 but mostly for raster stuff. I've been looking for some topics about choosing a proper CPU for gaming right now and couldn't find a straight answer.Īt the moment I've wanted to switch into Z390 chipset along with i9 9900k or i9 9820X but since the latter one is for 2066 I might reconsider it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |