It seems you're stuck with the same setup forever.
It seems you're stuck with the same setup forever.
I really don’t pay much attention to your “pro AMD” comments. They don’t add much value and aren’t very helpful. I’m not changing my mind, but let me explain why. Over the past four years I’ve been thinking about upgrading, but I’ve kept it on the side for a few reasons: cost, uncertainty about new tech (it was promising 4-5 years ago but now feels outdated), and the rapid pace of innovation making it hard to stay ahead. Plus, Intel seems to be pulling back on support and efficiency improvements lately.
Honestly, I’m not really into the details of 7nm or 10nm tech—what matters to me is speed, stability, and reliability. I’m more focused on getting the best performance possible without breaking the bank. Right now, I’m using an i7 990x and have seen some impressive CPUs recently. Their power usage is high, which means more heat, and I’m not keen on RGB cooling setups.
My main concern is durability and long-term uptime. I need a CPU that can handle continuous 24/7 operation without failing. I also want flexibility—like extra PCIe slots, SATA cards, or even a 40mm fan cooler for my GPU. The Asus boards I’m eyeing have limited PCIx ports, which makes adding those extra components tricky.
It feels like manufacturers are losing interest in robust thermal solutions, and I’m starting to feel frustrated. It’s disappointing when you’re trying to get the best performance and end up stuck with a product that doesn’t meet your needs.
AMD chips use significantly less power than Intel's processors in today's models and offer many PCI-e connections. The Noctua NH-D15 outperforms most standard water cooling solutions and functions as an air cooler. For adding numerous PCIe devices, consider the TRX40 platform; however, high-end boards often provide sufficient ports already. What are your specific needs? We can assist in creating a parts list.
Tech improves slowly: Nah no reason to buy a new CPU Tech improves quickly: My new CPU will be old in 1-2 years it's not worth buying Can't complain about both. Fast innovation is a good thing. Your CPU doesn't get worse, others just get better. -- A Ryzen 1600, even though it's older and not nearly as fast as the 3600 or upcoming 4600, is not nearly obsolete. As long as your CPU can run your programs, it's useful and valuable. Buying a CPU now means that it might not keep the performance crown for long, but that doesn't matter.
That is a wonderful response @RadiatingLight - seriously. None of the BS "Go AMD... blah blah". I agree and from reading, seems AMD has much lower power consumption than Intel's CPUs in the current gen. The issue here for me to switch is... - loyalty to Intel. That's tough to throw away but seems much easier these days - Platform maturity and compatibility. Intel leads in this way and that is the last thread (pardon the pun) left in me that needs to go more towards. My use case is a tough one to explain. I run my own business but I also work for another big IT company. I am an industry leader and do heavy enterprise software development (backend, databases too, middle tier, services), also create environments in VM's (Virtual machines) and develop multiple solutions at any given time. So it's gotta be a beefy system. My i7 990x handles it but I need more memory and 24GB is the most it can have and with the new things I am using, some things just don't quite work on the older gen hence the need to update. XEON would be a no go because they are slow and can be expensive too I guess but definitely slow. for me: Invest now and it will be a good ROI in the long haul. Thats what I go by and stick with. I don't care about what happens in say, 3 years time. If it can do what I want now and then a little more, then I'm set.
You shouldn't stick with Intel unless you're dealing with some special promotions. Staying loyal to a firm isn't wise when another company provides superior options at lower costs. It seems more about stubbornness than true commitment. If a business delivers poor quality, avoid it and don't be loyal to it. What's the point? A 10-core Xeon W 1290 can reach 4.7GHZ across all cores and offers a single-core boost up to 5.2GHz. This performance far surpasses the i7 990X, even after overclocking with a powerful cooler—you'd only hit around 4.4GHz on just six cores, with much higher power usage.
Loyalty in general is bad, but seems like that's not a huge hurdle. You're right in saying that Intel has generally had the more stable platform over the years, especially considering the rocky launch of AMD's first generation Ryzen products. (Their later launches, especially the 3000 series, have gone much smoother, although not without hiccups entirely). Currently, I'd say you have a few options: - Get an AMD System now with a 3700X/3900X/3950X. AMD's 3000 series of CPUs is relatively mature, and is proven to be stable. You can (and should) look at your usecase to see if any programs have issues with the platform, but in general it should be as simple as can be. Cooling these is a non-issue. The stock cooler will work, but if you want it to be quiet under load, an aftermarket cooler is a nice addon. - Get an Intel system now with a 10700K/10900K. Intel's platform, while newer, is very stable. This option might be slightly more expensive, but it might be worth it for you, especially if this is a machine that you use to work, and downtime is much more damaging than it would be to an enthusiast. - Get an AMD ZEN3 System. (Likely 4700X/4900X/4950X). This is the option that will allow you to keep the performance crown the longest, and get the best system for your money. ZEN3 is expected to release within the next few months, and is expected to be a beast. (Likely +15% per-core improvement over Zen 2). The downside to this option is that you have to wait for Zen 3 to launch, and there is no guarantee that the platform will be as rock-solid as the other two options at launch. It's possible that it will take more time for AMD to smooth out the wrinkles, although I have hope that since AMD is a more stable company now, their launches will continue to get smoother as time goes on. Another benefit to the Intel system would be that you have an integrated GPU, so if your workload isn't GPU-accelerated at all, you wouldn't need to get a dedicated graphics card, which would free up a PCI-e slot. In terms of expansion, most motherboards have at least two full-size X16 slots, and several more smaller x4 slots. A 10Gbps network card can fit into an X4 slot, leaving tons of expansion space for RAID cards, SATA expansion, or whatever you need.
Thanks again for reaching out to @RadiatingLight. I understand you're moving away from your current setup due to personal preferences and the need for more monitors. The 10900K is a solid choice, especially with your setup of multiple GPUs and displays. It's great you're considering the core differences rather than just marketing terms—it shows thoughtful planning. I'm glad you found the response helpful!
It's accurate to say modern processors perform significantly faster than older CPUs, though comparing them directly isn't precise. Not all cores function the same; a high-end 6-core setup could mean different models depending on their performance metrics.
I already understood the IPC with Ryzen, but I'm looking at Intel versus Intel. I haven't heard any recent IPC improvements for them, though it's possible they did and I might be mistaken.
Intel offers an ultra-premium model, the 10980XE. It features an 18-core processor priced at $999, along with a costly motherboard. The i9 10900K provides a 10-core option at $529, and its motherboard is more affordable. These high-end Intel CPUs are seen as offering poor value compared to AMD alternatives, especially when you're investing around $1000. For a more powerful 24-core setup, the AMD 3960X is a better choice, featuring additional PCI-e lanes and other benefits.