quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:
Never buy the latest computer technology.

You'll greatly overpay, and be a beta-tester for them.

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:
Never buy the latest computer technology.

You'll greatly overpay, and be a beta-tester for them.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:
Never buy the latest computer technology.

You'll greatly overpay, and be a beta-tester for them.

The most current is always more expensive but never say never.
Beta tester is quite over-simplified and not necessarily true.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
From what I've read and seen, Intel is continuing to cede ground to AMD (hence AMD's improved stock position). I think Intel rested on its laurels and brand recognition for too long, and AMD has taken advantage of it. Also from what I've read, the i9 isn't that great compared to the continual upgrades seen in AMD cpu's.

I just finished building a new desktop PC for a friend using a 2nd GEN AMD Ryzen 7 2700 processor along with 16gb of fast RAM and the thing just screams. With 8 cores and 16 threads, you can multi-task to your heart's delight.

And please don't take away from this that I am an Intel hater. They've made terrific processors for a very long time, but I'm thrilled to see AMD rise to challenge them with equal if not better processors at a lower price point. That heated competition will serve all of us (the consumers) very well.

quote:

Originally posted by Aeteocles:
I built my computer last month with an i9-9900k. Haven't seen as big of an improvement over my i7-3820k as I would have liked to see, but I haven't had an opportunity to do any real video editing with it. It's obviously faster, and runs more efficiently than the older chip, but not mind blowing.

I think there is also a limit to how Photoshop or Lightroom utilizes the CPU. Even when rendering previews or exporting, the CPU is only at like 30-40% utilization.

quote:

Originally posted by Xer0:
i9-xxxx's are about more cores coupled with unlocked multipliers and high turbo boost frequencies. They appeal to two types of users. Non-poor Benchmark/Gamer Junkies who overclock and like to compare numbers and Workstation professionals who make money by doing real computational intensive work (engineers, CAD, Video editors, etc), where time is money so the high cost is offset by the time/money saved. If you do not fit into one of these two categories, there is NO reason to get one. 90% of people would never see or know the difference between a 4-core and a 28-core cpu, because apps like MSOffice, and web browsing is never going to actually tax any modern higher-end CPU (i.e. i5, i7, i9. Even being a Game junky is stretching it, because you get much better framerates from <6 cores overclocked much higher. These 10+ core chips can be overclocked, but require extreme amounts of cooling simply because of the number of cores when running full throttle and never clock as high as the lower core count processors.

I myself have an i9-7900X (10-core) and the original i7-6950X (10-core) because I get them free to play with from work (R&D). I pretty much only play with these I9's, i don't do any real work on them. Currently my everyday computer on an overclocked Xeon e5-2699V3 (18-cores) and 128GB ECC RAM. This is the one I actually do work on.

i9's in a laptop format are pretty much a waste of time. While they will give you better benchmark numbers than a i7, in laptop forms, where the cooling is severely restricted, actual real day-to-day performance is hardly better because of the thermal and power restrictions that throttle the hell out of the CPU's in most laptops. Sure, plug it into a wall outlet, and it'll perform better, but remove the charger (as most laptops are used) and performance is generally indistinguishable from cheaper CPU's (all else being equal), while battery life is definitely also negatively affected.

If I were paying with my own money and actually needed more core counts for a "desktop workstation", I would steer towards AMD's chips. While they don't overclock as well as Intels, they "compute" just as good for much less cost. For a laptop, I wouldn't go past a mobile i7 CPU in a laptop unless there is a specific need because laptop usage is so constrained by the battery and thermals. The saved money is better put into the screen, DRAM, and/or storage type for a better laptop experience.

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:

When I make long wordy posts/threads, people don't seem to jive with that, and when I make simple/condensed posts/statements, people don't seem to jive with that.

What do you want from me? Blood!?

I'd say that as generalizations of purchasing technology, I'm on point on this one.

If you want the new hotness, you'll pay. Period. More than necessary, period.

"Most people" don't need the powerful stuff. Tech fetishists, gamer nerds, and people who do actual work that needs the power, OK.