Help I can't decide between 9700K or 2700X

This is a meme. I fell for this exact meme with my 1600.

>"Dude, AMD will support AM4 for years! You'll be able to upgrade without changing motherboard!"

Yeah sure technically it will work but a 2700X will run like dog shit on my B350.

Lmao, what the fuck are you retarded?
Just stop playing with my entire group of online friends for 6+ months just because a new CPU is coming out?

Jesus you're fucking stupid.

>For 1440p/144Hz gaming, the 2700X is still enough
lmao source?

There are literally a half dozen AAA titles out right now that can hit solid 100-140fps+ on intel but can't hit over 80fps on a 2700x.

Why not just..buy a good motherboard then? The asrock hero extreme gayming 4 or whatever that all the YouTube fags use for benchmarking is like 160$ and its considered one of the best AMD mobos.

its likely none of the current motherboards will support the 12 or 16 core zen2 models. You need a new motherboard anyway.

Poorfag?
>2700x

Non-poorfag?
>9700k

The thing I'm worried about is that the extra cores and threads of the 2700X will make it a better CPU in the long run. Is that totally incorrect?

I would purchase the 2700x, the 9700k is a fucking joke,

that's what people said about the FX-8150

8 cores from 2011.

Really, by the time more cores will really be necessary, you'll be ready to upgrade your platform anyway.

Fuck off shill

100% this.
FX 8150 came out in 2011 with 8 cores, but we really only JUST hit the point where 8 cores makes some sense for gaming. In 2018/19.
In 4-5 years when you're looking to get a new CPU, we MIGHT see some good need for 12-16 cores. But even that I sort of doubt, unless consoles start getting more cores for the AAA devs to be forced to use more cores.

Most games are still on 4-6 cores. By the time 8 cores is used on the majority DDR 5 will hit general availability. And nothing will come close to using 16 cores in muh gaymur shit for another decade. Don't buy into the just wait meme. If you care so much about the extra threads then get a 9900K and really beefy cooler.

Stfu seething roastie bitch

>2700X
Typo?

That's not why FX was trash.

You haveto go back.

Don't forget games peg only 1 core before they try to spread the load around.

Attached: 1.jpg (724x690, 92K)

>t. proud corporate cocksucker

Attached: ahhhhhhhhhhhh.png (396x408, 165K)

>Vega
>good power usage
>good price/performance
Pick one.

Always Intel. AMD is for poorfags and Indians.

Try harder next time, Rajesh

Stop. Stop this shit man. You makes us rest of AMD fans literally cringe when you say this. INTEL IS THE BETTER CHOICE FOR HIGHER FPS, there's no question about it. IF ZEN2 promises hold UP then Intel will be dead, but FOR NOW that's not the case. So stop being a drone.

falseflaging samefaggot

you are so fucking stupid buying a cpu at this point in time. fuckin retard

He posted that a person is socially retarded on Jow Forums, talk about a wide swing...

List those titles immediately or perish.

Why is that?

The 9700K will be better in gaming for the foreseeable future, but the 2700X will be better in nearly everything else, and the difference between the two is likely to scale in the 2700X's favor as more tasks become multithreaded. 2700X for long term, all-around experience. 9700K for gaming. There's not a whole lot more to it.

Because Zen2 is going to utterly destroy Intel and it's less than six months away.

[source needed]

if you only play games and think about killing urself get the intel platform as that will yield higher fps. 9700k=better IPC.

If money is a factor or you also want to upgrade a gpu you can put the difference into the amd platform with a better gpu, if you've got the gpu then the amd will serve better for content creation or multitasking. I've usually got quite a few programs open and amd works for me.

Also to note with Ryzen 3 and Zen 2 on the horizon the AM4 platform will support it's own future intel it not so upgradable

it's more like 150 vs 110, it's a difference no doubt but it's not as insane as you suggest. considering that's a price difference of about $200 I'll take that.

Attached: 1545162176306.jpg (900x905, 162K)

Watch out, the shill is back.

Attached: 2qv4x2.jpg (491x550, 62K)

>Also to note with Ryzen 3 and Zen 2 on the horizon the AM4 platform will support it's own future intel it not so upgradable
You'll still have to buy a new mobo just like you would with Intel. See

Yes this is known that the lower-end chipsets will not be supported perhaps people should do their own research before crying he can only blame himself here for being a cheap cunt.

The boards will support 8 cores no doubt but anything higher no chance CES testing sample Zen 2 8 core already was pulling almost 140 watts at only 4.5ghz~. So people who hoped on later getting more cores got memed.

8/16 is great for the current year and the focus is now on IPC

>muh /v/
lmao suddenly now that clocks and compatibility don't matter are higher core counts not worth giving a shit about next? Its okay guys 16 core Zen 2 will totally cost less than 500$ and not be threadripper

Attached: 1472569081370.jpg (770x711, 102K)

But Zen 2 was all about moar cores for the same price and now it isn't?

Attached: Great_Kek.gif (700x285, 3.38M)

I've not suggested anything like that, what are you saying?

>Zen 2 was
It's not out yet lol

that was total system power consumption you fucking idiot.

Okay, Jim.

Why's that even a question?

Attached: 63.jpg (1000x991, 416K)

>hurr, my $50 mobo will make oc-ing the next gen cpus harder
So buy a better mobo? The am4 socket does support chips set for future release. The fact that you bought a rinky-dink chink mobo doesn't mean shit. Someone who bought a better mobo can and will be able to use it for the next 10/15 years, ez, with 3 different chips.

>The fact that you bought a rinky-dink chink mobo doesn't mean shit.
Wasn't B350 the only thing available when Ryzen first released? It sounds like you're just making up excuses.

did you just forget x370 existed or something?

Except most buyers went with B350/B450 boards. Maybe AMD should be more clear on what they mean by "compatible".

I've seen lot of first gen Ryzen builds and they're almost ALL on B350.

Buy 9700K.

t. 2700X owner

No you fucking kike. You're the one that's trying to imply that amd is basically doing the same thing as kiketel, which is clearly not true. Any proper am4 board will be able to house multiple gen chips. Only different is, your $30/$50 bucks mobo will not be able to squeeze out the most that your chip can give. But this isn't even related to future compatibility. Even the first gen chips could be bottlenecked by some shitty chink mobos. Just because you're too much of a tech-illiterate faggot to expect a $30/50 mobo to perform at the same level as a $80/130 mobo, doesn't mean everyone else is also the same.

B350 boards were like $150 on release you fucking dunce

9900K my dear goy!

Do you know where you are?

>B350
>2700X
X370 works flawlessly with the 2700X because it's designed for the higher end chips, B350 is budget tier for the APUs and 4 core CPUs you dumbass

This.

Don't make the same mistake I made. Get a 9700K.

t. 2700X owner.

Are you stupid? All the half decent ones support up to 95w.

>Maybe AMD should be more clear on what they mean by "compatible".
Can't believe they really need to stipulate on the fact that you probably shouldn't buy the cheapest motherboard you can find for their highest end processor on the platform

Get a 2600 or something as a placeholder with a decent X470 motherboard then drop in a 3000 series chip when they launch. Matching the 9900K at 65W TDP means you could probably get away with that thing on a B450 motherboard with shitty VRMs even

B350 was pretty much the standard when Ryzen first released. Go look up some /pcbg/ archives.

Thanks 2013 time traveler.

For retards maybe. If you were buying the TOTL 1800X you weren't buying a B350 board for it.

>another thread because some nigger can't decide for himself again

A good B350 mobo has no problems running a 1800X you are just making excuses.

If it has no problems running a 1800X it will have no problems with a 2700X and a future 3000 series.

Not so sure about 12 core yet alone 16.

Depends on TDP values and what they can fit in the 105W thermal envelope. You really shouldn't have any expectations for a B350 board with a piss poor 4-phase VRM to handle any 12 or 16 core anyway. Just be happy it can handle an 8 core, if only barely.

buying a 1800X is pretty retarded tbqh

Smells like poor in here

Why this happened that CPU's are bottlenecking GPU's?

Thank AMD for holding progress back.

intel > amd
dubs confirm

>ITT insane amount of AYYMD damage control

Attached: 1539344873531.png (1228x1502, 1.07M)

Attached: 1541379396407.jpg (326x294, 34K)

Elaborate.

2700, cause far cheaper and similar performance

AMD themselves said TDPs will remain the same.

How the same? A 3700X 8 core will have a TDP of a 2700X 8 core?

yes

Then a 16 core will definitely not run on older motherboards.

There's no 16 core cpu.

Attached: 81102274.jpg (376x369, 38K)

9700K

Only poor people and Indians buy AMD.

Mate of mine is running a 2700X in a B350, and apart from it only boosting to 4.2GHz (it boosts to 4.4GHz in another friend's X470), it works fine.

>if i say it over and over people may believe its true
No, we're not as stupid as you.

Attached: 1544667387109.png (813x1402, 324K)

>"I'm not stupid or poor!"
>buys AMD

Attached: 1546313453246.jpg (640x640, 49K)

What do you mean, cutie? There won't be a 16 core Ryzen chip?

But stupid enough to be poor.

Actual poster with brain.

It's amazing how terrified these Intlel drones are of AMD. I almost pity them.

There probably will be a 16-core, just branded as "Ryzen 9" which means they can claim it's a new line of chips and doesn't need to follow the TDP precedent.

>upgrading things within 3 years of use