# The costs of Intel gaming vs AMD gaming, who wins? Actually Intel this round, cheaper and faster.



## Space Lynx (Jul 12, 2019)

So I found some good Z390 boards on sale for $109 shipped, I got the ASRock Steel Legend for $105 actually. So 8 core 9700 non-k 65 watt, beats 90% of games in AMD by a good 10 fps while staying cool, and costs $329, same as AMD's cheapest 8 core offering, which only beats it in two mainstream games. Then we look at ram, you really need 3600 ram for Ryzen to shine or 3200 b die. cas 14.  Cheapest of which is $140 right now, yet i got my 3000 cas 14 ram for $95 and it will do great on intel, probably ok for AMD too but would need to risk OC'ing it, etc as AMD really needs 3200 cas 14 min to do well.  Cheapest X570 board is $170... so your looking at 45 more for the ram, and 65 more for the mobo, all so you can get less FPS in games, and Destiny 2 doesn't even work with Ryzen CPU's yet and they still haven't figured out a fix. So if Destiny 2 doesn't work on Ryzen, how many older games from 10 years ago have people not played yet, but when nostalgia hits them and they load up the game... only to find out not supported. Hopefully there are not that many, but if one modern game didn't pass the cut or cut corners and only focused on intel, guess what? I bet more did too but no one has time to play 4000 games to see which ones work and which don't.  

I could even argue the i5-9400f at $149 on Amazon right now and a cheap $80 H370 mobo - several youtube comparisons show the 9400f on several games tying or beating the ryzen 3600... which again is $170 mobo and $200 CPU minimum, not to mention you need to throw in much more expensive ram where as the 9400f will do those numbers on 2666 $65 ram just fine.

Peoples obsession with threads is overblown, especially if all you do is game.

If you do more than game, than by all means go AMD because I agree those threads do count then.  Just not sure why Intel has such a bad marketing team, seriously not sure why everyone is fawning over Ryzen 3000 when its still getting beat in gaming and that's with the security patches... and same price or cheaper for the Intel parts minus threading... I mean to each their own. I just know I prefer higher FPS no matter what, and if I can do that cheaper too... then I mean alright sure.  Great thing about the 9700 non-k is the 65w, it won't run hot even if I set all cores to boost to 4.7 and no downclocking in the BIOS. 

Just curious why I seem to be the only one having these thoughts? Even Linus is gushing over Ryzen (even though he has intel in his new rig he built a few weeks ago).  If I was recommending a budget build right now, it would be 1660 or 1660 ti, i5-9400f, cheap 2666 ram, and a 144hz VA 1080p 24" panel for $150.  Literally will be Ryzen in 90% of games and still save ton of money. No I am not an Intel fanboy... just presenting the facts.  I owned AMD for a solid decade straight, from flashing my 6950 BIOS to a 6970 and having a blast, to the ATI AGP days of upgrading just so I could play WoW on launch day.  AMD will always be special to me, I just don't understand the hype I guess this round, seriously 3 generations of Ryzen and still not beating Intel in gaming, why is no one else frustrated at this?  Not to mention some games don't work at all with Ryzen, and GamersNexus reminded people in his most review of 5700 XT that the drivers crash all the time for him for his 5700 XT, etc... I honestly don't miss those days.


----------



## Bones (Jul 12, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> So I found some good Z390 boards on sale for $109 shipped, I got the ASRock Steel Legend for $105 actually. So 8 core 9700 non-k 65 watt, beats 90% of games in AMD by a good 10 fps while staying cool, and costs $329, same as AMD's cheapest 8 core offering, which only beats it in two mainstream games. Then we look at ram, you really need 3600 ram for Ryzen to shine or 3200 b die. cas 14.  Cheapest of which is $140 right now, yet i got my 3000 cas 14 ram for $95 and it will do great on intel, probably ok for AMD too but would need to risk OC'ing it, etc as AMD really needs 3200 cas 14 min to do well.  Cheapest X570 board is $170... so your looking at 45 more for the ram, and 65 more for the mobo, all so you can get less FPS in games, and Destiny 2 doesn't even work with Ryzen CPU's yet and they still haven't figured out a fix. So if Destiny 2 doesn't work on Ryzen, how many older games from 10 years ago have people not played yet, but when nostalgia hits them and they load up the game... only to find out not supported. Hopefully there are not that many, but if one modern game didn't pass the cut or cut corners and only focused on intel, guess what? I bet more did too but no one has time to play 4000 games to see which ones work and which don't.
> 
> I could even argue the i5-9400f at $149 on Amazon right now and a cheap $80 H370 mobo - several youtube comparisons show the 9400f on several games tying or beating the ryzen 3600... which again is $170 mobo and $200 CPU minimum, not to mention you need to throw in much more expensive ram where as the 9400f will do those numbers on 2666 $65 ram just fine.
> 
> ...



C'mon dude, you know better than all that.
Facts are CPU's are used for....... All things computing related.

Ton's of $$ to be made from data center use, business use, university use, military use even and not to mention all the other nice things they are used for aside from gaming.

You're repeatedly asking "Why" when your reason for not understanding according to your post is that Intel is better at gaming, nothing else mentioned aside from "If you do more than game, than by all means go AMD because I agree those threads do count then". No other reference to why you don't understand mentioned that I saw argued.

Gaming IS NOT the whole picture of computing, in fact it's a smaller to really small portion of it by percentage period. You're repeatedly making reference to gaming as if it's the only thing that should be used for comparison or perhaps that CPU's are even used for.

Gaming itself/alone is just chump-change to both AMD and Intel.


----------



## Fouquin (Jul 12, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> Then we look at ram, you really need 3600 ram for Ryzen to shine or 3200 b die. cas 14



You really don't. The difference is incredibly tiny and your cheap 3000 CL14 kit would be right there in the middle barely outside margin of error in performance.









lynx29 said:


> Cheapest of which is $140



Don't think so.








lynx29 said:


> Cheapest X570 board is $170...



X570 isn't required, Zen 2 is supported on all previous chipsets and just about every vendor has updated firmware for it. X370/B350 boards are laughably cheap.



lynx29 said:


> So if Destiny 2 doesn't work on Ryzen, how many older games from 10 years ago have people not played yet, but when nostalgia hits them and they load up the game... only to find out not supported.



That's a pretty massive assumption to make simply because Destiny 2 is having issues.

Really happy you found a config you're enjoying and got for an excellent price, but this really kinda just reads like somebody trying to start up drama and FUD.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Jul 12, 2019)

I couldn't have put it better myself - as predicted, the new TurdZens still lag in gaming, but on top of that they are now actually more expensive, both on their own (9400f vs 3600, 9600k vs 3600x) and especially considering the platform leaving Intel an even more obvious choice for gaming than before, lol!


----------



## Fouquin (Jul 12, 2019)

HenrySomeone said:


> the new TurdZens



Aaaand there it is. Begin the pissing match I guess.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Jul 12, 2019)

As the OP pointed out, them not being able to at least match Coffee Lake even with the 3rd iteration despite all the problems Intel is having with their next node, makes that a well deserved moniker.


----------



## freeagent (Jul 12, 2019)

Kids these days.


----------



## Bones (Jul 12, 2019)

Tell me about it.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 12, 2019)

Bones said:


> C'mon dude, you know better than all that.
> Facts are CPU's are used for....... All things computing related.
> 
> Ton's of $$ to be made from data center use, business use, university use, military use even and not to mention all the other nice things they are used for aside from gaming.
> ...



that's not what this article is about... I literally said in title gaming vs gaming... lol wow I know computing is a lot bigger than that. that's not what this article is about though, and lot of people here are just gamers.



Solid State Soul ( SSS ) said:


> I totally understand your point of view and am completely on your level. The modest i5 8400 can still game just as good and even sometimes a few fps ahead of ZEN 2 CPUs all while running on a 2666 mhz memory, but people are so lost in hype its not worth arguing about this anymore. Get a gas mask OP case people are about to rip this thread to shreds trying their hardest to prove you wrong.



yeah I know, I don't know why i even bothered. I prob will build AMD when DDR5 ram hits, that wasn't the point of this article. people are unable to stay focused on facts within the context of what the title is talking about.


----------



## Bones (Jul 12, 2019)

I thought you knew better...... 
However I disagree with one thing - Intel is not as good of a deal right now.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 12, 2019)

Bones said:


> I thought you knew better......
> However I disagree with one thing - Intel is not as good of a deal right now.



If all you do is game it is, I saved over $100 by picking 8 core Intel over 8 core AMD, cause I was able to save on ram and mobo, and I get more performance in gaming. If you do more than gaming, than yes I agree with you.


----------



## m&m's (Jul 12, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> I saved over $100 by picking 8 core Intel over 8 core AMD, cause I was able to save on ram and mobo, and I get more performance in gaming



1- You paid $110 for the ASRock Steel Legend Z390. You can buy the ASRock Steel Legend B450 for the exact same price.
2- Since you bought a non-k CPU, it does come with a boxed cooler but a loud and poor performing one. The Ryzen 7 3700x comes with the Wraith Prism which is a decent cooler. Most reviews are done using an aftermarket cooler to show the true potential of the CPUs. Some could argue that the i7 9700 with the stock cooler wouldn't perform has well.
3- You do save money on the RAM sticks but loose money if you need to buy a cooler.
4- At the end of the day, yes it looks like the AMD route is a little costlier but not $100, more like $20-30.

On another note, I don't like how reviews are done on pretty much all websites. Most people nowadays multitasks a lot with their computers and it's getting quite rare to have only the game running while gaming. I'd really like to see a review comparing an Intel and an AMD CPU price similarly where you have discord, a youtube video on a second monitor while gaming, etc. Would both CPUs be affected the same way? Would the 8 more threads of a Ryzen 7 help (compared to an i7)?


----------



## Metroid (Jul 12, 2019)

For gaming, I'm leaning towards ryzen 3600, at $200 and an amazing single thread performance.


----------



## Naito (Jul 12, 2019)

AMD at least supports their sockets for more than two CPU release cycles. Did you take that into consideration when budgeting systems? I'd also happily pay more for less vulnerabilities. A lot of hype is probably around increased competition, which is generally good for consumers.

This sounds to me someone may be trying to rationalize their purchases....


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 12, 2019)

m&m's said:


> 1- You paid $110 for the ASRock Steel Legend Z390. You can buy the ASRock Steel Legend B450 for the exact same price.
> 2- Since you bought a non-k CPU, it does come with a boxed cooler but a loud and poor performing one. The Ryzen 7 3700x comes with the Wraith Prism which is a decent cooler. Most reviews are done using an aftermarket cooler to show the true potential of the CPUs. Some could argue that the i7 9700 with the stock cooler wouldn't perform has well.
> 3- You do save money on the RAM sticks but loose money if you need to buy a cooler.
> 4- At the end of the day, yes it looks like the AMD route is a little costlier but not $100, more like $20-30.
> ...



no I paid $105 for the steel legend.  and I play destiny 2... so I simply can't own ryzen right now...


----------



## Metroid (Jul 12, 2019)

I dont understand why reviewers have not showed overclocking with smt off. I reckon that we could see a very good gain in there since is all about cpu temperature.


----------



## ShurikN (Jul 12, 2019)

I would like to be directed to a 9700 non k review with game benchmarks, because I couldn't find any. How do you know the 9700 is that much faster than a 3700X?
The non K has much lower base clock than its unlocked sibling and 200MHz lower boost clock. 
Also, according to TPU, 9700K is 5% faster than 3700X at 1080p...


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 12, 2019)

i game at 1440p not 1080p. and im not saying 3700x is a bad chip, but there are a lot of games like this.  also my 9700 non-k runs at 4.8 ghz 24/7 with BCLK at 102.5 in BIOS and runs quite cold compared to others 9700k/9900k since its 65w. so you can basically slot it in right there with the 9700k, actually higher since those are stock clocks with the benches mine would beat even the 9900k i expect in several of the games since testing is not done with oc's.  and that 9900k is prob running more around 4.6 all core on full load.

also like I said I play Destiny 2 a lot recently, so I just can't do ryzen, they still have no fix it and the game won't launch on ryzen 3000.  :/ I'm gaining 20 fps in many games over ryzen. the AMD favored games like battlefield V I don't really play at all, so eh


----------



## ShurikN (Jul 12, 2019)

Okay so...
First.
Far Cry 5 (or New Dawn) is a worst case scenario for Ryzen. Results like those are very rare, which TPU review shows.
Second.
At 1440p 9700K is 1% faster than 3700X. And that's taking FC5 results into account. Also that was on a 2080Ti, your 2070Super is a much bigger bottleneck at 1440p than a 2080Ti.
Third.
It runs cool because you are using a $100 air cooler. If you turned on MCE, and are actually boosting to 4.8 on all cores, then it is no longer a "65W" CPU.
Fourth.
Destiny 2 is having problems "now". It's not gonna stay like that forever. The CPUs are available for less than 5 days. It'll get sorted fairly soon.
Fifth.
"I'm gaining 20 fps in many games over ryzen". At 1440p? Name those games.

Like I said. Untill I see some benchmarks for the 9700 non-K, I'll remain skeptical.


----------



## Metroid (Jul 12, 2019)

ShurikN said:


> ...



And you can add, imagine if the 3700x was with smt off, I'm really dissapointed at gamer nexus, he did tests with smt off on the 3600 and 3900x and skipped on the 3700x. 3700x 8 cores x 9700k 8 cores would be a good example, apples to apples.


----------



## plonk420 (Jul 12, 2019)

heh, the 3600 will run just fine on a $60 board just fine, but is probably the most comfortable on an $80 MSI B450 board


----------



## dyonoctis (Jul 12, 2019)

The one thing that I don't understand about this thread is that every review pretty much admitted that if you are only gaming Intel is still the way to go...if reviewers are gushing over zen 2 it's only because of their value for productivity. In those scénario even the 9900k can get beaten or matched by the 3700x. Before zen 2 at an equivalent core/thread count AMD never managed to come close to intel even outside of gaming...that's pretty much why people are stoked.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 12, 2019)

ShurikN said:


> Okay so...
> First.
> Far Cry 5 (or New Dawn) is a worst case scenario for Ryzen. Results like those are very rare, which TPU review shows.
> Second.
> ...



Eh, not bothering with this. I saved money, bought my Noctua cooler like 5 years ago so not adding that to the cost for my personal situation.

https://www.pcgamer.com/amd-ryzen-9-3900x-and-ryzen-7-3700x-review-in-progress/  I'd also recommend reading PCGamer Navi review where they show games at medium settings at 1440p and 1080p not max... Nvidia really smokes AMD there.  Setting settings to Ultra for games is a bit silly and distorts actual benches and real world users scenarios.  Most of us turn down one or two settings because they net us extra FPS and are insanely crippling for even high end hardware.  Also Navi does not OC well, and so all the benches you see you can basically add another 10-15 fps because my 2070 SUPER is OC'd balls to the walls and still stays under Navi blower fan.

not to mention the driver issues gamersnexus discussed is 5700 review. i'm happy i stayed with intel nvidia this round, next round / ddr5 ram I will def be giving AMD a shot, i think they just need to mature and refine the process a little bit more.



dyonoctis said:


> The one thing that I don't understand about this thread is that every review pretty much admitted that if you are only gaming Intel is still the way to go...if reviewers are gushing over zen 2 it's only because of their value for productivity. In those scénario even the 9900k can get beaten or tied with the 3700x. Before zen 2 at an equivalent core/thread count AMD never managed to come close to intel even outside of gaming...that's pretty much why people are stoked.



not sure what you mean, most people who build on OCN or TPU are mainly just gamers.  I know there is a lot more productivity out there though, so your point stands and I agree with you there. as far as I am aware, big guys int he industry like LinusTechTips still use Intel for all their productivity though just because of stability, including all their servers and video editing.  :/


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 12, 2019)

Far Cry 5 is a major outlier as well... it has crazy memory managment and stutters like crazy on a 9700k and the 8600k (all over the web).  I would never recommend a non HT intel for Far Cry 5 - even a 7700k runs smoother after the recent meltdown/spectre updates.

AMD just struggles all around with that title.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 12, 2019)

phanbuey said:


> Far Cry 5 is a major outlier as well... it has crazy memory managment and stutters like crazy on a 9700k and the 8600k (all over the web).  I would never recommend a non HT intel for Far Cry 5 - even a 7700k runs smoother after the recent meltdown/spectre updates.
> 
> AMD just struggles all around with that title.



just sounds like a badly designed game then.  hmmm that is a shame.


----------



## Naito (Jul 12, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> I'd also recommend reading PCGamer Navi review where they show games at medium settings at 1440p and 1080p not max... Nvidia really smokes AMD there.



I can only find 11 game average benchmarks for medium settings @ 1080p in these reviews (happy to be proven wrong). Going off the 1080p benchmarks, the 5700XT is only 7 FPS slower than 2070 Super. I'd hardly call this a smoking. As the resolution increases, the gap lessons. Better drivers and AIB cards will help decrease this gap further.



lynx29 said:


> i'm happy i stayed with intel nvidia this round, next round / ddr5 ram I will def be giving AMD a shot, i think they just need to mature and refine the process a little bit more.



And as I suspected, here it is; you are bending the results to rationalize decisions made when purchasing your system and ignoring key facts like launch pricing, socket support over the lifetime of the system, etc. Not sure why you are doing this, if your _System Specs_ is anything to go by, you have a killer system. Enjoy it!


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 12, 2019)

Naito said:


> I can only find 11 game average benchmarks for medium settings @ 1080p in these reviews (happy to be proven wrong). Going off the 1080p benchmarks, the 5700XT is only 7 FPS slower than 2070 Super. I'd hardly call this a smoking. As the resolution increases, the gap lessons. Better drivers and AIB cards will help decrease this gap further.
> 
> 
> 
> And as I suspected, here it is; you are bending the results to rationalize decisions made when purchasing your system and ignoring key facts like launch pricing, socket support over the lifetime of the system, etc. Not sure why you are doing this, if your _System Specs_ is anything to go by, you have a killer system. Enjoy it!



AMD has stated they are only supporting AM4 socket until 2020, when DDR5 hits in early 2021 most likely, you will be buying AM5 boards, so you will still be buying a new board within a couple years if you upgrade now.

Regardless, I get your point.  

I honestly wish AMD had ryzen and navi in a laptop, I might buy that.  for some reason I enjoy gaming laptops, its weird I know.


----------



## Naito (Jul 12, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> AMD has stated they are only supporting AM4 socket until 2020, when DDR5 hits in early 2021 most likely, you will be buying AM5 boards, so you will still be buying a new board within a couple years if you upgrade now.



This is true, but this is more than Intel and they've been upfront with it from pretty much day dot. Intel gives us generally two release cycles per chipset/socket, where as AMD has, aside from the A320, allowed for Zen, Zen+, Zen 2 and I assume Zen 2+ or 3 to remain backward (or is it _forward?_) compatible (depending on BIOS support, of course).



lynx29 said:


> for some reason I enjoy gaming laptops, its weird I know.



Ah, I missed the _HQ _suffix on your CPU listing - that gives the laptop part away. Impressive gaming laptop!


----------



## ShurikN (Jul 12, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> I'd also recommend reading PCGamer Navi review where they show games at medium settings at 1440p and 1080p not max... Nvidia really smokes AMD there.  Setting settings to Ultra for games is a bit silly and distorts actual benches and real world users scenarios.  Most of us turn down one or two settings because they net us extra FPS and are insanely crippling for even high end hardware.  Also Navi does not OC well, and so all the benches you see you can basically add another 10-15 fps because my 2070 SUPER is OC'd balls to the walls and still stays under Navi blower fan.


Why in gods name would I buy a 1440p class card and then play on 1080p medium. In that same review, at 1080p ultra, 2070Super is maybe 3% ahead of the 5700XT. For 25% more money.
Also 5700XT oveclocks to 2150 MHz on that shitty stock cooler. Go watch the Hardware Unboxed review.


lynx29 said:


> i'm happy i stayed with intel nvidia this round, next round / ddr5 ram I will def be giving AMD a shot, i think they just need to mature and refine the process a little bit more.


You said the same thing for this round...


----------



## dyonoctis (Jul 12, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> not sure what you mean, most people who build on OCN or TPU are mainly just gamers.  I know there is a lot more productivity out there though, so your point stands and I agree with you there. as far as I am aware, big guys int he industry like LinusTechTips still use Intel for all their productivity though just because of stability, including all their servers and video editing.  :/



I just meant that it seems that a lot of people are just happy with the current developement even if it doesn't benefits them directly. As long as Intel is on pressure somewhere you can expect them to at least try harder.
As for the big boys using AMD or Intel...you'll see some VFX studios having worked with big brands or on blockbuster movies using Zen cpus. But those guys are using custom build machine, while a fair amount of studios are buying their workstation from Dell, Hp or Lenovo...who are only using Intel cpu.
Irc Linus haven't made any uppgrade to the editors rigs since 2015 (or it wasn't documented) (and that server video was actually made before zen 2 launch), so I dunno where they really stand in all this.

Outside of epyc (who really seems to be made for datacenters, or supercomputers) the pro side of zen is obscure for me. There's Ryzen pro, but threadripper doesn't have a "pro" version seems like it's made for pro and prosummers alike, but that doesn't seem to please Dell and the others...


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 12, 2019)

ShurikN said:


> Why in gods name would I buy a 1440p class card and then play on 1080p medium. In that same review, at 1080p ultra, 2070Super is maybe 3% ahead of the 5700XT. For 25% more money.
> Also 5700XT oveclocks to 2150 MHz on that shitty stock cooler. Go watch the Hardware Unboxed review.
> 
> You said the same thing for this round...



have not seen the hardware unboxed review, will give it a watch now. gamersnexus seemed to think ryzen nor navi would oc well at all








24 fps slower than i7-9700 at 1440p, you can argue oh well SMT off does improve performance, but 99% of users will never turn it off. even gamersnexus does not recommend turning it off... tho i don't know why since his audience is a enthusiast crowd. min fps is also loads better on my 9700. which = no big drops in frames, more smooth overall gaming experience for this particular game (which I intend to play a lot of very soon btw)


----------



## Frick (Jul 12, 2019)

Fouquin said:


> X570 isn't required, Zen 2 is supported on all previous chipsets and just about every vendor has updated firmware for it. X370/B350 boards are laughably cheap.



Asrock have some A320 boards with Zen2 support.









						ASRock A320M-DVS R4.0
					

AMD AM4 Socket; 2 DIMMs, Supports DDR4 3200+(OC)<span style=color:red;>*</span>; 1 PCIe 3.0 x16, 1 PCIe 2.0 x1; Graphics Output : DVI-D, D-Sub; 7.1 CH HD Audio (Realtek ALC887/897 Audio Codec); 4 SATA3; 6 USB 3.1 Gen1 (2 Front, 4 Rear); Realtek Gigabit LAN<div class=Remark><span...




					www.asrock.com


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 12, 2019)

Frick said:


> Asrock have some A320 boards with Zen2 support.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Have to admit I was not expecting ryzen 3000 to work so well on such old boards and cheap. Techspot did a review of it, and it really didn't hinder performance at all.


----------



## IceScreamer (Jul 12, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> have not seen the hardware unboxed review, will give it a watch now. gamersnexus seemed to think ryzen nor navi would oc well at all
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Am I reading the chart wrong or the difference is way smaller than that, it's around 12FPS max, and if you can feel the difference between 98 and 110 *while* gaming then man, hats off to you.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 12, 2019)

IceScreamer said:


> Am I reading the chart wrong or the difference is way smaller than that, it's around 12FPS max, and if you can feel the difference between 98 and 110 *while* gaming then man, hats off to you.



no you are correct, 12 is correct. for some reason my brain doubled it. that's still 12 fps fast, better mins as well, and $100 cheaper... say what you want, but those cheaper AM4 non x570 boards have terrible VRM cooling. not sure i want to risk stability issues after 10 hour gaming sessions.

and i have changed from 144hz to 165hz before to just test just that and i could tell a difference, very slightly. def diminishing returns, but yeah every fps counts. i have also played on 240hz monitor before and honestly it felt too fast... didnt feel like a game anymore, i think i prefer 165hz to 175hz monitors. maybe 200hz max.  nothing below 90hz though ever. 90 is sweet spot, after that its diminishing returns i admit.  but i can still see difference "feel" difference


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 12, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> So I found some good Z390 boards on sale for $109 shipped, I got the ASRock Steel Legend for $105 actually. So 8 core 9700 non-k 65 watt, beats 90% of games in AMD by a good 10 fps while staying cool, and costs $329, same as AMD's cheapest 8 core offering, which only beats it in two mainstream games. Then we look at ram, you really need 3600 ram for Ryzen to shine or 3200 b die. cas 14.  Cheapest of which is $140 right now, yet i got my 3000 cas 14 ram for $95 and it will do great on intel, probably ok for AMD too but would need to risk OC'ing it, etc as AMD really needs 3200 cas 14 min to do well.  Cheapest X570 board is $170... so your looking at 45 more for the ram, and 65 more for the mobo, all so you can get less FPS in games, and Destiny 2 doesn't even work with Ryzen CPU's yet and they still haven't figured out a fix. So if Destiny 2 doesn't work on Ryzen, how many older games from 10 years ago have people not played yet, but when nostalgia hits them and they load up the game... only to find out not supported. Hopefully there are not that many, but if one modern game didn't pass the cut or cut corners and only focused on intel, guess what? I bet more did too but no one has time to play 4000 games to see which ones work and which don't.
> 
> I could even argue the i5-9400f at $149 on Amazon right now and a cheap $80 H370 mobo - several youtube comparisons show the 9400f on several games tying or beating the ryzen 3600... which again is $170 mobo and $200 CPU minimum, not to mention you need to throw in much more expensive ram where as the 9400f will do those numbers on 2666 $65 ram just fine.
> 
> ...


Sounds like the I5 argument from years ago totes invalid.
If you don't give a shit aboutt 144hz at 1080p then most of your argument means naught.
Invalid because there are cheaper ryzen platforms too that will be close enough at 1440p and 4k that 90% of the public wouldn't give a shit.


----------



## Metroid (Jul 12, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> AMD has stated they are only supporting AM4 socket until 2020, when DDR5 hits in early 2021 most likely, you will be buying AM5 boards, so you will still be buying a new board within a couple years if you upgrade now.



Reason why there is really no point investing in high end am4 motherboards. You will not reuse it.

2 important things, if going intel then never buy a high end motherboard cause you will have to buy every year, if going amd then invest in a very good high end motherboard cause if amd keep this policy of reusability of a motherboard then it's great.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Jul 12, 2019)

Face it, AMD is no magician. Intel will be in the lead for years and years to come, and guess what? They don't need to beat intel in gaming when they're already making plenty of sales for those doing tasks other than gaming. Yes they will win by 20~ fps in some games, however to most people buying AMD they don't care about the difference as they're paying a fraction of the price presuming they don't buy an overpriced X570 board.


----------



## FYFI13 (Jul 12, 2019)

Cheaper and faster? How about this setup?





You might argue about RAM. That's exactly same RAM I'm running at 3400MHz. And even without overclok the difference is too small to justify spending more money on it. You don't need X570 motherboard either. It will run just fine.

Now let's convert GBP to EUR:





393 euro for a system that will run just as good or even better than 7 9700, it will run cool and most importantly - you will be able to upgrade CPU whenever you feel like you need more horse power.
Also, i made this list on scan.co.uk, i did not even try to find cheaper parts.

Now let's take a look at you system:





Ouch, 473 euro and let's not forget that electronics in USA are cheaper. So if i had to buy all your parts in Europe, the price would be even higher. 

Nice trolling attempt bro.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Jul 12, 2019)

Naito said:


> AMD at least supports their sockets for more than two CPU release cycles. Did you take that into consideration when budgeting systems? I'd also happily pay more for less vulnerabilities. A lot of hype is probably around increased competition, which is generally good for consumers.
> 
> This sounds to me someone may be trying to rationalize their purchases....


Well, they sort of have to, as even the latest and greatest 3rd gen chips still get beaten by almost 3 years old 7700k in most games and I bet even 4000 series won't overtake 8700k at 5.0 - 5.2 Ghz which you could get in 2017, not to mention what Ice Lake is gonna do to them


----------



## ShurikN (Jul 12, 2019)

The MSI tomahawk B450 is also regarded as a killer mobo for 8 cores (or less) Ryzen 3000s. It's currently $115 on Newegg
It also has Flashback, so no CPU is needed for bios flashing.


----------



## Sithaer (Jul 12, 2019)

When I built my current PC back in ~2018 May the price of a full I 5 8400 build was pretty much the same as the 1600x Ryzen build with 3200 memos. 'Hardware prices in my country are rather meh..'

I picked the Ryzen system cause I don't plan on upgrading mobo+cpu for like 5 years or so and I rather have the extra threads just in case.
Switched from an Intel system which I used for 3 years.

I don't need my PC to push crazy high frames either,just recently upgraded from a 60Hz monitor to a 75Hz Ultra Wide and I'm completely comfortable with it,actually I also lock my max FPS to have less stress on my system. 'Don't need more than my Freesync max range'
Even if the 8400 was/is somewhat better in games it doesn't matter to me cause I simply won't notice that difference nor pair it with a high end GPU so I'm GPU bound anyway.
Except for some crappy old games that rely on max 1-2 cores but luckily I play less and less of those things.

So yea it really depends,at least imo but personally I will never go back to Intel at this rate.
Can still put a 3600 in my current mobo if I ever have to.


----------



## ShurikN (Jul 12, 2019)

Sithaer said:


> Can still put a 3600 in my current mobo if I ever have to.


You'll see between 20 and 30% more performance in gaming with it, compared to your current CPU. The only question is how much of a bottleneck will that RX570 be.



lynx29 said:


> have not seen the hardware unboxed review, will give it a watch now. gamersnexus seemed to think ryzen nor navi would oc well at all


The same thing happened with Vega VII and overclocking at launch, and it was fixed with driver updates within a week.
The same will happen with Navi.
5700 does not OC past 1800 as it has a hard limit, most likely in the drivers. The XT overclocks just fine. And it'll be even better with AIB cards. It will catch up 2070S and have better price/perf ratio.


----------



## Naito (Jul 12, 2019)

HenrySomeone said:


> not to mention what Ice Lake is gonna do to them



Well, let's hope they can get their sh*t together and stop copy-pasting their CPU architectures! They may not have run into this problem otherwise...





Starts to look more like a block of swiss cheese than a CPU


----------



## Sithaer (Jul 12, 2019)

ShurikN said:


> You'll see between 20 and 30% more performance in gaming with it, compared to your current CPU. The only question is how much of a bottleneck will that RX570 be.



Nah,would make no use of a 3600 atm,since even the 1600x is more than enough for the single player games I'm mainly playing nowadays.
But maybe in years I will switch it out,for example I've switched out my old intel system when it was struggling in Far Cry 5/Just Cause 3 with 100% CPU load and it was unplayable.
Hopefully that won't happen anytime soon.

RX 570 will be replaced later this year since this new monitor/resolution is more GPU heavy and new games are kinda pushing it.
Looking at a possible Sapphire RX 5700 or a RTX 2060 but might get something cheaper in the end.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jul 12, 2019)

Naito said:


> Starts to look more like a block of swiss cheese than a CPU


hey! don't insult Swiss cheeses! (furthermore ... not many Swiss cheeses have hole in them ... for instance the Gruyere which is dubbed as being with a lot of hole, has none in it ... none at all ... it's the "fake" French made Gruyere who has them and that one has no _appellation d'origine protégée_ /_contrôlée, i_n the end the "full of hole like a Swiss cheese" originated from a cliché _)_

other than that for the op ... well good for you if you got an intel setup for cheap  but don't go dissing AMD because you want to justify the buy_ _


lynx29 said:


> have not seen the hardware unboxed review, will give it a watch now. gamersnexus seemed to think ryzen nor navi would oc well at all
> 
> 
> 
> ...


nonetheless ... it's not tremendous difference between them (still funny ... isn't it Intel who recommend turning off SMT/HT due to security issue iirc?)

oh well for me as long as it maintain above 75fps minima in 1440/1620p i know what will my next setup be 

but still glad for you


----------



## HenrySomeone (Jul 12, 2019)

GreiverBlade said:


> other than that for the op ... well good for you if you got an intel setup for cheap  but don't go dissing AMD because you want to justify the buy__


He doesn't have to justify anything - he got a superior product for his use case at a better price. And if Intel's prices drop a bit more as was speculated recently, then they will be an absolute no-brainer choice for general use and especially gaming.


----------



## Naito (Jul 12, 2019)

GreiverBlade said:


> hey! don't insult Swiss cheeses!



Haha, sorry! I mean the mass produced American 'Swiss cheese', not the fine quality cheese from Switzerland


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Jul 12, 2019)

Destiny 2 doesn’t work with Ryzen? Could have fooled me. I must have been playing something else!


----------



## FYFI13 (Jul 12, 2019)

Darmok N Jalad said:


> Destiny 2 doesn’t work with Ryzen? Could have fooled me. I must have been playing something else!


I tried Destiny 2 as well for a bit. Didn't like the game and uninstalled. Didn't notice any issues though.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 12, 2019)

Naito said:


> Well, let's hope they can get their sh*t together and stop copy-pasting their CPU architectures! They may not have run into this problem otherwise...


Sorry... AMD finally gets its shit straight on the CPU side after a decade of, at best, mediocrity, and you say this??!?!?! As a company why would I drop hundreds of millions to put my only competition in the grave when just barely improving beyond the status quo is a sound victory, gets more profits, and pleases investors???

You act like these companies are non-profits or something..


----------



## theFOoL (Jul 12, 2019)

Well I'd say AMD cause *You could still game on the Graphics in the Chip where Intel's is still lacking of any performance gain since 2014 or whatever. Now you couldn't go Ultra settings but Low/Mid or even High depending on the game


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 12, 2019)

rk3066 said:


> Well I'd say AMD cause *You could still game on the Graphics in the Chip where Intel's is still lacking of any performance gain since 2014 or whatever. Now you couldn't go Ultra settings but Low/Mid or even High depending on the game


AMD's graphics are on low end APUs only... though Intel's graphics are still potato like and on most CPUs not on the HEDT platform.


----------



## Naito (Jul 12, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Sorry... AMD finally gets its shit straight on the CPU side after a decade of, at best, mediocrity, and you say this??!?!?



I'm not putting the blame past AMD. It's well known that the lack of competition stagnated Intel's innovation, but Intel has used their market advantage to push around the competition. AMD has been on the back foot against Intel in the market since forever, so you can't fairly blame AMD either as they've never had the R&D budget of Intel. This makes their latest CPUs even more impressive, really.

I will still blame Intel for the vulnerabilities, however.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 12, 2019)

Naito said:


> I'm not putting the blame past AMD. It's well known that the lack of competition stagnated Intel's innovation, but Intel has used their market advantage to push around the competition. AMD has been on the back foot against Intel in the market since forever, so you can't fairly blame AMD either as they've never had the R&D budget of Intel. This makes their latest CPUs even more impressive, really.
> 
> I will still blame Intel for the vulnerabilities, however.


I fairly blame AMD and the market, yes. They HAD THE LEAD for years and didn't do anything with it (where Intel's bullying arrives in part). 

The vulnerabilities that really tend to affect data centers MUCH more than any home consumer. Sure.. we can blame them.


----------



## RevengE (Jul 12, 2019)

For Gaming, Yes. That’s what I use my PC for and that’s why I went with a Core I9. AMD is looking good these days however.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 12, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> I just don't understand the hype I guess this round, seriously 3 generations of Ryzen and still not beating Intel in gaming, why is no one else frustrated at this?



Same guy that said :



lynx29 said:


> at least I have no security issues to worry about with new ryzen.  3900x it is for me, hoping I can get a 4.8 all core no downclock with good temps on a NH-D14 cooler



Sorry mate but I keep seeing you around trolling the hell out of every AMD thread either saying how great they are or how terrible they are.


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 12, 2019)

ShurikN said:


> I would like to be directed to a 9700 non k review with game benchmarks, because I couldn't find any. How do you know the 9700 is that much faster than a 3700X?
> The non K has much lower base clock than its unlocked sibling and 200MHz lower boost clock.
> Also, according to TPU, 9700K is 5% faster than 3700X at 1080p...



you won't find one but based on the same IPC and turbo clock speed as the stock 8700k , one could guestimate they would offer similar gaming performance



lynx29 said:


> just sounds like a badly designed game then.  hmmm that is a shame.



Gamers Nexus dropped it from their CPU gaming suite.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 12, 2019)

I'm seeing the 9700K as Intels FX9590 moment, yes it does 5 Ghz because it needs to in order to compete or it would'nt be at 5Ghz.

ironic times indeed from haha you needs 5Ghz to haha you cant do 5Ghz.


and it amazes me how weird people are, no matter what I ever bought, ever.

I have never then gone on a site to big up my purchase while knocking my chosen brands competitor, if I buy it I did enough to help a company, let the company advertise and push their own shit , I'm not spending my time/dollar to peddle the wares of some multi billion dollar company,, that's retarded shit imho


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 12, 2019)

Darmok N Jalad said:


> Destiny 2 doesn’t work with Ryzen? Could have fooled me. I must have been playing something else!





FYFI13 said:


> I tried Destiny 2 as well for a bit. Didn't like the game and uninstalled. Didn't notice any issues though.



correct destiny 2 works fine on ryzen 1000 and 2000, but 3000 chips it does not work at all, won't even launch still.


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 12, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> I'm seeing the 9700K as Intels FX9590 moment, yes it does 5 Ghz because it needs to in order to compete or it would'nt be at 5Ghz.
> 
> ironic times indeed from haha you needs 5Ghz to haha you cant do 5Ghz.
> 
> ...


Not following you, even gamersnexus with their newest review recommend the 9700k over Ryzen 3700 and 3900 for gaming.  No one ever recommend the fx-9 for anything other then a hot plate.


----------



## aQi (Jul 12, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> So I found some good Z390 boards on sale for $109 shipped, I got the ASRock Steel Legend for $105 actually. So 8 core 9700 non-k 65 watt, beats 90% of games in AMD by a good 10 fps while staying cool, and costs $329, same as AMD's cheapest 8 core offering, which only beats it in two mainstream games. Then we look at ram, you really need 3600 ram for Ryzen to shine or 3200 b die. cas 14.  Cheapest of which is $140 right now, yet i got my 3000 cas 14 ram for $95 and it will do great on intel, probably ok for AMD too but would need to risk OC'ing it, etc as AMD really needs 3200 cas 14 min to do well.  Cheapest X570 board is $170... so your looking at 45 more for the ram, and 65 more for the mobo, all so you can get less FPS in games, and Destiny 2 doesn't even work with Ryzen CPU's yet and they still haven't figured out a fix. So if Destiny 2 doesn't work on Ryzen, how many older games from 10 years ago have people not played yet, but when nostalgia hits them and they load up the game... only to find out not supported. Hopefully there are not that many, but if one modern game didn't pass the cut or cut corners and only focused on intel, guess what? I bet more did too but no one has time to play 4000 games to see which ones work and which don't.
> 
> I could even argue the i5-9400f at $149 on Amazon right now and a cheap $80 H370 mobo - several youtube comparisons show the 9400f on several games tying or beating the ryzen 3600... which again is $170 mobo and $200 CPU minimum, not to mention you need to throw in much more expensive ram where as the 9400f will do those numbers on 2666 $65 ram just fine.
> 
> ...



Most reviews are on average and over-all basis. If you are a gamer then everything counts. If Intel comes with its discrete graphics beating the red and green with friendly price tag. Still people will prefer something according to their needs. So everything is pointless untill you decide what you gona do with all the options and dollars in your pocket.

To be honest we have remarkable hardware but poor OS in terms of gaming/encoding or basically everything. And yes im talking about windows


----------



## HenrySomeone (Jul 12, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> Not following you, even gamersnexus with their newest review recommend the 9700k over Ryzen 3700 and 3900 for gaming.  No one ever recommend the fx-9 for anything other then a hot plate.


Precisely, 9700k remains the go-to high-end cpu for strictly gaming or any other use case, where gaming will be the most cpu-intensive task and if the price comes down a bit, it will only further reinforce that position. I am also almost completely certain that it will still triumph even over 4000 series Ryzens. Then, if we look a notch below, 9600k is the most obvious answer and in the entry-level, it's 9400f. AMD doesn't really win in any of the main categories, only in the most budget oriented builds, one might make a case for a discounted 1st gen chips, but even then, a second hand Intel platform from a couple generations back will still be better and even cheaper. Despite what team red fanboys would like to see, AMD doesn't really have a case for gaming at all...


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 12, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> So I found some good Z390 boards on sale for $109 shipped, I got the ASRock Steel Legend for $105 actually. So 8 core 9700 non-k 65 watt, beats 90% of games in AMD by a good 10 fps while staying cool, and costs $329, same as AMD's cheapest 8 core offering, which only beats it in two mainstream games. Then we look at ram, you really need 3600 ram for Ryzen to shine or 3200 b die. cas 14.  Cheapest of which is $140 right now, yet i got my 3000 cas 14 ram for $95 and it will do great on intel, probably ok for AMD too but would need to risk OC'ing it, etc as AMD really needs 3200 cas 14 min to do well.  Cheapest X570 board is $170... so your looking at 45 more for the ram, and 65 more for the mobo, all so you can get less FPS in games, and Destiny 2 doesn't even work with Ryzen CPU's yet and they still haven't figured out a fix. So if Destiny 2 doesn't work on Ryzen, how many older games from 10 years ago have people not played yet, but when nostalgia hits them and they load up the game... only to find out not supported. Hopefully there are not that many, but if one modern game didn't pass the cut or cut corners and only focused on intel, guess what? I bet more did too but no one has time to play 4000 games to see which ones work and which don't.
> 
> I could even argue the i5-9400f at $149 on Amazon right now and a cheap $80 H370 mobo - several youtube comparisons show the 9400f on several games tying or beating the ryzen 3600... which again is $170 mobo and $200 CPU minimum, not to mention you need to throw in much more expensive ram where as the 9400f will do those numbers on 2666 $65 ram just fine.
> 
> ...



If you live by a microcenter you can pick up the 9700 non ki for $299 or the 8700 non k for $269.  You can even get the Ryzen 2600 for $119 which will still give you over 100FPS in games.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 12, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> If you live by a microcenter you can pick up the 9700 non ki for $299 or the 8700 non k for $269.  You can even get the Ryzen 2600 for $119 which will still give you over 100FPS in games.




I actually decided to stick with my gtx 1070 gaming laptop for the time being. i had the 9700 non-k in my cart on amazon but decided not to do it. my 1070 is plenty powerful enough and gives me 90 fps 90hz on most games. I guess I just wanted to move to desktop since I won't be traveling anymore, but eh the more I think about the more I realize I kind of like this form factor, so screw it.


----------



## HD64G (Jul 12, 2019)

Tested with both Radeon 7 and 2080Ti


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 12, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> I actually decided to stick with my gtx 1070 gaming laptop for the time being. i had the 9700 non-k in my cart on amazon but decided not to do it. my 1070 is plenty powerful enough and gives me 90 fps 90hz on most games. I guess I just wanted to move to desktop since I won't be traveling anymore, but eh the more I think about the more I realize I kind of like this form factor, so screw it.



It sure is nice to sit on a load of cash and consider that purchase  But I would suggest to just wait it out a little longer if you're not annoyed with your current performance, and if there is a CPU to buy at this time... not sure if its an Intel? Especially non-K, because the only perk it has is the OC clocks.

Also its worth considering that next gen (7nm) Nvidia or AMD mobile chips will be a good bit more power efficient than the current crop. Very nice for laptops, because that is where they truly gain absolute performance. A next gen laptop with just a simple 1080p panel (maybe 1440p) and an x70 could be a dream come true in terms of heat/size/performance.


----------



## DR4G00N (Jul 12, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> I'm seeing the 9700K as Intels FX9590 moment, yes it does 5 Ghz because it needs to in order to compete or it would'nt be at 5Ghz.


Except the 9590 wasn't fast & didn't compete, it was hot garbage.  

I'd take a 9700K over a 3800/3900X any day because AMD's cpu's still do poorly for 3DMark.


----------



## Rahnak (Jul 12, 2019)

HD64G said:


> Tested with both Radeon 7 and 2080Ti


The results on that video are super sketchy. I don't trust it at all.


----------



## mouacyk (Jul 12, 2019)

@lynx29 We have some kind of innate courtesy complex that says we should appreciate underdogs, for "being able to do it too", finally, within respectable margin.  Then, they show us a new trick or two, relevant or not.  Elite enthusiasts weren't always -- they forget their origin stories...


----------



## erocker (Jul 12, 2019)

9700 and 3700x are the same price. No reason to get a 9700.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 12, 2019)

DR4G00N said:


> Except the 9590 wasn't fast & didn't compete, it was hot garbage.
> 
> I'd take a 9700K over a 3800/3900X any day because AMD's cpu's still do poorly for 3DMark.


Nice niche bro I don't bench competitively just to measure change(admittedly a lot)

It didn't compete , neither does an I5 now in most use cases for most users.


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 12, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Nice niche bro I don't bench competitively just to measure change(admittedly a lot)
> 
> It didn't compete , neither does an I5 now in most use cases for most users.


The i5 is over priced but it's still more then viable and the i5 8400 and  8600k offered the best gaming performance for your dollar at launch.  I'm still not sure what you are trying to say...


----------



## HenrySomeone (Jul 12, 2019)

Recent 6 core i5s compete plenty well, especially in gaming, actually AMD with their spanking new 3000 series just barely matches or slightly beats the 9400f(and in turn 8400) and 9600k(8600k) still beats them handily when properly OCed in like 98% of games, so... Even 7600k is still holding its own in most titles. The only i5s that weren't the greatest of purchases recently were the non-k 7000 series, e.g 7400 and 7500.
Also regarding price - I recently read somewhere and then went to check it myself: on this euro site that team red loves to quote regarding sales numbers, 9600k is now 219 Euros while R5 3600 is 209 - doesn't look so good anymore for the red team, does it? At least not for gaming...








						Intel Core i5 9600K 6x 3.70GHz So.1151 WOF - Sockel 1151 | Mindfactory.de
					

INTEL Desktop von Intel | Intel Core i5 9600K 6x 3.70GHz So.1151 WOF :: Lagernd :: über 15.270 verkauft :: 24 Jahre Kompetenz | Hier bestellen




					www.mindfactory.de
				











						AMD Ryzen 5 3600 6x 3.60GHz So.AM4 BOX - Sockel AM4 | Mindfactory.de
					

AMD Desktop von AMD | AMD Ryzen 5 3600 6x 3.60GHz So.AM4 BOX :: Lagernd :: über 117.880 verkauft :: 24 Jahre Kompetenz | Hier bestellen




					www.mindfactory.de


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jul 12, 2019)

I love how my rig is holding up...18 months later and AMD is just behind...That means my platform is good at least until DDR5...nice


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 12, 2019)

jmcslob said:


> I love how my rig is holding up...18 months later and AMD is just behind...That means my platform is good at least until DDR5...nice



my i7-7820HK and full gtx 1070 laptop maxes out everything still at 90hz 90 fps.   i have to turn occlusion and shadows down sometimes for certain games, but I have no reason to upgrade yet anyway. i had it all in my cart, but just deleted it a moment ago. AMD and intel just don't impress me, maybe if I ever go to a 1440p setup again someday i will get a full rig going again, but until then my laptop handles everything just fine.

your rig should last a very long time at 1440p. its not bad, maybe do a GPU upgrade in 2020


----------



## vega22 (Jul 12, 2019)

Threads Vs IPC....this has been argued for over a decade.

Single core amd Vs duel socket p3 was where I first recall it. But imo the e8400 Vs q6600 debate is more relevant today. Back then the fast duo was spanking the quad in 90% of the games and the slower quad was only faster in a couple of RTS games. But those q66 owners were able to keep on gaming on that same CPU for much longer. Just updating GPU as needed.

I imagine this debate will play out much the same again. History has a way of repeating itself.


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 12, 2019)

vega22 said:


> Threads Vs IPC....this has been argued for over a decade.
> 
> Single core amd Vs duel socket p3 was where I first recall it. But imo the e8400 Vs q6600 debate is more relevant today. Back then the fast duo was spanking the quad in 90% of the games and the slower quad was only faster in a couple of RTS games. But those q66 owners were able to keep on gaming on that same CPU for much longer. Just updating GPU as needed.
> 
> I imagine this debate will play out much the same again. History has a way of repeating itself.


The i5-2500k came along and made the whole argument moot by making both chips look outdated.  Same thing will happen again.


----------



## mouacyk (Jul 12, 2019)

vega22 said:


> Threads Vs IPC....this has been argued for over a decade.
> 
> Single core amd Vs duel socket p3 was where I first recall it. But imo the e8400 Vs q6600 debate is more relevant today. Back then the fast duo was spanking the quad in 90% of the games and the slower quad was only faster in a couple of RTS games. But those q66 owners were able to keep on gaming on that same CPU for much longer. Just updating GPU as needed.
> 
> I imagine this debate will play out much the same again. History has a way of repeating itself.


Threading game logic has diminishing returns, unlike number crunching software.  That's why quad threads remain the sweet spot for over a decade and DX11 is molasses.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Jul 12, 2019)

They might have been able to keep on gaming...but not at great framerates as single thread wasn't all that great on the Q6600 and you couldn't OC it high enough to compensate. By the time it had significant advantage over E8400, Sandy Bridge was out...
EDIT: dirtyferret sneaked in before, but yeah, it's the same thing right now - 9600k and especially 8700k / 9700k will firmly hold the crown untill Ice Lake or the one after it preventing 8/16 and 12/24 Ryzens to ever truly come into their own...


----------



## vega22 (Jul 12, 2019)

For sure, something new will always come along but that doesn't change the fact the q66 was good enough for a long time despite not being the best in all games on launch.


----------



## Dante Uchiha (Jul 13, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> So I found some good Z390 boards on sale for $109 shipped, I got the ASRock Steel Legend for $105 actually. So 8 core 9700 non-k 65 watt, beats 90% of games in AMD by a good 10 fps while staying cool, and costs $329, same as AMD's cheapest 8 core offering, which only beats it in two mainstream games. Then we look at ram, you really need 3600 ram for Ryzen to shine or 3200 b die. cas 14.  Cheapest of which is $140 right now, yet i got my 3000 cas 14 ram for $95 and it will do great on intel, probably ok for AMD too but would need to risk OC'ing it, etc as AMD really needs 3200 cas 14 min to do well.  Cheapest X570 board is $170... so your looking at 45 more for the ram, and 65 more for the mobo, all so you can get less FPS in games, and Destiny 2 doesn't even work with Ryzen CPU's yet and they still haven't figured out a fix. So if Destiny 2 doesn't work on Ryzen, how many older games from 10 years ago have people not played yet, but when nostalgia hits them and they load up the game... only to find out not supported. Hopefully there are not that many, but if one modern game didn't pass the cut or cut corners and only focused on intel, guess what? I bet more did too but no one has time to play 4000 games to see which ones work and which don't.
> 
> I could even argue the i5-9400f at $149 on Amazon right now and a cheap $80 H370 mobo - several youtube comparisons show the 9400f on several games tying or beating the ryzen 3600... *which again is $170 mobo and $200 CPU minimum*, not to mention you need to throw *in much more expensive ram* where as the 9400f will do those numbers on 2666 $65 ram just fine.
> 
> ...



I've never seen so many lies together in one place. 

-You could run the Ryzen 5 3600 up on a cheap Mobo A320.
-You could have those same cheap memories on 3600 and nothing would change.
-The 3600 will not have stutter as a i5 9400.
-With the 2070 you have no gain with this 9700:






						RTX 2070 vs RTX 2070 Game Performance Benchmarks (Ryzen 5 3600 vs i7-9700K) - GPUCheck United States / USA
					

RTX 2070 versus RTX 2070 performance comparison. Compare graphics card gaming performance in 62 games and in 1080p, 1440p, and 4K at Ultra, High, Medium, and Low quality settings. Compare specifications, price, power, temperature, and CPU bottlenecks.



					www.gpucheck.com
				




Zen 2 has better IPC  than any Intel uArch, the emulators are already showing this:  




__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/rpcs3/comments/cb0r6a
3700X Stock https://www.reddit.com/r/rpcs3/comments/cbf2y5/rpcs3_0068351_3700x_red_dead_redemption/
i7 8700K @ 5Ghz:

__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/rpcs3/comments/cbt1ey


----------



## FYFI13 (Jul 13, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> If you live by a microcenter you can pick up the 9700 non ki for $299 or the 8700 non k for $269.  You can even get the Ryzen 2600 for $119 which will still give you over 100FPS in games.


Not trying to say that i7 9700 is a bad CPU or anything like that, but for it's price you can almost get Ryzen 3600 and a nice monitor with adaptive sync. Overall much better experience that will last you for few years.


----------



## advanced3 (Jul 13, 2019)

But unlike Intel the majority of Ryzen users wont HAVE to purchase a new motherboard, so your whole point is kinda meh.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 13, 2019)

Revisiting AMD's 19.7.1 drivers and the RX 5700 launch
					

A closer look at AMD's 19.7.1 drivers and an explanation for the RX 5700's sometimes questionable performance.




					www.pcgamer.com


----------



## Vario (Jul 13, 2019)

Dante Uchiha said:


> I've never seen so many lies together in one place.
> 
> -You could run the Ryzen 5 3600 up on a cheap Mobo A320.
> -You could have those same cheap memories on 3600 and nothing would change.
> ...


I have some very real optimism that in the next few years PS3 will be emulated well with the more powerful processors on the horizon, and while the Coffee lake and  Zen2 isn't quite it, the Zen 2 is getting us closer to that point.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 13, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> Revisiting AMD's 19.7.1 drivers and the RX 5700 launch
> 
> 
> A closer look at AMD's 19.7.1 drivers and an explanation for the RX 5700's sometimes questionable performance.
> ...


Fine Wine!


----------



## Redwoodz (Jul 13, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> Revisiting AMD's 19.7.1 drivers and the RX 5700 launch
> 
> 
> A closer look at AMD's 19.7.1 drivers and an explanation for the RX 5700's sometimes questionable performance.
> ...


 So now you can't prove your original point you go for the 'ol standby ,huh? Don't they have any new bullet points yet?


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 13, 2019)

Redwoodz said:


> So now you can't prove your original point you go for the 'ol standby ,huh? Don't they have any new bullet points yet?



besides drivers always crashing? not really, I just listen to what gamersnexus says, I trust him more than anyone else in the industry.


----------



## plonk420 (Jul 13, 2019)

well, i'm happy i don't _*just *_game and that AMD caught up enough to the 8700K for me (and that IPC parity has been reached).

now i just hope that RPCS3 can utilize the 8 cores (or 6 or 12!) for SPE emulation 1:1 core:SPE rather than being stuck on one CCX


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 13, 2019)

plonk420 said:


> well, i'm happy i don't _*just *_game and that AMD caught up enough to the 8700K for me (and that IPC parity has been reached).
> 
> now i just hope that RPCS3 can utilize the 8 cores (or 6 or 12!) for SPE emulation 1:1 core:SPE rather than being stuck on one CCX



yeah I agree, hopefully it is good for older emulation. I do enjoy nostalgia I admit.


----------



## Naito (Jul 13, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> They HAD THE LEAD for years and didn't do anything with it



They had a performance lead and came close to matching market share, but AMD still came nowhere close to having the kind of money Intel was pumping into R&D. All it would take is one misstep, particularly regarding the future of multi-threaded workloads, to throw them behind for years.

It's like someone telling you to build a bigger and better house than your neighbors, but with only a fifth of the budget they had...


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 13, 2019)

Naito said:


> They had a performance lead and came close to matching market share, but AMD still came nowhere close to having the kind of money Intel was pumping into R&D. All it would take is one misstep, particularly regarding the future of multi-threaded workloads, to throw them behind for years.
> 
> It's like someone telling you to build a bigger and better house than your neighbors, but with only a fifth of the budget they had...



I actually forgot about this, I agree, from that perspective what AMD has done is extremely impressive. I almost bought there stock in 2016 when it was $1.40 a share. Backed out at last second. Regrets.  lol


----------



## Naito (Jul 13, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> I almost bought there stock in 2016 when it was $1.40 a share. Backed out at last second. Regrets. lol



Yep, I'm kicking myself too. Would have made a good return...



Let's look a bit deeper into my previous statement:

At the height of AMDs last competitive run against Intel, they had a market share of 48.4%.





_Source: Passmark - AMD vs Intel Market Share - 2019-07-13_

During this period, AMD had a peak market cap of USD 20.07 billion (peak at 2006-02-20) and spent around USD 1.19 billion on research and development in 2006.





_Source: statista - AMD's expenditure on research and development from 2001 to 2018 (in million U.S. dollars) - 2019-07-13_

Meanwhile, the blue camp has a market cap of USD 82.37 billion (2006-02-20) and invested USD 5.87 billion in research and development within the same timeframe.





_Source: statista - Intel's expenditure on research and development from 2004 to 2018 (in billion U.S. dollars) - 2019-07-13_

That's fivefold what AMD was investing at that time. In fact, if my maths is correct, AMD was investing a greater ratio of cash into R&D than Intel.

Feel free to cross-check sources


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 13, 2019)

Naito said:


> Yep, I'm kicking myself too. Would have made a good return...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Is my math right on this?  If I bought 8000 shares of AMD at $1.40 a pop, $11k total out of pocket.  Today at $33 a share it would be worth 264 grand?


----------



## Naito (Jul 13, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> Is my math right on this? If I bought 8000 shares of AMD at $1.40 a pop, $11k total out of pocket. Today at $33 a share it would be worth 264 grand?



I'm no stock broker, but it seems to be correct


----------



## FYFI13 (Jul 13, 2019)

I just saw this and couldn't resist


----------



## MercJ (Jul 13, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> Is my math right on this?  If I bought 8000 shares of AMD at $1.40 a pop, $11k total out of pocket.  Today at $33 a share it would be worth 264 grand?


Don't feel bad.  You would have sold it once you doubled your money.  Or panic sold it when it dipped below $10 after hovering around $2-$3 for YEARS.  AMD's situation didn't look that great then, and their stock price reflected it for quite some time.  Pretty sure there was even talk of bankruptcy etc etc, so no one was throwing 11K into a "risky" stock.

It's easy to look back and say what you might have made, it's much harder to watch a stock sink for years and struggle to break $2 and think "yep, I'm just gonna throw a huge chunk of cash right here" and then perfectly predict the future and pull it all out at the peak.

But then again, if you get to cherry pick all the arguments, it's hard to lose.

To the point of the thread though, I'd like to see some actual build comparisons.  Put two systems side by side and add up the component cost, then we'll have something to talk about.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 13, 2019)

MercJ said:


> Don't feel bad.  You would have sold it once you doubled your money.  Or panic sold it when it dipped below $10 after hovering around $2-$3 for YEARS.  AMD's situation didn't look that great then, and their stock price reflected it for quite some time.  Pretty sure there was even talk of bankruptcy etc etc, so no one was throwing 11K into a "risky" stock.
> 
> It's easy to look back and say what you might have made, it's much harder to watch a stock sink for years and struggle to break $2 and think "yep, I'm just gonna throw a huge chunk of cash right here" and then perfectly predict the future and pull it all out at the peak.
> 
> ...



Actually I wouldn't have, right when I was about to pull the trigger I knew Ryzen 1st gen was on the way and I knew it was a long term plan and I had a lot of faith in Lisa Su, etc. I was going to do it as a retirement stock and hodl for long haul, mainly because I started to realize that AMD will never go under and neither will Intel, we have entered into a new phase of capitalism where 7 billion people marketplace only has a few options, and the titans will always be the titans, no one is going to go create some foundries to try to compete at this stage. It will always be a battle of Intel, Nvidia, and AMD imo. - this wasn't true in previous decades I admit, but things have changed at a global level- imo anyway

on topic- no need for that, a 9400f build with cheap mobo and ram will still be cheaper than any AMD and beat it at 80% of games in pure raw FPS.  barely, but still.  :/  regardless it doesn't matter, I am glad to see AMD doing well to be honest for nostalgia's sake.



FYFI13 said:


> I just saw this and couldn't resist
> 
> View attachment 126739



eh it is funny, but it is more like 15 fps in lot of older games and 12 fps in total warhammer 2, etc. and yes I can tell the different between 144hz and 165hz.


----------



## FYFI13 (Jul 13, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> eh it is funny, but it is more like 15 fps in lot of older games and 12 fps in total warhammer 2, etc. and yes I can tell the different between 144hz and 165hz.


Buy a monitor with adaptive sync and you won't be able to tell that difference


----------



## Melvis (Jul 13, 2019)




----------



## Rahnak (Jul 13, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> on topic- no need for that, a 9400f build with cheap mobo and ram will still be cheaper than any AMD and beat it at 80% of games in pure raw FPS. barely, but still. :/ regardless it doesn't matter, I am glad to see AMD doing well to be honest for nostalgia's sake.


If you're buying a cheaper build, won't the bottleneck be, for the most part, on the GPU though, thus making all these lower end CPUs perform largely the same in gaming? All these reviews pair the cpus with the 2080Ti or some other high end GPU, which is unrealistic at this lower price point.
But the productivity advantage or the ryzens remain. That's the point most of these reviewers make, imo.


----------



## MrGRiMv25 (Jul 13, 2019)

Intel still has a lead in peak FPS but when it comes to the .1% lows it's not that much of a lead, they're still faster but at least AMD has finally got their s*** together and caught up with Intel. AMD has also sort of invigorated the market and forced Intel to whack more cores in to their i3/i5's etc which is good for everybody. As for cost, there's not much between them but it mostly depends on what you buy in terms of CPU, board, RAM etc.


----------



## Dante Uchiha (Jul 13, 2019)

Vario said:


> I have some very real optimism that in the next few years PS3 will be emulated well with the more powerful processors on the horizon, and while the Coffee lake and  Zen2 isn't quite it, the Zen 2 is getting us closer to that point.


I think Zen2 's going to come near to full speed. Without any optimization, 3700X is already exceeding the performance of the 8700K @ 5Ghz. Plus, zen2 has some new instructions to explore.



lynx29 said:


> Revisiting AMD's 19.7.1 drivers and the RX 5700 launch
> 
> 
> A closer look at AMD's 19.7.1 drivers and an explanation for the RX 5700's sometimes questionable performance.
> ...



driver bugs are not an exclusivity of the red side. I remember that Nvidia has released a driver that left me without playing Mass Effect: Andromeda... So I had to go back to the previous driver without optimization for other games that I like.


----------



## Vario (Jul 13, 2019)

Dante Uchiha said:


> I think Zen2 's going to come near to full speed. Without any optimization, 3700X is already exceeding the performance of the 8700K @ 5Ghz. Plus, zen2 has some new instructions to explore.
> 
> 
> 
> driver bugs are not an exclusivity of the red side. I remember that Nvidia has released a driver that left me without playing Mass Effect: Andromeda... So I had to go back to the previous driver without optimization for other games that I like.


Not to mention its a red herring to talk Radeon, when the topic is about Intel CPU vs AMD CPU.


----------



## Manu_PT (Jul 14, 2019)

The i7 9700 and 9700k are beastly CPUs for high refresh gaming. In all honestly, when I got mine I even thought it was "too much", because if you dont have the gpu at 100% usage, you will rock 250fps-300fps on almost every game. And that is overkill for most users. That is why it is hard to reccomend the 9700 or 9700k. A lot of people use 144hz monitors and lower and are happy with 90/100fps.

With that being said, I use a 240hz monitor and all I do on my PC these days is either music production (thunderbolt 3 is a bless!) or e-sports titles gaming at crazy high fps and low details/res scale.

Plus the i7 9700 is way better buy than the 9700k, at least here in EU as you can get it for 340€ and it will do 4,8ghz all cores on a Z370 motherboard. Not worth to pay 60€ more and a better motherboard for 200mhz more. Intel knows this and thats why they launch the K models first.

For high refresh gaming I would not consider the AMD chips. I mean even the 140€ 9400F is on par with the Ryzen 3000 in games...


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 14, 2019)

Manu_PT said:


> The i7 9700 and 9700k are beastly CPUs for high refresh gaming. In all honestly, when I got mine I even thought it was "too much", because if you dont have the gpu at 100% usage, you will rock 250fps-300fps on almost every game. And that is overkill for most users. That is why it is hard to reccomend the 9700 or 9700k. A lot of people use 144hz monitors and lower and are happy with 90/100fps.
> 
> With that being said, I use a 240hz monitor and all I do on my PC these days is either music production (thunderbolt 3 is a bless!) or e-sports titles gaming at crazy high fps and low details/res scale.
> 
> ...


So your niche is the same as many then and 95% of users can get a cheap R2600 x470 and a radeon rx570 and enjoy massive savings and high 144hz 1080p for cheap, your calcs squed.


----------



## Manu_PT (Jul 14, 2019)

Not sure that RX570 is a "high 144hz 1080p" card tbh. Most likely a gtx 1660ti. R5 2600 starts to be difficult to get here in EU, its price went up now in my country and is getting out of stock everywhere (wich is normal). But yeah you are right, the problem is when people do not accept that different users want different experiences and start saying that everyone in this world should only buy AMD and no reasons to buy Intel. That´s where the problem is.

With that being said I think Intel CPUs are overpriced, 9900k is a chip I would never buy for 500€, but imo 9400F (150€) and i7 9700F (or 9700 non K) for 340€ are good bets for people that only game on their PCs. With AMD being king for productivity. It all depends on what each one wants.

Here is an interesting video of a real world gaming situation, showing that Ryzen 3000 isn´t that close to Intel as some reviews might show:


----------



## Xzibit (Jul 14, 2019)

Manu_PT said:


> Here is an interesting video of a real world gaming situation, showing that Ryzen 3000 isn´t that close to Intel as some reviews might show:



Have other people reported the stutter? Hes questioned about it being network related and doesn't address it rather gives this answer.



> BFV is a stuttery game anyways. It stutters on my 9900K as well.



In his commentary he mentions Single Player is fine. He even throws shade at other reviewers but it never crosses his mind it could be a network game issue if its doing it on all his setups in that game.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 14, 2019)

Manu_PT said:


> Not sure that RX570 is a "high 144hz 1080p" card tbh. Most likely a gtx 1660ti. R5 2600 starts to be difficult to get here in EU, its price went up now in my country and is getting out of stock everywhere (wich is normal). But yeah you are right, the problem is when people do not accept that different users want different experiences and start saying that everyone in this world should only buy AMD and no reasons to buy Intel. That´s where the problem is.
> 
> With that being said I think Intel CPUs are overpriced, 9900k is a chip I would never buy for 500€, but imo 9400F (150€) and i7 9700F (or 9700 non K) for 340€ are good bets for people that only game on their PCs. With AMD being king for productivity. It all depends on what each one wants.
> 
> Here is an interesting video of a real world gaming situation, showing that Ryzen 3000 isn´t that close to Intel as some reviews might show:


If you know what your doing and set it up right it helps ,I could make a 9900k look pointless over a fx8350 for example(4k right game).
And I've managed to get stutter on every PC I ever built, I got rid of it too with settings and killing background apps.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Jul 18, 2019)

Manu_PT said:


> For high refresh gaming I would not consider the AMD chips. I mean even the 140€ 9400F is on par with the Ryzen 3000 in games...


Precisely - AMD still sucks really bad for anything above 100fps and a sub 150$/€ 9400f still matches their best, lmao! Honestly, that's just f-ing embarrassing...


----------



## Papahyooie (Jul 18, 2019)

When your whole argument relies on "gaming per dollar" you can't just arbitrarily put restrictions on AMD with higher priced components lol. The parts you say are the cheapest are not even near the cheapest. 

Intel has a slight lead in gaming. Probably always will. But if you want 99% of the perf at a better value, Ryzen is where it's at right now.


----------



## Metroid (Jul 18, 2019)

Things have changed a lot since ryzen 3xxx were released and because of of hype and reviews people are rushing to buy and because of that supply is non existent at moment, 3700x is being sold for $400 from $329 and 9700k is being sold for $329 from $379, that is what happens when supply hype demand works.

At $200 3600 is the best buy, at $400 i dont see the 3700x as the best buy. I would rather go with the 9700k for $329. 9900k is following that too, already for $449.

3900x is already a folklore figure, only exists in photos in online stores hehe



Dante Uchiha said:


> I think Zen2 's going to come near to full speed. Without any optimization, 3700X is already exceeding the performance of the 8700K @ 5Ghz. Plus, zen2 has some new instructions to explore.



There are many more instructions that amd could have included and they decided not to.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 18, 2019)

There's quite a substantial amount of horse crap in a few posts here. When I moved to a Ryzen 1700x when it came out, used with a 1080ti, there was less stuttering than on my 3930k. That was also on BF4.

Yes, we get it, for purely gaming, Intel still has a small edge. But then, if you're only gaming, go buy a console.


----------



## Bones (Jul 18, 2019)

the54thvoid said:


> There's quite a substantial amount of horse crap in a few posts here. When I moved to a Ryzen 1700x when it came out, used with a 1080ti, there was less stuttering than on my 3930k. That was also on BF4.
> 
> Yes, we get it, for purely gaming, Intel still has a small edge. But then, if you're only gaming, go buy a console.



My sentiments exactly. 
All the crap posting is screaming *Gaming! Gaming! Gaming! *as if that was all there is to it. 

Too bad it's not and I can hardly take them seriously, it's like "You mean that's all you got" and nothing else to crow about? 
That's such a narrow minded point of view.

Intel is losing and is no longer the better value hands down, and even in gaming it's *not* that much ahead to be worth the price difference between the two. If I"m going to pay twice as much for a chip it had better perform twice as much in return.... For gaming and all else in between.

AMD_ is_ the better value now for the money period.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jul 18, 2019)

Yes AMD is finally the better of the 2... Single core is good enough and Multicore is better...
So happy it finally happened.

Still very happy with my slightly better performing Intel stuff tho... Next round probably gonna be AMD.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Jul 18, 2019)

greenplants said:


> As long as AMD keep targeting the wrong market, Intel is safe.
> The consumer market, the people who require a mid range CPU for every day tasks, playing video games, doing something for hobby are better off with Intel. Right now, you can get a 9400F with a motherboard for sub 200 bucks with warranty. Add a mid range RX580-RTX 2060S to that and you satisfy 99% of the people who have a PC at home. The 9400F is better at single and quad core performance than the most expensive Ryzen from last gen. The new Ryzen? The 3600 starts at 250 dollar in my country. And I can't just blindly throw it in a cheap 50 bucks motherboard with a budget RAM. And that's why AMD's targeting makes no sense. There is no point of making budget products that only excel in multi-threaded applications (which the majority of people do not care about), require more expensive RAM and you need to browse the internet to pick the right components and mess in the BIOS for the optimal performance.
> 
> I know everybody on the internet is an "influencer" and "concent creator" now and every 12 year old is dreaming of becoming the next Twitch millionaire, but you really do not need the best CPU to stream in 720p for your 8 viewers or create videos for your 150 subscribers. I don't know what is AMD thinking, I feel like they overestimated the importance of this whole thing and their product line-up makes no sense. The thing is, a company that uses professional programs that take advantage of multi-threading won't care about the 50 bucks price difference/CPU. A company won't mess with the CL timings and overclock in BIOS with each PC to get the most out of it. A company will buy 25-50-100 prebuilt PCs from a big manufacturer like Dell and will use it out of box. For a company, productivity is more important than the relatively small price difference of the PCs. And as for the average guy, AMD still comes with more hussle. The new gen motherboards are extremely expensive. Want a cheaper motherboard from last gen? Yeah, just update the BIOS. Wait, you need a last gen Ryzen CPU in it to do that. Or you can start fishing for motherboards that allow you to update their BIOS through USB. Then again, those motherboards tend to be more expensive. Then the recommended RAM, its way more expensive too.
> I feel like the impact of this new gen Ryzen is not half as big as the commenters make it seem.


Very well written, couldn't have put it better myself - for the average user, Intel is STILL the better choice (although admitedly, currenty largely due to the 9400f that fills that entry-mid range, but still) despite all the hype and excitement from the red camp. Also I think AMD themselves probably know they would be better served providing competitive single thread and gaming performance, but they just couldn't, so they went with the only alternative - moar coars!


----------



## brian111 (Jul 18, 2019)

HenrySomeone said:


> Very well written, couldn't have put it better myself - for the average user, Intel is STILL the better choice (although admitedly, currenty largely due to the 9400f that fills that entry-mid range, but still) despite all the hype and excitement from the red camp. Also I think AMD themselves probably know they would be better served providing competitive single thread and gaming performance, but they just couldn't, so they went with the only alternative - moar coars!



If you haven't notice they increased both gaming performance and number of cores.  It isn't an either/or situation. 

From all the publicly available sales indications people seem to really like the Ryzen cpus, in some cases significantly over Intel in the DYI market.  So the advantages you believe Intel has don't seem to matter significantly when it comes to what people are choosing.


----------



## trparky (Jul 18, 2019)

What I don't get about some of these comparisons is that they compare it against the Intel Core i7 9700K. Why? The top-end Intel chip is the Core i9 9900K. Sure, the 9900K is an eight-core chip whereas AMD has higher core equipped chips but let's not forget that the Intel 9900K has Hyperthreading where you get sixteen threads to work with. Combine that with higher clock speeds and the higher latencies that are found on AMD Ryzen chips when having to access DRAM and you have Intel winning the battle.




As much as I hate to say this because it makes me feel dirty, Intel is still king of performance and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Don't count Intel out, they now have Jim Keller.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Jul 18, 2019)

brian111 said:


> If you haven't notice they increased both gaming performance and number of cores.  It isn't an either/or situation.
> 
> From all the publicly available sales indications people seem to really like the Ryzen cpus, in some cases significantly over Intel in the DYI market.  So the advantages you believe Intel has don't seem to matter significantly when it comes to what people are choosing.


They've only just come somewhat close in gaming with the most recent 3000 series, after 8 and a half years of total and utter Intel dominance (sice 2500K/2600K in Jan 2011) and they are already more expensive, lol (3600 50-60$ over 9400f, only 10-20$ less than the much faster 9600k; 3700X already the same price as the vastly superior 9700k, 3900X much more than 9900k) When the dust settles, I expect they will crash quite hard with pricing as people gobbling them up now are mostly AMD fanboys who have been waiting for months for the supposed "intel killers" and somehow they aren't noticing, that they've underdelivered once again... More rational buyers on the other hand have been able to buy top of the line products for almost two years now (since 8700k launched), quite cheaply in april-may 2018 as well and will soon be able to do so again, it seems. I guess it is good (at least in a way) AMD has so many irrational buyers afterall, since otherwise Intel could really keep the much higher prices (of much better products) indefinitely.


trparky said:


> As much as I hate to say this because it makes me feel dirty, Intel is still king of performance and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Don't count Intel out, they now have Jim Keller.


Agreed, at least for general use and gaming, they will need at least one more series to properly catch up just to current CL chips (but most likely 2) and by then Intel will have Ice Lake out and later their 7nm products that will most likely obliterate Ryzens just like Sandy did to Bulldozer.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 18, 2019)

It 





greenplants said:


> As long as AMD keep targeting the wrong market, Intel is safe.
> The consumer market, the people who require a mid range CPU for every day tasks, playing video games, doing something for hobby are better off with Intel. Right now, you can get a 9400F with a motherboard for sub 200 bucks with warranty. Add a mid range RX580-RTX 2060S to that and you satisfy 99% of the people who have a PC at home. The 9400F is better at single and quad core performance than the most expensive Ryzen from last gen. The new Ryzen? The 3600 starts at 250 dollar in my country. And I can't just blindly throw it in a cheap 50 bucks motherboard with a budget RAM. And that's why AMD's targeting makes no sense. There is no point of making budget products that only excel in multi-threaded applications (which the majority of people do not care about), require more expensive RAM and you need to browse the internet to pick the right components and mess in the BIOS for the optimal performance.
> 
> I know everybody on the internet is an "influencer" and "concent creator" now and every 12 year old is dreaming of becoming the next Twitch millionaire, but you really do not need the best CPU to stream in 720p for your 8 viewers or create videos for your 150 subscribers. I don't know what is AMD thinking, I feel like they overestimated the importance of this whole thing and their product line-up makes no sense. The thing is, a company that uses professional programs that take advantage of multi-threading won't care about the 50 bucks price difference/CPU. A company won't mess with the CL timings and overclock in BIOS with each PC to get the most out of it. A company will buy 25-50-100 prebuilt PCs from a big manufacturer like Dell and will use it out of box. For a company, productivity is more important than the relatively small price difference of the PCs. And as for the average guy, AMD still comes with more hussle. The new gen motherboards are extremely expensive. Want a cheaper motherboard from last gen? Yeah, just update the BIOS. Wait, you need a last gen Ryzen CPU in it to do that. Or you can start fishing for motherboards that allow you to update their BIOS through USB. Then again, those motherboards tend to be more expensive. Then the recommended RAM, its way more expensive too.
> I feel like the impact of this new gen Ryzen is not half as big as the commenters make it seem.


Following this bullshit hypothesis.
Why wouldn't 90% stilll be happy with a r5 2600 at minimum bucks and less than your I5 9400 you and other shills love.
And that 90% wouldn't need something as powerful as a rx580.
So technically a 2400G alone , No Gpu sees 90% of PC users fine.
Again a gamer on a budget ,at high fps 144+ is not mainstream it's a niche that doesn't fit 95% or more of PC users.

Another worldly vision from a enthusiasts perspective Ie useless non-sense, as is gramarly on mobile apparenty.


----------



## Metroid (Jul 18, 2019)

trparky said:


> What I don't get about some of these comparisons is that they compare it against the Intel Core i7 9700K.



AMD explicit stated 3700x price point = 9700k, 3600x = 9600k, 3900k = 9900k.


----------



## brian111 (Jul 18, 2019)

HenrySomeone said:


> They've only just come somewhat close in gaming with the most recent 3000 series, after 8 and a half years of total and utter Intel dominance (sice 2500K/2600K in Jan 2011) and they are already more expensive, lol (3600 50-60$ over 9400f only 10-20$ less than much faster 9600k, 3700X already the same price as 9700k, 3900X much more than 9900k) When the dust settles, I expect they will crash quite hard with pricing as people gobbling them up now are mostly AMD fanboys who have been waiting for months for the supposed "intel killers" and somehow they aren't noticing, that they've underdelivered once again...



Nobody is questioning that Intel isn't faster in gaming.  The point is that AMD is continuing to improve to where it doesn't seem to matter to as many people (along with it's great productivity performance).
It's fine that you prefer Intel or that you think it's a better choice for the average user.  Regardless, the reality is that people continue to buy Ryzen in very good numbers so whatever advantages you feel Intel has it doesn't seem to matter.

Yes, AMD lowers their prices over time generally.  Intel doesn't.   You seem to be taking this too seriously.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 18, 2019)

greenplants said:


> You don't need to have 100+ fps, the i5 9400F outperforms the r5 2600 in video games in every scenario.
> And I don't really mind the r5 2600, it can be a good alternative to the i5. But at best we are talking about alternatives, AMD and Intel providing similar solutions for the same price. Not the endless sensational shit I keep seeing about AMD destroying Intel. I'm tired of drama and clickbait. The new gen Ryzen is a great alternative and that is about it.


Yet for 90%+ of the public buying It means naught.

You said 99% would be satisfied by the 9400.

Fine i dont didsagree on that but I do think coming on here saying we should all buy the 9400 doesn't pan out.

For the 99% it's too powerful a 2400G is fine and much cheaper.

For most in here the 9400 or R53600 just isn't enough.

So where does that leave your comments.

Applicable to about 1-2% and totally balls


----------



## trparky (Jul 18, 2019)

HenrySomeone said:


> and by then Intel will have Ice Lake out and later their 7nm products that will most likely obliterate Ryzens just like Sandy did to Bulldozer.


And with Jim Keller there at Intel I have no doubt that Intel will come out with all cylinders firing. If you ask me, AMD had a chance with Ryzen 3000 to really put the knife into Intel's neck. They came close, no doubt, but for some of us, it wasn't enough. Intel will come back with improvements brought about by the likes of Jim Keller. Don't doubt even for a second that Jim hasn't been tweaking the current Intel architecture while planning for the next.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 18, 2019)

> Not the endless sensational shit I keep seeing about AMD destroying Intel.


Don't let the polarizing opinion of fools (this goes for both sides of the argument) make you speak. 



trparky said:


> And with Jim Keller there at Intel I have no doubt that Intel will come out with all cylinders firing. If you ask me, AMD had a chance with Ryzen 3000 to really put the knife into Intel's neck. They came close, no doubt, but for some of us, it wasn't enough. Intel will come back with improvements brought about by the likes of Jim Keller. Don't doubt even for a second that Jim hasn't been tweaking the current Intel architecture while planning for the next.


Should we put JK on a crucifix?  Wow man... you act like he dragged a tray of CPUs through the desert for us or something.


----------



## Metroid (Jul 18, 2019)

HenrySomeone said:


> They've only just come somewhat close in gaming with the most recent 3000 series, after 8 and a half years of total and utter Intel dominance (sice 2500K/2600K in Jan 2011)



Too much hype but we need to understand that they have waited this moment for far too long, so I guess it finally has come ehhe

Ryzen 3xxx ipc wise is 2% faster than intel at moment but comparing 7nm x 14nm is not right, imagine if intel was on 7nm with double amount of transistors. So i guess what we can say here is that at moment ryzen 3xxx has a lead on ipc and is cheaper than what intel can offer at moment.


----------



## trparky (Jul 18, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Should we put JK on a crucifix?


Jim Keller is after all the mastermind behind Ryzen. Now that he's at Intel imagine what he can do with all the brainpower that's there and what is essentially a bottomless pool of money.


Metroid said:


> Ryzen 3xxx ipc wise is 2% faster than intel at moment


That may very well be so but what is lacking in the AMD camp is clock speed. When a 9900K can be clocked to 5 GHz when sporting a 280mm radiator and liquid cooling, it doesn't matter if AMD is 2% faster than Intel in terms of IPC, the clock speed alone that Intel has can wipe the floor with AMD.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Jul 18, 2019)

trparky said:


> And with Jim Keller there at Intel I have no doubt that Intel will come out with all cylinders firing. If you ask me, AMD had a chance with Ryzen 3000 to really put the knife into Intel's neck. They came close, no doubt, but for some of us, it wasn't enough. Intel will come back with improvements brought about by the likes of Jim Keller. Don't doubt even for a second that Jim hasn't been tweaking the current Intel architecture while planning for the next.


Yeah, currently 3000 series would have to be quite a bit better to really make a splash beyond internet hype or come much earlier, say in place of the first gen at the latest. Even then, 7700k would still be the better gamer, but you could truthfully say AMD has better offerings overall. Now though, taken with an unbiased look, they are no more than meh really - fine for those that need lots of multi-thread performance (but again, most of those go to HEDT, where Intel still has the performance lead), but too expensive for the average Joe that mostly browses, games and maybe does some light photo and video editing...


----------



## trparky (Jul 18, 2019)

Now had AMD Ryzen 3000 came out with a little more clock speed, say 300 more MHz, we wouldn't be having this conversation. If that were the case AMD and Intel would be indeed on equal footing, however sadly, that's not the case.


----------



## kapone32 (Jul 18, 2019)

There is a video on Tech Deals Youtube channel doing a comparison between the 1600, 2600, 3600 and 8700K. In my opinion there is no reason to buy Intel for productivity or gaming.  right now. The 3600 is up to 40% faster than the 1600 in most games. The cooler is miles better and the cost of the platform is much more variable.


----------



## trparky (Jul 18, 2019)

But the fact that you have to buy faster and thus more expensive RAM just to be able to have the AMD Infinity Fabric run faster isn't exactly putting AMD into the budget market. Meanwhile, in the Intel camp, you can basically throw bargain-basement DDR4 RAM into your system and it'll work and you'll hardly notice the difference between it and say... DDR4-3600 memory.


----------



## Metroid (Jul 18, 2019)

trparky said:


> That may very well be so but what is lacking in the AMD camp is clock speed. When a 9900K can be clocked to 5 GHz when sporting a 280mm radiator and liquid cooling, it doesn't matter if AMD is 2% faster than Intel in terms of IPC, the clock speed alone that Intel has can wipe the floor with AMD.



A lot of clock speed is lacking on AMD 7nm at moment, intel 9900k with ln2 can reach up 7.6ghz+, 3900x with ln2 can reach up to 5.7ghz hehe






						AMD Ryzen 9 3900X @ HWBOT
					

6,736 submissions, 58.697/100 hw index




					hwbot.org
				








						Intel Core i9 9900K @ HWBOT
					

44,951 submissions, 0/100 hw index




					hwbot.org
				




On normal conditions, 3900x at best with good cooling can reach up to 4.5ghz. 9900k up to 5.2 and these 700mhz makes a lot difference, for the 3900x to catch up to 9900k in gaming, it would need another 5% or so the clock speed it has at moment, so 300mhz, 4.8ghz or so, that is what reviews said, 3900x is 5% behind 9900k in gaming.


----------



## kapone32 (Jul 18, 2019)

trparky said:


> But the fact that you have to buy faster and thus more expensive RAM just to be able to have the AMD Infinity Fabric run faster isn't exactly putting AMD into the budget market. Meanwhile, in the Intel camp, you can basically throw bargain-basement DDR4 RAM into your system and it'll work and you'll hardly notice the difference between it and say... DDR4-3600 memory.



There is also a video from Hardware unboxed and even this very site that you do not see uber memory performance on Ryzen2 using faster RAM. For me the best RAM you can buy taking everything into account is 3000MHZ CAS 15 kits. Not because of speed but the price/performance table, RIght now I can buy 16GB for $74.99 CAD. The best case for faster RAM on Ryzen is probably still the APUs and not because of Infinity fabric either.



Metroid said:


> A lot of clock speed is lacking on AMD 7nm at moment, intel 9900k with ln2 can reach up 7.6ghz+, 3900x with ln2 can reach up to 5.7ghz hehe
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes a brand new node vs one 10 years old. I wonder does the 2700K go to 5 GHZ like the 9900K does today. Besides can you tell the difference between 100 and 95 FPS?


----------



## trparky (Jul 18, 2019)

Metroid said:


> On normal conditions, 3900x at best with good cooling can reach up to 4.5ghz. 9900k up to 5.2 and these 700mhz makes a lot difference, for the 3900x to catch up to 9900k in gaming, it would need another 5% or so the clock speed it has at moment, so 300mhz, 4.8ghz or so, that is what reviews said, 3900x is 5% behind 9900k in gaming.


Exactly. Which reinforces my previous post...


trparky said:


> Now had AMD Ryzen 3000 came out with a little more clock speed, say 300 more MHz, we wouldn't be having this conversation.



Yes, some people will say that they'd be able to tell the difference between an Intel system running bargain-basement DDR4 vs DDR4-3600 RAM but let's be honest with ourselves here, the only real difference is in synthetic numbers whereas with AMD Ryzen you can tell the difference between a system with slow system RAM vs. a system running DDR4-3600 simply because of the speed at which the Infinity Fabric is running at.


kapone32 said:


> For me the best RAM you can buy taking everything into account is 3000MHZ CAS 15 kits.


AMD seems to indicate that the sweet spot is DDR4-3600 and that shit's expensive.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Jul 18, 2019)

It should be mentioned that 4.5 is only the single core boost speed which is generally only achieved for miliseconds, while max all-core stable is 4.3 or 4.4 with SMT switched off. Besides, in gaming it lags behind Intel even at the same speed, so realistically it would need about 5.5Ghz or more, which it can barely achieve on ln2 as already pointed out, lol!


trparky said:


> AMD seems to indicate that the sweet spot is DDR4-3600 and that shit's expensive.


And also virtually gone everywhere, lol; even 3200cl14 is becoming hard to get, haha


----------



## Metroid (Jul 18, 2019)

trparky said:


> But the fact that you have to buy faster and thus more expensive RAM just to be able to have the AMD Infinity Fabric run faster isn't exactly putting AMD into the budget market. Meanwhile, in the Intel camp, you can basically throw bargain-basement DDR4 RAM into your system and it'll work and you'll hardly notice the difference between it and say... DDR4-3600 memory.



I have a ddr4 at 2x8gb 2133 cl14 1.20v I bought 4 years ago and to this day, I can overclock it to 3466mhz cl20 1.35v. So my point, you just dont need an expensive ram at all, also you dont need a tight latency here, ryzen needs bandwidth and any ddr4 can deliver that if you know how to overclock it right.


----------



## kapone32 (Jul 18, 2019)

trparky said:


> Exactly. Which reinforces my previous post...
> 
> 
> Yes, some people will say that they'd be able to tell the difference between an Intel system running bargain-basement DDR4 vs DDR4-3600 RAM but let's be honest with ourselves here, the only real difference is in synthetic numbers whereas with AMD Ryzen you can tell the difference between a system with slow system RAM vs. a system running DDR4-3600 simply because of the speed at which the Infinity Fabric is running at.
> ...



That is AMD. I have done testing on everything AMD has released since before Ryzen. I had 3600, 3200, 2933 and 3000. I can tell you with confidence there is maybe a 2 FPS difference in all of those games and 3000 MHZ kits


----------



## Metroid (Jul 18, 2019)

But like I said before, competition is good for us, 9700k is already being sold for $329, 9900k at $449, also if you know how to mod motherboards, any 1151 z170, z270 will run coffee lake cpus, dont need to spend on motherboard and many people still have z170, z270 boards, for these people I advise mod the board and get a 9700k for $329.

Looking back, and looking ahead and what has been happening, if I go amd then I will stay there and the reason is what intel has been doing for the past 8 years or so, "buy a new motherboard for every new cpu released". AM4 is a success and amd needs to keep it until it moves to ddr5.


----------



## trparky (Jul 18, 2019)

To get DDR4-3600 CAS16, the cheapest I found on NewEgg is $150 for the Ballistix Elite 16GB (2 x 8GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3600 (PC4 28800) Desktop Memory Model BLE2K8G4D36BEEAK. Meanwhile, you can get any DDR4-3000 RAM kit for $70 unless of course, you want CAS14 stuff.

So with that being said, I can't really recommend anyone to buy an AMD system right now considering the fact that you have to spend nearly double the money on RAM just to be able to get your Ryzen chip to run in that AMD claimed sweet-spot. Meanwhile, you can throw just about any DDR4 RAM on the market into an Intel system and you won't be able to tell the difference.

@greenplants, Dell is going to put whatever cheap garbage RAM that they can get into their Ryzen systems. They do the same on their Intel systems, do you really think they're going to give AMD systems special treatment? Nope, nope, nope. Hell some bargain-basement Dell systems have only one module in it so you can kiss dual-channel goodbye.


----------



## Vario (Jul 18, 2019)

Metroid said:


> But like I said before, competition is good for us, 9700k is already being sold for $329, 9900k at $449, also if you know how to mod motherboards, any 1151 z170, z270 will run coffee lake cpus, dont need to spend on motherboard and many people still have z170, z270 boards, for these people I advise mod the board and get a 9700k for $329.
> 
> Looking back, and looking ahead and what has been happening, if I go amd then I will stay there and the reason is what intel has been doing for the past 8 years or so, "buy a new motherboard for every new cpu released". AM4 is a success and amd needs to keep it until it moves to ddr5.


That is absolutely terrible advice, it does not just drop in.  Two of the contact pads on the CPU are altered with solder and the motherboard recieves a custom bios.  There is a risk of irreversible damage to the CPU and a risk of bricking the bios chip of the motherboard.






If someone really wants 8 core, they might as well just sell the Z170 used for $60 and buy a Z390 for $120.


----------



## R0H1T (Jul 18, 2019)

Metroid said:


> Ryzen 3xxx ipc wise is 2% faster than intel at moment but comparing 7nm x 14nm is not right, imagine if intel was on 7nm with double amount of transistors. So i guess what we can say here is that at moment ryzen 3xxx has a lead on ipc and is cheaper than what intel can offer at moment.


Intel's 7nm will clock lower than their 14nm++ then there's this thing called Physics, apparently transistors don't like being cramped too close to each other. Any IPC improvements Intel make from here till 7nm or whatever will have to keep in mind the clock speed loss. There's a reason ICL is not coming to desktop & no it doesn't have everything to do with yields.


----------



## trparky (Jul 18, 2019)

R0H1T said:


> Intel's 7nm will clock lower than their 14nm++ then there's this thing called Physics, apparently transistors don't like being cramped too close to each other. Any IPC improvements Intel make from here till 7nm or whatever will have to keep in mind the clock speed loss. There's a reason ICL is not coming to desktop & no it doesn't have everything to do with yields.


And I have confidence that Intel will figure it out, they've done it in the past; they'll do it again.


----------



## kapone32 (Jul 18, 2019)

trparky said:


> And I have confidence that Intel will figure it out, they've done it in the past; they'll do it again.



Yes they have but how long will it take. Certainly not in the next 6 months. My thought process on why is the ring bus.


----------



## Metroid (Jul 18, 2019)

trparky said:


> @greenplants, Dell is going to put whatever cheap garbage RAM that they can get into their Ryzen systems. They do the same on their Intel systems, do you really think they're going to give AMD systems special treatment? Nope, nope, nope. Hell some bargain-basement Dell systems have only one module in it so you can kiss dual-channel goodbye.



As long as dell put the required 3200mhz, should be okay, dont think they will do though. People should never buy an oem built pc. Wallmart, dell, alienware, all scammers.



Vario said:


> That is absolutely terrible advice, it does not just drop in.  Two of the contact pads on the CPU are altered with solder and the motherboard recieves a custom bios.  There is a risk of irreversible damage to the CPU and a risk of bricking the bios chip of the motherboard.
> 
> If someone really wants 8 core, they might as well just sell the Z170 used for $60 and buy a Z390 for $120.



I prefer modding than let intel steal my money once again, but i guess this is not just about money, is about principle. Intel got away for far too long in that regard.


----------



## R0H1T (Jul 18, 2019)

trparky said:


> And I have confidence that Intel will figure it out, *they've done it in the past*; they'll do it again.


Done what exactly ~ bring the first 5GHz mainstream processor to consumers, oh wait that was AMD. The first multi core processor, 28 core 5Ghz chip ~ no? As Intel found out with 10nm ~ Physics can't be beat, if they pull it off however it'll definitely be an engineering marvel. Let's cross that bridge, when we get there. Over the last few years we've seen more hot air from Intel than a hot air balloon emits on a cold day.

Both AMD & Intel are neck in neck in more ways than one, but yeah if I'd give an edge then yes historically Intel has had it with their superior nodes.


----------



## trparky (Jul 18, 2019)

R0H1T said:


> 28 core 5Ghz chip


First off, nobody is going to expect a 28-core chip to run at 5 GHz. Even AMD can't do that. They can barely get their chips to be clocked above 4.6 GHz meanwhile a 9900K can reach 4.8 GHz on all cores with good cooling with nothing more than a flick of a switch in the UEFI. Intel makes it so brain dead easy to clock their chips high that it's not even funny. Hell, most enthusiast motherboards have this option enabled by default straight out of the box so that just about anyone who can build a PC can have their 9900K clocked at 4.8 GHz without even trying.


----------



## R0H1T (Jul 18, 2019)

trparky said:


> First off, nobody is going to expect a 28-core chip to run at 5 GHz.


Intel showed that off, with a *chiller hidden away* or did you forget that? They made it seem like they're launching it with 5GHz clocks, in terms of massive fails I doubt anything comes close.


trparky said:


> Intel makes it so brain dead easy to clock their chips high that it's not even funny


Oh, I thought this was better


----------



## trparky (Jul 18, 2019)

Wait... What?

If I can get a chip that I can have run at 4.8 GHz all the livelong day vs. a chip that can only boost to a speed under certain circumstances, I'm going to get the former vs. the latter.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 18, 2019)

trparky said:


> Wait... What?
> 
> If I can get a chip that I can have run at 4.8 GHz all the livelong day vs. a chip that can only boost to a speed under certain circumstances, I'm going to get the former vs. the latter.


You crack me up man... such an unapologetic Intel fan!!


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 18, 2019)

Hey, does anyone know if the Intel i9-9900k or Ryzen 3900x can play Crysis????


----------



## trparky (Jul 18, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> You crack me up man... such an unapologetic Intel fan!!


Don't call me an Intel fanboy when the facts support what I say. Intel _clearly_ has the clock speed advantage over AMD and when it comes to performance, especially in games, clock speed is what matters. I don't care if AMD enjoys a 2% IPC advantage over Intel, clock speed is still the winning attribute here.


dirtyferret said:


> Hey, does anyone know if the Intel i9-9900k or Ryzen 3900x can play Crysis????


If I were a betting man, I'd put money on the 9900K.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 18, 2019)

trparky said:


> Don't call me an Intel fanboy when the facts support what I say. Intel _clearly_ has the clock speed advantage over AMD and when it comes to performance, especially in games, clock speed is what matters. I don't care if AMD enjoys a 2% IPC advantage over Intel, clock speed is still the winning attribute here.


I didn't call you a fanboy. I called you a fan... an unapologetic one! There is a difference...fanboys are delusional. You aren't quite there. 

While it is faster in many tests, solely because of the increased clocks, in some situations where all cores are used, AMD's SMT efficiency helps shrink or remove that gap. It really isn't as cut and dry as you seem to make it.


----------



## trparky (Jul 18, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> While it is faster in many tests, solely because of the increased clocks


Exactly.


EarthDog said:


> in some situations where all cores are used, AMD's SMT efficiency helps shrink or remove that gap. It really isn't as cut and dry as you seem to make it.


I'll give you that. There are some circumstances where AMD may pull ahead, no doubt. Unfortunately, those situations aren't as numerous as perhaps many of us would want. Perhaps I'm letting the hype leading up to the launch of Ryzen 3000 cloud my judgment of the processor. The hype made Ryzen 3000 out to be much better than it is in real life, that's for damn sure. Or it could be my own inflated expectations for AMD to go straight for Intel's jugular.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 18, 2019)

the54thvoid said:


> There's quite a substantial amount of horse crap in a few posts here. When I moved to a Ryzen 1700x when it came out, used with a 1080ti, there was less stuttering than on my 3930k. That was also on BF4.
> 
> Yes, we get it, for purely gaming, Intel still has a small edge. But then, if you're only gaming, go buy a console.



While I agree completely that it is overblown, that is NOT what @Manu_PT is saying here. His comment about this is pretty specific. And he is still, quite right for quite a few games out there. Is that "Intel dominates gaming'... nah, I think that period has now ended, because AMD dominates gaming on almost every price point because its core/thread advantage (and better SMT) will make it last longer, and really, regardless of use case, for gaming you really should not be needing frequent platform upgrades. The gap is now pretty small for the vast majority of 'gamers'. Would I take Ryzen at 4.6 for a high refresh (120-144hz) rig? Sure. That wasn't the case with last gen though, it would fall short - just a little, but noticeable.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 18, 2019)

We buy AMD hardware, they make cash. They make cash, they invest. They invest, they improve. They improve and voila, Intel finally gets off their arse and makes 8 core affordable, sort of. Everyone wins. I'm still keeping my AM4 first gen mobo and getting a 3000 series Ryzen.

In fact, I buy Ryzen to make Intel processors more affordable.


----------



## Metroid (Jul 18, 2019)

In this video released today 








3900x with smt off, we can see it little faster than the 9900k in games, I'd say 1% in general. both stock, 3900x at 4200mhz and 9900k at 4.7ghz.

The thing is, as ryzen is different, ccx wise, 6 and 12 cores are not good for that, too many performance constraints. 8 and 16 cores is pretty good in that regard. So ryzen 8 or 16 cores smt off will be ideal for gaming. It's a matter of disabling smt and then turning it on.


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 18, 2019)

the54thvoid said:


> In fact, I buy Ryzen to make Intel processors more affordable.



We thank you for your effort


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 18, 2019)

trparky said:


> Exactly.
> 
> I'll give you that. There are some circumstances where AMD may pull ahead, no doubt. Unfortunately, those situations aren't as numerous as perhaps many of us would want. Perhaps I'm letting the hype leading up to the launch of Ryzen 3000 cloud my judgment of the processor. The hype made Ryzen 3000 out to be much better than it is in real life, that's for damn sure. Or it could be my own inflated expectations for AMD to go straight for Intel's jugular.


Yeah, from the lols of your posts, you have highly inflated expectations.


----------



## trparky (Jul 18, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> you have highly inflated expectations.


Perhaps I do, but that's only because I feel Intel has been on the throne for far too long and I wanted AMD to push Intel out. I want the glory days of Intel scrambling like they were back in the days of the AMD Athlon and X2. Am I setting my expectations too high? Yeah, I very well could be.

And now that AMD hasn't achieved the goal that I so much wanted them to achieve, I'm let down. Yes, I am disappointed.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 18, 2019)

Even amd marketing wasn't setting such lofty goals.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Jul 18, 2019)

R0H1T said:


> Intel's 7nm will clock lower than their 14nm++ then there's this thing called Physics, apparently transistors don't like being cramped too close to each other. Any IPC improvements Intel make from here till 7nm or whatever will have to keep in mind the clock speed loss. There's a reason ICL is not coming to desktop & no it doesn't have everything to do with yields.


Considering how vastly superior Intel's 14nm was/is to AMD's one, what on earth makes you think the situation will be any different at 7nm? I'm willing to bet the red team will actually have to get to 3nm to parry at all.


R0H1T said:


> Done what exactly ~ bring the first 5GHz mainstream processor to consumers, oh wait that was AMD. The first multi core processor, 28 core 5Ghz chip ~ no? As Intel found out with 10nm ~ Physics can't be beat, if they pull it off however it'll definitely be an engineering marvel. Let's cross that bridge, when we get there. Over the last few years we've seen more hot air from Intel than a hot air balloon emits on a cold day.


LMAO, are you actually bringing the trainwreck of a cpu that was FX 9590 as a pro argument for AMD?   Just because they made a binned and ridiculously overclocked and overvolted chip that was actually able to set all but the best motherboards on fire, doesn't mean it was worth anything...except ridicule. In the same way you could overclock certain E8600-s to 5.0 years before and the best 2500k-s also did it, but more importantly, the FX barbecue was still beaten bloody by a stock 3770k, lol


----------



## Bones (Jul 18, 2019)

It was said earlier that Intel has about a 5% advantage ATM which is probrably true..... For gaming. 
It was also said if AMD had their chips clocked up an extra 300MHz things would be different. 

Between both there are a couple of points to be made. 

A difference of 5% within margin of error is NOT worth the hike in price over an AMD of the same equivalent model period. 
Again, if it's gonna cost along the lines of twice as much, it had better deliver on such terms too or the so-called "Value" of it diminishes. 5% in most cases isn't enough to really notice, certainly not worth the extra $$ paid just to get it.

AMD's can easily make up 300MHz simply due to the fact any Ryzen named chip is unlocked, that's something Intel would never do with a model lineup. 
Intel would reserve such for "K" chips as before and charge a premium for it too. 

You don't see for example every Kaby Lake, Skylake or any other with an entirely unlocked lineup by name making AMD a better overall value, esp since AMD's cost less in the first place.

Between the two, AMD is the "winner-winner chicken dinner" of this all the way.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Jul 18, 2019)

Intel is "within margin of error" faster in games? The new Ryzens will easily make up for the clock speed deficit despite no one being able to do anything even remotely close to that on non-sub-ambient cooling?  LOL


----------



## trparky (Jul 18, 2019)

Bones said:


> AMD's can easily make up 300MHz simply due to the fact any Ryzen named chip is unlocked


That may very well be true if you could overclock AMD chips. So far unless you're willing to use exotic cooling and pushing voltages into scary territories, most AMD chips come as close to being at their maximum speed as they can. Meanwhile, you have Intel where you can eke out sometimes as much as 500 additional megahertz of clock speed.

Again, AMD really needs to be closer to 5 GHz; much closer than they are even with Ryzen 3000.


----------



## Bones (Jul 18, 2019)

@HenrySomeone I said what I said using the previous posts as basis of statement.
I don't really care, Intel is right now by comparison a worse value.

From all the posts you've made you certainly have alot of hatred for AMD which you've made_ abundantly_ clear with posts that amounts to Introlling - BTW you happen to be an Intel employee, stockholder.....? 

Doesn't matter if Intel is better at gaming, basing everything on gaming alone is an extemely narrow view of it all anyway.
I happen to own both and have no favor towards either, I know ATM Ryzen is the better_ *value *_between the two which is along the lines of the topic here.




trparky said:


> *Now had AMD Ryzen 3000 came out with a little more clock speed, say 300 more MHz*, we wouldn't be having this conversation. If that were the case AMD and Intel would be indeed on equal footing, however sadly, that's not the case.


Just using what was said earlier as the guide line here. 
I never made any claims about surpassing the stock form of cooling in any way, it's based on what the average user would have setup for it. You can't expect everyone to have a chiller, SS, Cascade or even a nice big LN2 container handy.


----------



## trparky (Jul 18, 2019)

Bones said:


> From all the posts you've made you certainly have a lot of hatred for AMD


I wouldn't say that I have hatred for AMD, more like a lot of disappointment. I seriously wished that AMD would be a lot further along than they are. It's not that I hate AMD but more like I hate Intel for being on top for so long that I wanted their faces rubbed into the dirt and told to eat that dirt! Sadly AMD didn't achieve such lofty goals and I'm disappointed. I wanted Intel to be eating dirt right now.


Bones said:


> BTW you happen to be an Intel employee or something?


I wish, I really wish I was employed by Intel.


----------



## Bones (Jul 18, 2019)

@trparky
No, not you..... The other guy. 
I don't type fast so ninja'ing me isn't exactly a feat to achieve.  

It's hard to take someone seriously when they've already demonstrated such bias.


----------



## trparky (Jul 18, 2019)

Oh... ok.

I am disappointed, disappointed in AMD that they're not as far along as I had wished that they were. Did I get hooked on the hype? Did I expect more than what was realistically possible? Yes, yes to both questions. Perhaps I was reading too far into what that one person was saying months up to the launch of Ryzen 3000. What's his name? I can't remember. I may very well be guilty of expecting too much.


----------



## Bones (Jul 18, 2019)

I've had to say it's like that with all of them - Never as far along as we'd like and even if they were....
We'd still want them to be further along anyway. 

Recent times have been good for all, let's hope it continues.


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 18, 2019)

Bones said:


> It was said earlier that Intel has about a 5% advantage ATM which is probrably true..... For gaming.
> It was also said if AMD had their chips clocked up an extra 300MHz things would be different.
> 
> Between both there are a couple of points to be made.
> ...


How is 5% a margin of error when it's constant across every professional review?  When you invest and get a 5% return does the investment house say sorry 5% is a margin of error and you get nothing?  

Make valid points if you want to express an opinion but to make up stats just to validate your fragile ego is juvenile.


----------



## Bones (Jul 18, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> *How is 5% a margin of error when it's constant across every professional review*?  When you invest and get a 5% return does the investment house say sorry 5% is a margin of error and you get nothing?


I was making comparison by what was said as part of the conversation and yes, 5% is a fair margin of error when doing comparisons of such. I never said it wasn't and frankly you reiterated it above.



dirtyferret said:


> Make valid points if you want to express an opinion but to make up stats just to validate* your fragile ego *is juvenile.


_First, _I don't appreciate the insult.

_Second_, the reference to 5% came from another post by someone else.


Metroid said:


> A lot of clock speed is lacking on AMD 7nm at moment, intel 9900k with ln2 can reach up 7.6ghz+, 3900x with ln2 can reach up to 5.7ghz hehe
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Get your facts straight about what I post. 
I also hope you're not going to say what they posted is irrelevant too.

_Third_, just because my opinion of it is different than yours doesn't make it any less relevant or valid.

This really has turned into a crap-fest thread - I'm out and done with it.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 19, 2019)

> I never said it wasn't


oh?



Bones said:


> A difference of 5% within margin of error





Bones said:


> and yes, 5% is a fair margin of error when doing comparisons of such.




You may want to clarify because your posts surely do seem to declare a value of 5% as margin of error. It is not. Unless were talking about horse shoes, hand grenades, and nuclear warfare, 5% is not a margin of error....regardless if the difference isnt really that much (unless you are talking hwbot).

Not getting into it... but just saying I see how there can be some confusion.


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 19, 2019)

Bones said:


> I was making comparison by what was said as part of the conversation and yes, 5% is a fair margin of error when doing comparisons of such. I never said it wasn't and frankly you reiterated it above.
> 
> 
> _First, _I don't appreciate the insult.
> ...


5% is your opinion but not that of any professional review site.  If you feel insulted by facts, that is a you problem regardless of your appreciation or lack there of.


----------



## Bones (Jul 19, 2019)

It's my opinion of it and right or wrong, that's it.  
I did not claim it was from a review site either.
BTW if this has to continue, do us both a favor and move it to PM's please.


----------



## Kursah (Jul 19, 2019)

Why don't we all play nice and keep this constructive shall we?


----------



## moproblems99 (Jul 19, 2019)

Fouquin said:


> Don't think so.



Where are those prices?

EDIT: Shiz, just realize that was posted two weeks ago.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 19, 2019)

Easy..

Just sharing an unbiased opinon on what was posted. 


Just a side note...for all... just because a perspective is an opinion, doesnt mean it cant be factually wrong. Look at flat earthers, for example. It's their opinion the earth is flat, regardless if it's a fact everyone knows and is proven by math...or the moon landing thing... 

Edit... didnt see the mod post... oops.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 19, 2019)

HenrySomeone said:


> Considering how vastly superior Intel's 14nm was/is to AMD's one, what on earth makes you think the situation will be any different at 7nm? I'm willing to bet the red team will actually have to get to 3nm to parry at all.
> 
> LMAO, are you actually bringing the trainwreck of a cpu that was FX 9590 as a pro argument for AMD?   Just because they made a binned and ridiculously overclocked and overvolted chip that was actually able to set all but the best motherboards on fire, doesn't mean it was worth anything...except ridicule. In the same way you could overclock certain E8600-s to 5.0 years before and the best 2500k-s also did it, but more importantly, the FX barbecue was still beaten bloody by a stock 3770k, lol


Are you serious, exactly what would you describe the i9 9900KF as then or that aub zero Hedt intel can't sell , and I quote"a binned and ridiculously overclocked and overvolted chip that was actually able to set all but the best motherboards on fire, doesn't mean it was worth anything...except ridicule."


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 19, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Are you serious, exactly what would you describe the i9 9900KF as then or that aub zero Hedt intel can't sell , and I quote"a binned and ridiculously overclocked and overvolted chip that was actually able to set all but the best motherboards on fire, doesn't mean it was worth anything...except ridicule."



I am done with 95w processers myself, the heat just isn't worth the 1% gain in gaming.  65w i7-9700 non-k, 9900-non-k and 3600 and 3700x on ryzen side as well.  very glad to see such a nice amount of options for 65w cpu's, and the performance is literally null for gaming.  not sure why anyone would want the extra heat honestly.


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 19, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> I am done with 95w processers myself, the heat just isn't worth the 1% gain in gaming.  65w i7-9700 non-k, 9900-non-k and 3600 and 3700x on ryzen side as well.  very glad to see such a nice amount of options for 65w cpu's, and the performance is literally null for gaming.  not sure why anyone would want the extra heat honestly.



It's funny you say that - videocards are very much like that as well right now.  My 2080TI undervolted is actually faster than stock and RARELY pulls 225W @ .825v (stock over 1.0+), I could get within 3% of stock performance at 180W with a hard undervolt @ 700mv.

In order to get 15% more performance the card has to pull up to 350W with the power limiter upped to max...  It's as if someone at the factory was like "Sir - we have beaten every other card on the market at 200W, but we can get 5 more FPS if we double the power consumption"  Manager: "Do it, f*** the planet".


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 19, 2019)

that last part made me almost spit out my water, wasn't expecting it. nice one phan lol


----------



## Manu_PT (Jul 24, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> I am done with 95w processers myself, the heat just isn't worth the 1% gain in gaming.  65w i7-9700 non-k, 9900-non-k and 3600 and 3700x on ryzen side as well.  very glad to see such a nice amount of options for 65w cpu's, and the performance is literally null for gaming.  not sure why anyone would want the extra heat honestly.



The TDP on Intel works very differently from AMD. Even the non K 9700 and 9900 won´t use only 65w for sure...

Plus, on your first post you said your 9700 non K hits 4.7/4.8 all cores, and I can assure you that´s not possible. i7 9700 non K will top out at 4,4ghz all cores on every Z390 motherboard, even if you put 4,7 multiplier on the bios. It is hard locked to 4,4, Intel isn´t that "dumb".....

You can squeeze 4,5ghz with 102 bclk, at the cost of higher latency on your USB ports (mice, keyboards), and higher DPC latency, wich goes against the purpose.

You should edit your first post because it is misleading for someone looking to buy an i7 9700.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 24, 2019)

Pointless thread tbf.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jul 24, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> I am done with 95w processers myself, the heat just isn't worth the 1% gain in gaming.  65w i7-9700 non-k, 9900-non-k and 3600 and 3700x on ryzen side as well.  very glad to see such a nice amount of options for 65w cpu's, and the performance is literally null for gaming.  not sure why anyone would want the extra heat honestly.


good thinking,but consider this.9900k can probably do at 50% load what other cpus do at higher load.result ? draws 40w less than "65w" 2700x while beating it by 20% or more.


Spoiler


----------



## HenrySomeone (Jul 24, 2019)

Yeah, this is the type of hard truth Ryzen fanboys don't like to see


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jul 24, 2019)

well,it's this particular 9400f sku pretty much.
I just saw the review and frankly this 9400f chip is not only great value at gaming,but also office work,photoshop,premere.You really have to have a use for SMT in order to justify the +50% price of 3600.
The i7 skus that I'm interested in are not that great value tbh.8600k,9600k,8700k,9700k and 9900k are all just too pricey.8700k should be 3700x price,it's still 10% more expensive atm.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Jul 24, 2019)

Yeah, the 9400f is a fantastic value mid-range chip; I honestly can't remember last time Intel had sth similarly good and current gen under 150$. The only thing that would make it even better was if it was the regular 9400 - with the igpu, which would also make it great for SFF non-gaming builds, but I guess you can't have everything...


----------



## xtreemchaos (Jul 24, 2019)

as I see it its what ever makes ya happy, AMD is doing it for me at the mo but intel could be making me feel good tomorrow, I just carnt see what good people are getting hung up on theres more to life than bickering over cpus   ...


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Jul 24, 2019)

My 3900X system was cheaper than my 9900k system and with a Titan Xp they perform pretty much the same for gaming.... So this round ryzen wins for me.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jul 24, 2019)

HenrySomeone said:


> Yeah, the 9400f is a fantastic value mid-range chip; I honestly can't remember last time Intel had sth similarly good and current gen under 150$. The only thing that would make it even better was if it was the regular 9400 - with the igpu, which would also make it great for SFF non-gaming builds, but I guess you can't have everything...


absolutely.despite using dgpus I can't quite imagine buying a processor without an integrated one.I do understand it in case of 9400f,cutting corners,but the fact amd is not including even the crappiest of igpus that displays 1080/60hz is mind boggling to me.

The tech media spins it to their liking too. see how they added $40 to the cost of 9600k to match 3600's box cooler.That wraith cooler is far from how a $40 cooler performs,and they don't include the added value of igpu on the intel chip as well,neither do they count OC headroom.3600 loses in test suite,but they have to keep people happy some way.


----------



## CAT-THE-FIFTH (Jul 24, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> well,it's this particular 9400f sku pretty much.
> I just saw the review and frankly this 9400f chip is not only great value at gaming,but also office work,photoshop,premere.You really have to have a use for SMT in order to justify the +50% price of 3600.
> The i7 skus that I'm interested in are not that great value tbh.8600k,9600k,8700k,9700k and 9900k are all just too pricey.8700k should be 3700x price,it's still 10% more expensive atm.



Even for photo editing the 3600 will be a better buy.













						Photoshop CPU Roundup: AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen, AMD Threadripper 2, Intel 9th Gen, Intel X-series
					

AMD's new Ryzen 3rd generation processors have arrived and shaken up the dynamic between Intel and AMD in many workloads. But how well do they handle heavy Photoshop workloads compared to the AMD Threadripper, Intel 9th Gen, and Intel X-series CPUs?




					www.pugetsystems.com
				




i5 9600k=upto 4.6GHZ and is 5% faster. A 9400F is upto 4.1GHZ so will be slower vs a 3600.



Look at Adobe Lightroom:








						Test • AMD Zen 2 : X570 & Ryzen 7 3700X / Ryzen 9 3900X
					

Test des premiers CPU ZEn2 : les  Ryzen  9 3900X et Ryzen 7 3700X, ainsi que leur chipset compagon l'AMD X570. Les cartes mères utilisées sont les Gigabyte X570 Aorus Master et Asrock X570 Taichi.. Comparaison de 15 références CPU sur des jeux, encodage, traitement d'image et vidéo, rendu 3D...




					www.comptoir-hardware.com
				















						Ryzen 9 3900X und Ryzen 7 3700X im Test gegen Core i9-9900K: Zen 2 im PCGH-Benchmark-Parcours [Update]
					

Wir haben den Zwölfkerner Ryzen 9 3900X sowie den Achtkerner Ryzen 7 3700X durch unseren Benchmark-Parcours gejagt und klären über die Spiele- und Anwendungsleistung auf.




					www.pcgameshardware.de
				




The Ryzen 7 3700X is faster core for core compared to a Core i9 9900K,by a significant amount,so a Ryzen 5 3600 is going to be much faster than Core i5 9400F.








						Ryzen 9 3900X und Ryzen 7 3700X im Test gegen Core i9-9900K: Zen 2 im PCGH-Benchmark-Parcours [Update]
					

Wir haben den Zwölfkerner Ryzen 9 3900X sowie den Achtkerner Ryzen 7 3700X durch unseren Benchmark-Parcours gejagt und klären über die Spiele- und Anwendungsleistung auf.




					www.pcgameshardware.de
				




DxO which has good noise reduction,also runs very well on the Ryzen 3000 CPUs. The Ryzen 5 3600 is really a bargain of a CPU if you want to use Photoshop,Lightroom,DxO,etc. Ryzen 3000 has a huge L3 cache for a consumer CPU and it really does help. The improvements over the Ryzen 2000 CPUs are huge.

Also Premiere Pro runs well on the Ryzen 5 3600https://www.pugetsystems.com/pic_disp.php?id=56253&width=800
:








						Premiere Pro CPU Roundup: AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen, AMD Threadripper 2, Intel 9th Gen, Intel X-series
					

AMD's new Ryzen 3rd generation processors feature both an increase in core count and per-core performance, which is exactly what Premiere Pro tends to need to get the best performance. Will this make these new chips the best choice for video editors compared to the AMD Threadripper, Intel 9th...




					www.pugetsystems.com
				


















The Ryzen 5 3600 matches an upto 4.6GHZ Core i5 9600K and a Core i5 9400F runs at a much lower clockspeed.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Jul 24, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> absolutely.despite using dgpus I can't quite imagine buying a processor without an integrated one.I do understand it in case of 9400f,cutting corners,but the fact amd is not including even the crappiest of igpus that displays 1080/60hz is mind boggling to me.
> 
> The tech media spins it to their liking too. see how they added $40 to the cost of 9600k to match 3600's box cooler.That wraith cooler is far from how a $40 cooler performs,and they don't include the added value of igpu on the intel chip as well,neither do they count OC headroom.3600 loses in test suite,but they have to keep people happy some way.


True - not having an igpu is especially stupid with first and second gen as those are  far more suited for tasks where that one would suffice, they sure as shit weren't/aren't good for gaming; furthermore, their best chip that has one is basically still the same as before - the underwhelming 3400g, leaving customers who want a powerful cpu in a dgpu-less SFF build no choice but to go Intel.
And don't even get me started on all the bullshit that several tech sites are recently spewing out regarding the "superiority" of Ryzens. For instance, the case you mentioned with the cooler on the 3600 (the Stealth) - that tiny little chunk of aluminum ain't worth more than 10$ and anyone desiring good temperatures and silence will be forced to upgrade it as well. Next, not including the 9400f in that graph is nothing short of a travesty as it would likely top it or come second at best (right after the gaming-wise sub-par 1600), but these outlets are heavily view-dependant and they've figured out that recently, showing AMD in the best of light and Intel and Nvidia in the worst is bringing in those big-time due to the mostly misplaced support for the underdog, that many average internet dwellers are showing...


----------



## CAT-THE-FIFTH (Jul 24, 2019)

HenrySomeone said:


> True - not having an igpu is especially stupid with first and second gen as those are  far more suited for tasks where that one would suffice, they sure as shit weren't/aren't good for gaming; furthermore, their best chip that has one is basically still the same as before - the underwhelming 3400g, leaving customers who want a powerful cpu in a dgpu-less SFF build no choice but to go Intel.
> And don't even get me started on all the bullshit that several tech sites are recently spewing out regarding the "superiority" of Ryzens. For instance, the case you mentioned with the cooler on the 3600 (the Stealth) - that tiny little chunk of aluminum ain't worth more than 10$ and anyone desiring good temperatures and silence will be forced to upgrade it as well. Next, not including the 9400f in that graph is nothing short of a travesty as it would likely top it or come second at best (right after the gaming-wise sub-par 1600), but these outlets are heavily view-dependant and they've figured out that recently, showing AMD in the best of light and Intel and Nvidia in the worst is bringing in those big-time due to the mostly misplaced support for the underdog, that many average internet dwellers are showing...



I have a Ryzen 5 2600 in a mini-ITX rig and it was a case with shit cooling. The boost was like 50 to 100MHZ different for me between the Wraith Spire and Wraith Stealth. The Ryzen 5 3600 consumes less power than my Ryzen 5 3600 does.

I find it funny you talk about conspiracy theories,but seemingly ignore many reviews testing the AMD CPUs with stock cooling and plonking a huge AIO water cooler for the Intel CPUs,and there were people on other forums accusing reviewers of Intel bias. Now you have people looking at the same reviews and talking about AMD bias.

The same as the conspiracy theory about the $40 cooler - if it was a $20 cooler,it will be anti-Intel bias,since reviewers are holding back the Core i5 9600K with subpar cooling and Intel can overclock to 5GHZ.

No wonder reviewers are getting fedup since they get vitriol from all the fanbois of being shills,etc and whatever they do is wrong 100% of the time.

Also all these stupid conspiracy theories are laughable - when AMD gets bad reviews,its all the reviews ganging up on poor AMD,and when its AMD getting all good reviews,its Intel being ganged up on.






What you don't seem to consider is having a Wraith Stealth actually makes the CPU clock 100MHZ less,so there is no advantage to AMD here.


----------



## ppn (Jul 24, 2019)

3600X is 70% more expensive than 9400F and offers the same performance in games. You can spend those 100$ on SSD or DDR. It is always a bad idea to spend it on video card because cases like the 2060 Super punishing 2070 users and above. 3000 series will punish again and 200$ in value is just lost. 3600 is nowhere to be found here.


----------



## Sithaer (Jul 24, 2019)

HenrySomeone said:


> True - not having an igpu is especially stupid with first and second gen as those are  far more suited for tasks where that one would suffice, they sure as shit weren't/aren't good for gaming; furthermore, their best chip that has one is basically still the same as before - the underwhelming 3400g, leaving customers who want a powerful cpu in a dgpu-less SFF build no choice but to go Intel.
> And don't even get me started on all the bullshit that several tech sites are recently spewing out regarding the "superiority" of Ryzens. For instance, the case you mentioned with the cooler on the 3600 (the Stealth) - that tiny little chunk of aluminum ain't worth more than 10$ and anyone desiring good temperatures and silence will be forced to upgrade it as well. Next, not including the 9400f in that graph is nothing short of a travesty as it would likely top it or come second at best (right after the gaming-wise sub-par 1600), but these outlets are heavily view-dependant and they've figured out that recently, showing AMD in the best of light and Intel and Nvidia in the worst is bringing in those big-time due to the mostly misplaced support for the underdog, that many average internet dwellers are showing...



Tbh I honestly never cared about that my 1600x does not have an IGPU,my previous Intel had and I never used it while I had it '~3 years'.

It could come in handy if my card dies and I have to send it back in warranty but in that case I would just grab a cheapo '~20$' card from the used market while waiting for the replacement card.

First gen Ryzens might be worse sure but they are far from sh it for gaming,not everyone needs 120-150 fps or plays competetive games.
I'm sure as hell fine with my 1600x in the single player games I'm playing on a 75Hz Ultra Wide monitor and when I bought this CPU it was the better deal in general vs the 8400. 'in my country that is'


----------



## HenrySomeone (Jul 24, 2019)

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:


> Even for photo editing the 3600 will be a better buy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Firmly stating that without having it in the graph is quite a stretch; yes it might be a % or 2 slower, but that will be indistinguishable and the 9400f is much cheaper. And as far as lightroom is concerned, yes the new 3000 series does well in it as it does in several other tasks, but in most of the ones pertinent to an average user, they are not as good as many would like to present.


CAT-THE-FIFTH said:


> I have a Ryzen 5 2600 in a mini-ITX rig and it was a case with shit cooling. The boost was like 50 to 100MHZ different for me between the Wraith Spire and Wraith Stealth. The Ryzen 5 3600 consumes less power than my Ryzen 5 3600 does.
> 
> I find it funny you talk about conspiracy theories,but seemingly ignore many reviews testing the AMD CPUs with stock cooling and plonking a huge AIO water cooler for the Intel CPUs,and there were people on other forums accusing reviewers of Intel bias. Now you have people looking at the same reviews and talking about AMD bias.
> 
> ...


Since you posted that picture, you could have also pasted this one, which clearly shows both cpus are throttling under thier stock coolers, especially the 3600 with its puny Stealth as it is actually able to surpass the 3600X under proper one


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 24, 2019)

Sithaer said:


> First gen Ryzens might be worse sure but they are far from sh it for gaming,not everyone needs 120-150 fps or plays competetive game


Its not about that though... 60 vs 70 fps IS noticeable. Some like being pressed up against a glass ceiling I guess, just because it's over 60 fps.


----------



## Komshija (Jul 24, 2019)

Maybe in the US, but not in the EU. Over here AMD-based system was and still is a cheaper option. 

When buying a PC, an individual should activate a few brain cells. For instance, it's not wise to buy components when they hit the market but instead wait for two or three months when the initial hype dissapears and prices start going downhill. 

I know there are people who are really bothered if they'll have a like 5-10 FPS in-game difference (eg. 80 FPS vs 85 FPS or 100 FPS vs 110 FPS etc.), but IMO this is plain ridiculous because it's impossible to even notice such small diference. It's not like 50 FPS vs 90 FPS where you might see some difference.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Jul 24, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Its not about that though... *60 vs 70 fps IS noticeable*. Some like being pressed up against a glass ceilingn I guess, just because it's over 60 fps.


Precisely


----------



## Sithaer (Jul 24, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Its not about that though... 60 vs 70 fps IS noticeable. Some like being pressed up against a glass ceiling I guess, just because it's over 60 fps.



I'm yet to play a single player game where this CPU wasn't enough to push those frames,I'm GPU bound anyway like most of the 'budget' users or anyone who plays on a higher resolution.
They aint gonna pair a CPU like that with a high end card like in the reviews.

Then I guess I'm lucky cause I honestly can't notice the diff between 60-70 after switching from an old 60Hz monitor to this current 75Hz with freesync.


----------



## CAT-THE-FIFTH (Jul 24, 2019)

HenrySomeone said:


> Firmly stating that without having it in the graph is quite a stretch; yes it might be a % or 2 slower, but that will be indistinguishable and the 9400f is much cheaper. And as far as lightroom is concerned, yes the new 3000 series does well in it as it does in several other tasks, but in most of the ones pertinent to an average user, they are not as good as many would like to present.





Also this what Pugetsystems said:



> Overall, the new AMD Ryzen CPUs are a great choice for a Photoshop workstation. There may not be much of a reason to go with the more expensive Ryzen 9 3900X over the Ryzen 7 3800X, but the Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 CPUs should be slightly faster than the similarly prices Intel equivalents.



It isn't though 2% slower,its probably much more than that - I built Core i5 rigs in SFF cases. As much as the Wraith Stealth is average,the Intel stock cooler has been getting worse and worse too.

They actually sell systems,and their Photoshop benchmarks are the most detailed you will find.

The Intel stock coolers used to have copper cores,etc now they are thinner and thinner pieces of aluminium. The idiotic mounting mechanism also is mostly plastic,which is a pain if you want to clean the heatsink after a few years in a small rig,as the plastic connectors get weaker as smaller systems run hotter.

Regarding the performance difference in Lightroom it is huge and so is DxO - Lightroom is very popular. Premiere Pro is also faster on the Ryzen 5 3600.

For instance some of the DxO exports with Prime noise reduction took 39 minutes for 50 pictures on my old Ivy Bridge Xeon E3 1230 V2 with an AIO water cooler. On the Ryzen 5 2600 it took just under 21 minutes with the Wraith Stealth in a mini-ITX system.

The Ryzen 5 2600 is faster clock for clock than any of the Core i5s from what I could see. The Ryzen 3000 series is another 15% better on top of that. A Ryzen 5 3600 is probably as fast a Core i7 9700K or Core i7 8700K or better than them.

Looking at the giant increase over the Ryzen 2000 CPUs,with the Ryzen 3000 CPUs in Lightroom,I would say the Ryzen 5 3600 will be nipping on the heals of a Core i9 9900K or Core i9 9700K in it. I looked at other reviews for both of these software packages,and they confirm the results.

Also for normal tasks,the £142 Core i5 9400F is overkill. Here in the UK Ryzen 5 1600 CPUs are even cheaper at £106:





						AMD Ryzen 5 1600 Desktop CPU - AM4 / Hex Core / 3.2 GHz /19MB / 65W : Amazon.co.uk: Computers & Accessories
					

Buy



					www.amazon.co.uk
				








						Intel Core i5 9400F - 2.9 GHz - 6-core - 6 threads - 9 MB cache - LGA1151 Socket - Box : Amazon.co.uk: Computers & Accessories
					

Buy



					www.amazon.co.uk
				




Even that the Ryzen 5 1600 is OTT for normal tasks and both need a GPU.

I have an A6 3670K rig which is ancient and its fine for normal tasks and that wasn't even fast when it was new(it was a whole £60 at the time too). So a £40 200GE,£60 Pentium Gold G5400 or £79 Ryzen 3 2200G are fine.

Also if you are on such a low budget,a lower end graphics card will be perfectly OK with one of those for gaming. Heck,even a secondhand Haswell CPU might be fine if priced right as you can use cheaper DDR3!


----------



## ppn (Jul 24, 2019)

Prices will not be going downhill, because people are buying this. we get 9400F at 150 euro, 3600 nonX at 210 euro and not available, they want to sell you the X version for more profit. Yeah with AMD you get what you pay for, namely threads, and almost nobody needs threads. 9400F can be cooled with single heat pipe cooler, undervolt can lower the power and stick with the box, this is a non issue.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 24, 2019)

Sithaer said:


> I'm yet to play a single player game where this CPU wasn't enough to push those frames,I'm GPU bound anyway like most of the 'budget' users.
> They aint gonna pair a CPU like that with a high end card like in the reviews.
> 
> Then I guess I'm lucky cause I honestly can't notice the diff between 60-70 after switching from an old 60Hz monitor to this current 75Hz with freesync.


Hey... that's all you bud. In some titles it's a entire level of gpu that is being cutoff... some more than that even (in tpus 1600x review, a few titles were showing almost 33% differences). In some titles there is little difference too... we know. Bjt just saying it puts a lid on GPU potential....sometimes very significantly.


----------



## Sithaer (Jul 24, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Hey... that's all you bud. In some titles it's a entire level of gpu that is being cutoff... some more than that even (in tpus 1600x review, a few titles were showing almost 33% differences). In some titles there is little difference too... we know. Bjt just saying it puts a lid on GPU potential....sometimes very significantly.



Well yes but like I said most of the time its not like the reviews,in a real life scenario most ppl with a 1600/2600 level CPU won't be using a RTX 2080 ti more like a 'budget' 1080p card like the 570/580/1660 serie which won't cause a bottleneck.

I just thought I would jump in as one of the 'average' users cause ya know we exist too not only the 'enthusiasts' who would be bothered by ~5% differences and whatnot or ppl who exclusively play competetive games with high frames/refresh rate monitors.

Its all fine tho,as long as the owner is happy with the product then thats all that matters imo.


----------



## CAT-THE-FIFTH (Jul 24, 2019)

People also seem to have conveniently forgotten the Ryzen 5 2600 too. Over in the UK its £120 and has dropped even down to £100 to £110 on offer.







Intel is 10% ahead then with a GTX1080TI at 720p?? I am ignoring the overclocking results as I assume that is not with the stock cooling so is an added cost. On Amazon UK the Ryzen 5 2600 is £119,and the Core i5 9400F is £143. So if the Core i5 9400F is 15% faster as it has a higher clockspeed,it costs 20% more. Also AMD does not appear to lock out higher clockspeed RAM on its cheap B450 motherboards.

Amazon was selling 16GB of Crucial 3200MHZ E-die RAM for £60 on offer this week,so not even the argument there is an added cost for RAM for Ryzen is really applicable now. So at most I see the Core i5 9400F as a midpoint between the Ryzen 5 2600 and a Ryzen 5 3600.

A Ryzen 7 2700 is priced less than a Ryzen 5 3600,and has been as low as £164 this month.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 24, 2019)

Sithaer said:


> Well yes but like I said most of the time its not like the reviews,in a real life scenario most ppl with a 1600/2600 level CPU won't be using a RTX 2080 ti more like a 'budget' 1080p card like the 570/580/1660 serie.
> 
> I just thought I would jump in as one of the 'average' users cause ya know we exist too not only the 'enthusiasts' who would be bothered by ~5% differences and whatnot or ppl who exclusively play competetive games with high frames/refresh rate monitors.
> 
> Its all fine tho,as long as the owner is happy with the product then thats all that matters imo.


That review was done with a GTX 1080... not a midrange card, but not close to a 2080Ti either...

Also, it would happen as well with some mid-range cards too. Don't fool yourself.

I agree that if they are happy then that is all that matters... however, performance is left on the table and some people aren't happy with that situation either.


----------



## Sithaer (Jul 24, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> That review was done with a GTX 1080... not a midrange card, but not close to a 2080Ti either...
> 
> Also, it would happen as well with some mid-range cards too. Don't fool yourself.
> 
> I agree that if they are happy then that is all that matters... however, performance is left on the table and some people aren't happy with that situation either.



Then we have a different definiton of what is 'midrange'.

The cards I mentioned are like the most used with cpus in this price range and those does not bottleneck unless you are playing some old/crappy game that does not multi thread well or at all cause thats where the better single thread performance of Intel 'vs first/second gen Ryzen' comes handy.

Maybe AC:Origins/Odyssey would but those games are not worth to mention when it comes to optimization cause its just ugh.

Atm I'm playing Witcher 3 and theres 0% performance lost with this cpu+gpu,100% GPU bound and this was the case in pretty much every game I've played this year.

Edit:
Not that I want to advertise or anything,just a 'budget' hardware/gaming tester who I follow for years now cause he tests stuff more close to the average real life scenarios.
He paired a stock 2600 with a RTX 2060 which is the highest card I would pair this CPU with:










Main offenders are AC:Ody and Far Cry New Dawn,both games are known to have such issues so yea,rest is pretty much always at 90+% GPU usage with solid frames.


----------



## CAT-THE-FIFTH (Jul 24, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> That review was done with a GTX 1080... not a midrange card, but not close to a 2080Ti either...
> 
> Also, it would happen as well with some mid-range cards too. Don't fool yourself.
> 
> I agree that if they are happy then that is all that matters... however, performance is left on the table and some people aren't happy with that situation either.



Very rarely and for certain edge case games - if that was the case for all games why is it people kept old CPUs like Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge Core i5 and Core i7 CPUs for so long,when Haswell,Broadwell and Skylake equivalents were all technically faster. Think how fast GPUs were back then compare to now,and how many cards people went through.

For a normal gamer,for a lot of games,they are hitting GPU limitations,especially as a higher performing graphics card pushes much more draw calls onto CPUs,and reviewers tend to use software capture tools to measure framerate. This all affects lower end CPUs more.

This is why reviewers use £500+ graphics cards at 720p and people start yelling bias when games are tested at 1080p and 4K as it does not show CPU limitations. Well it can but then you will realise its not as many games as people think. Then there is all the arguments about an older CPU only doing 80FPS and the newer CPU doing 95FPS,etc which the same amount of playability on 60HZ screens which it seems a lot of people still use.

Edit!!

Regarding the mini-ITX rig I had with an old poorly cooled case. I tested both the Wraith Stealth and Wraith Spire using a 50 picture DxO export with Prime noise reduction. The CPU was pegged at 100%  IIRC.











I gained 8 seconds using a better cooler. OcUK sells the Wraith Spire for £5.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Jul 24, 2019)

Not upgrading is not the same as buying an inferior chip


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 24, 2019)

"I like glass ceilings" - Ralph Wigam


----------



## Bones (Jul 24, 2019)

HenrySomeone said:


> Yes, the unlocked aspect is particularly beneficial on the 3000 series
> And regarding your bold, boisterous claim regarding the i5s - you will be in for a world of disappointment, as is usual for over-zealous fan(boy)s



Ah!
You mean over-zealous fan(boy)s like YOU with all the Introlling you've been doing since you came into the forum.


----------



## Mindweaver (Jul 24, 2019)

Everyone lets refrain from name-calling. If you can't get your point across without name-calling then move along.


----------



## ppn (Jul 24, 2019)

I wouldn't buy the 2600X for the minimum frame penalty. 9400F is still the choice, unbeatable. What is SMT and unlocked multi good for, turns out not much for the average gamer..... those cpus are maxed at default, and they are now coming with ideas how to overclock separate CCX within +100Mhz, and for what it changes a 0.1%.


----------



## Manu_PT (Jul 24, 2019)

9400F is a good choice, but even smarter if you pair it with a z370 cheap motherboard. That way you assure future upgrades to 8700, 8700k or 9700k, prolly when they will cost much less too, and 2nd hand.

If you pair it on a B360 weak VRM mobo, you are using a dead platform.

Ryzen 5 3600 is better. But also costs more. You pay 80€ (50%) more for 6 SMT threads and a bit better gaming performance (10% max).


----------



## CAT-THE-FIFTH (Jul 24, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Because it doesn't fit some people's admiration of intel products and some are worried about their share price.
> Same shit year after year, there's always someone trying to get people to buy defective overly feature cut crap from their hero's, while another company sells unlocked very capable and feature rich(parity with whole lineup) processors.
> 
> Fuck I5s, all if them,there I said it ,they're the new dual core imho, two years and a game will be out they cannot do.



I find it very weird - when AMD is ahead its not worth it as AMD costs more,but when Intel is ahead its worth it even if it costs more.

All of a sudden now a  more expensive £140 Core i5 8400/Core i5 9400F(another 100MHZ on the core),is suddenly 10X better than a cheaper £120 Ryzen 5 2600 since its 10% faster maybe even a bit more with £500+ graphics cards,and it literally overclocks the same as a £150 Ryzen 5 2600X. In the UK a Ryzen 5 2600 and a Hyper 212 costs around the same as a Core i5 9400F with its stock heatsink. A Ryzen 5 1600 is even cheaper by nearly £35 and comes with a Wraith Spire.

But when a more expensive Ryzen 5 3600 is faster by similar amounts its not worth it,especially when people are pushing the Core i7 6C CPUs which also only add SMT.

It was the same with all the image editing experts,who were pushing the Core i5 8400/Core i5 9400F,when the benchmarks are not showing massive advantages for the locked Intel CPUs(the Core i5 9600K is running 500 to 600MHZ higher),over say a cheaper Ryzen 5 2600,but when it is pointed out the Ryzen 5 3600 is competing with significantly higher end Intel CPUs,due to its inclusion of SMT and huge L3 caches,its not important either.

TBH,not worth getting so vexed about dude - really isn't. Its already hot enough in the UK as it is!


----------



## Manu_PT (Jul 24, 2019)

The R5 2600 has less performance in gaming, compared to the i5 9400F and you need to overclock to somewhat make it on par. But that´s not the main point imo, 2600 isn´t that easy to find for that price, at least here. It is out of stock or costs more than that value. We talking about games, where the R5 3600 competes with a 9400F framerates wise, it is even behind in some titles. For general purpose rig wit productivity into equation, yes the 2600 still better option, but not as easy to find.


----------



## Viruzz (Jul 24, 2019)

ShurikN said:


> Okay so...
> First.
> Far Cry 5 (or New Dawn) is a worst case scenario for Ryzen. Results like those are very rare, which TPU review shows.
> Second.
> ...



Please re-read everything you wrote and faceplam.

65W or not is irrelevant, the FACT is that Intel CAN boost just that easy by turning one setting and you get performance boost.
Right now Ryzen 3000 is broken, COMPLETELY broken!

1) People been reporting issues with Boost, 3000 series doesnt do advertised boost on higher end CPUs aka above 4.2Ghz during single threaded load, even Derbauer made 2 videos about this, one after AMD send him bios update and chipset update and it still doesn't perform PER Specification.
2) Users been reporting that their Ryzen 3000 series CPUs especially on older chipsest STUCK at base clock.
3) Users and big YT reported issues with windows power saving that keep the CPUs voltage on highest when some programs run in the background like steam
4) A web site tested  PCIe Gen 4 SSDs and found out that they perform much faster  on Intel PCIe Gen 3.0 compared to AMD PCie Gen 4 slots on x570 and PCIe Gen 3.0 slots on previous chipsets

And as far as games go, based on this very web site tests even 9600 and 8600 are better options over 3900x for Real gaming [when you not limited by the GPU]



CAT-THE-FIFTH said:


> I find it very weird - when AMD is ahead its not worth it as AMD costs more,but when Intel is ahead its worth it even if it costs more.
> 
> All of a sudden now a  more expensive £140 Core i5 8400/Core i5 9400F(another 100MHZ on the core),is suddenly 10X better than a cheaper £120 Ryzen 5 2600 since its 10% faster maybe even a bit more with £500+ graphics cards,and it literally overclocks the same as a £150 Ryzen 5 2600X. In the UK a Ryzen 5 2600 and a Hyper 212 costs around the same as a Core i5 9400F with its stock heatsink. A Ryzen 5 1600 is even cheaper by nearly £35 and comes with a Wraith Spire.
> 
> ...



Thats because you are browsing mostly GAMINg web site and AMD is NOT ahead in gaming no matter how you try to change/fake the benchmarks, 8600/9600 is a better option then ANY Ryzen 3000 CPU for video games.
Im sure if you go to some Video Encoding reedit youll find people prefer Ryzen OR NOT because even if Ryzen beats Intel in video encoding it LOSES to Intel HORRIBLY when QuickSync is enabled and its something every Intel CPU has.
So whats left for Ryzen? Multitasking virtual machines and doing winrar all day


----------



## CAT-THE-FIFTH (Jul 24, 2019)

Manu_PT said:


> The R5 2600 has less performance in gaming, compared to the i5 9400F and you need to overclock to somewhat make it on par. But that´s not the main point imo, 2600 isn´t that easy to find for that price, at least here. It is out of stock or costs more than that value. We talking about games, where the R5 3600 competes with a 9400F framerates wise, it is even behind in some titles. For general purpose rig wit productivity into equation, yes the 2600 still better option, but not as easy to find.



In the UK its very easy,and the Ryzen 5 2600 has been as low as nearly £110 a few weeks ago. The Ryzen 5 1600 has gone below £100 briefly and that has the better Wraith Spire cooler. The Core i5 9400F has varied between £140 to £150 dependent on retailer. A Ryzen 5 2600X is £150. A week ago a well known retailer had the Ryzen 7 2700 for £164. There was even a bundle deal as far back as May with a Ryzen 5 2600 and an RX570 4GB for under £230 with a couple of games from one of the biggest UK PC retailers. Maybe UK is just better served with AMD deals,so maybe YMMV in your part of the world. The RX570 has even gone down to £110 before,I might have even seen it cheaper IIRC.

All I can see is the Core i5 9400F being a midway point between a Ryzen 5 2600 and a Ryzen 5 3600 for gaming and I don't see it as any better value overall,but IMHO OFC although YMMV. You also need to consider B450 motherboards are cheaper compared to Z370 motherboards over here,and B450 motherboards have dropped in price. I have seen some people overclock the Ryzen 5 2600 reasonably OK on a £60ish B450 which had heatsinked VRMs,and they were fine - this is not Bulldozer!!  This is not the cheapest B350 or B450 motherboard either - the cheapest Z370 motherboard here is £81.Retailers sell the Wraith Spire here for £5,and even the Wraith Prism for £20.

But as you say in your part of the world,AMD isn't as easy to find,so I can't say what I am seeing here is universal. Intel might be cheaper elsewhere than AMD.



			
				HenrySomeone said:
			
		

> I just saw the review and frankly this 9400f chip is not only great value at gaming,but also office work,photoshop,premere.





Viruzz said:


> Thats because you are browsing mostly GAMINg web site and AMD is NOT ahead in gaming no matter how you try to change/fake the benchmarks, 8600/9600 is a better option then ANY Ryzen 3000 CPU for video games.
> Im sure if you go to some Video Encoding reedit youll find people prefer Ryzen OR NOT because even if Ryzen beats Intel in video encoding it LOSES to Intel HORRIBLY when QuickSync is enabled and its something every Intel CPU has.
> So whats left for Ryzen? Multitasking virtual machines and doing winrar all day



Your buddy brought non-gaming into it and now you are defending his honour??  So why don't you tell him not to talk about non-gaming. No amount of you deflecting changes what he said.

A gaming website - oh so why do the TPU reviews test non-gaming too. If you have a problem with TPU deviating from games,complain at the reviewers here.

Now you are moaning at me since he brought something outside gaming up and I showed him benchmarks about non-gaming - if you have a problem go and moan at reviewers. You can't even do that so you butt into a conversation I am having with someone else whilst not even realising why the conversation happened.

Take your stronk man attitude and go tackle them then,I have zero power over any of this,especially when I told the other guy to stop being so annoyed. Plus if you have a problem with AMD pricing in the UK then go moan at UK retailers then.

Also the whole argument here is the Ryzen 5 3600 is faster compared to the Core i5 9400F but costs more which Manu_PF said,which in your anger you have conveniently forgotten to read. Its no different than saying a Ryzen 5 2600 which is slower but cheaper compared to a Core i5 9400F too which is true of the UK.

Maybe in you area its different but I can only talk locally.

I posted some benchmarks to back up what I said  - again moan at the reviewers for "fake news" then.

This whole thread about how reviewers are discriminating against poor Intel,is just as bad as all the people calling the same reviewers pro-Intel when Ryzen was launched when AMD and its partners didn't launch it in a fit state. Reviewers are getting fedup,and I know this from talking to a few. If they recommend AMD they are against Intel. If they recommend Intel they are against AMD. If they say to buy Nvidia they are against Intel and AMD. If they recommend AMD again they are against Nvidia.

If they recommend all of the brands,they are corporate shills. If this is TPU in 2019,I hate to think what Reddit or YouTube is like.


----------



## Metroid (Jul 24, 2019)

Metroid said:


> For gaming, I'm leaning towards ryzen 3600, at $200 and an amazing single thread performance.



I ended up buying it and the resell value will be good if something better comes. You can't go wrong with Ryzen 5 3600. If you dont own a good cpu and plan an upgrade then dont think too much just go and buy the Ryzen 5 3600.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 25, 2019)

ppn said:


> Prices will not be going downhill, because people are buying this. we get 9400F at 150 euro, 3600 nonX at 210 euro and not available, they want to sell you the X version for more profit. Yeah with AMD you get what you pay for, namely threads, and almost nobody needs threads. 9400F can be cooled with single heat pipe cooler, undervolt can lower the power and stick with the box, this is a non issue.



Totally wrong


----------



## Berfs1 (Jul 25, 2019)

Who told you you are required to have an X570 for a Ryzen 5 3600? Where you don’t need a Z390 for Intel, you don’t need X570 for AMD (for 8 cores and below). Ryzen 5 3600 was also just released so no sales yet, but on the AMD side of things, you even get a capable cooler, and SMT which will beat intel in multithreaded workloads. The 9400F does not have HT so it not only forces you to buy a GPU, but also doesn’t have HT. If you had a 9400, that would be a slightly better deal than the 9400F since the F saves you 0 dollars.


----------



## ppn (Jul 25, 2019)

No 3600 available any time soon. Only 3600x at 275 euro. Pair it with 570 chipset Mobo 175 euro. Pay a fortune for those threads that will not be needed until 5nm. Unless you earn money. And in that case go for 3900. But at that point and very soon we move to Pcie5/ddr5 new mobo new socket, so why invest in X570 and so on.  9400f and H310 mobo costs 150 +50 euro. Undervolt it 0.2V to save 30% power. Easy. Cool and deadly.


----------



## Sithaer (Jul 25, 2019)

ppn said:


> No 3600 available any time soon. Only 3600x at 275 euro. Pair it with 570 chipset Mobo 175 euro. Pay a fortune for those threads that will not be needed until 5nm. Unless you earn money. And in that case go for 3900. But at that point and very soon we move to Pcie5/ddr5 new mobo new socket, so why invest in X570 and so on.  9400f and H310 mobo costs 150 +50 euro. Undervolt it 0.2V to save 30% power. Easy. Cool and deadly.



Like Berfs1 said,you don't need a 570 mobo for a 3600 unless you really need that faster SSD.

It works fine in a B450 or even in a better B350 mobo.
Crazy example and probably not the best idea in the long run but still:










I can find 3600 in my country and its going for ~215 euro/240$.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 25, 2019)

Sithaer said:


> Like Berfs1 said,you don't need a 570 mobo for a 3600 unless you really need that faster SSD.
> 
> It works fine in a B450 or even in a better B350 mobo.
> Crazy example and probably not the best idea in the long run but still:
> ...



X370 boards support it, higher end b350s too


----------



## CAT-THE-FIFTH (Jul 27, 2019)

Hardware Unboxed tested the Core i5 9400F. Of the games they tested,Kingdom Come Deliverance and BFV,the Core i5 9400F had stuttering.










Tests are done with the included box coolers.












In the UK the Ryzen 5 2600 is £20 cheaper than the Core i5 9400F,and the Ryzen 5 3600 is not only quicker now,but also 1% lows are much better in newer games.


----------



## Vario (Jul 27, 2019)

The +$40 is kind of a gimmick.  May as well include 8700 (non-k) for $300.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jul 27, 2019)

9400f falls flat on the face when it comes to min. fps,although I have no idea why on earth they're not counting avg. fps as part of the value,neither do they count oc headroom on 9600k or add the igpu as added value.
9400 seems like great value 60-75 fps/home rig cpu,nothing more.
3600 I see as a decent entry-level high refresh gaming option,though only a placeholder for something faster once a ryzen cpu arrives that can actually get to 4.8ghz


----------



## advanced3 (Jul 27, 2019)

I jumped on the AMD bandwagon, I think its only taken 3 weeks for me to want to switch back to Intel.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 27, 2019)

advanced3 said:


> I jumped on the AMD bandwagon, I think its only taken 3 weeks for me to want to switch back to Intel.


Why?


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jul 27, 2019)

advanced3 said:


> I jumped on the AMD bandwagon, I think its only taken 3 weeks for me to want to switch back to Intel.


what cpu did you "upgrade" from ?


----------



## advanced3 (Jul 27, 2019)

eidairaman1 said:


> Why?



I have had a lot of general stability issues.  Sometimes my mouse pointer disappears, Games freeze, What settings work today sometimes don't work the next, Last night the PC kept locking up even at Default settings upon entering Windows. Poor overclocking, I haven't seen this CPU once reach its advertised boost speed (4.4). High Idle temp spikes 50c with a X62. Super high idle voltages 1.45+ Installed newest CH7 BIOS last night so we'll see if anything improves.



cucker tarlson said:


> what cpu did you "upgrade" from ?



My "Upgrade" was more of an itch to build a new PC. I haven't built an AMD computer since the FX-57 single core days,  I came from a  5.2Ghz  7700k,  Its all still here so I may just switch back. I originally went to Micro center for the 3900x, but was sold out so grabbed the 3700x to play with.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jul 27, 2019)

advanced3 said:


> I have had a lot of general stability issues.  Sometimes my mouse pointer disappears, Games freeze, What settings work today sometimes don't work the next, Last night the PC kept locking up even at Default settings upon entering Windows. Poor overclocking, I haven't seen this CPU once reach its advertised boost speed (4.4). High Idle temp spikes 50c with a X62.
> 
> 
> 
> My "Upgrade" was more of an itch to build a new PC. I haven't built an AMD computer since the FX-57 single core days,  I came from a  5.2Ghz  7700k,  Its all still here so I may just switch back.


man that sucks,though there's a lot of talk about those issues,maybe you should've waited a little longer until they're fixed.
how is performance?
you may wanna go back to 7700k until ryzen is usable.

are you sure this is not somehow down to your cooler making bad contact and temps too high ? x62 is the best clc atm, 50 in idle is ridiculous,I'd expect 50 in gaming.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 27, 2019)

advanced3 said:


> I have had a lot of general stability issues.  Sometimes my mouse pointer disappears, Games freeze, What settings work today sometimes don't work the next, Last night the PC kept locking up even at Default settings upon entering Windows. Poor overclocking, I haven't seen this CPU once reach its advertised boost speed (4.4). High Idle temp spikes 50c with a X62. Super high idle voltages 1.45+ Installed newest CH7 BIOS last night so we'll see if anything improves.
> 
> 
> 
> My "Upgrade" was more of an itch to build a new PC. I haven't built an AMD computer since the FX-57 single core days,  I came from a  5.2Ghz  7700k,  Its all still here so I may just switch back. I originally went to Micro center for the 3900x, but was sold out so grabbed the 3700x to play with.



Oh Asus, go figure


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jul 27, 2019)

why can't mobo manufacturers do something right at launch for a change.......


----------



## advanced3 (Jul 27, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> man that sucks,though there's a lot of talk about those issues,maybe you should've waited a little longer until they're fixed.
> how is performance?
> you may wanna go back to 7700k until ryzen is usable.
> 
> are you sure this is not somehow down to your cooler making bad contact and temps too high ? x62 is the best clc atm, 50 in idle is ridiculous,I'd expect 50 in gaming.



Performance is roughly the same @ 3440x1440 in game.

I'm definitely going to reseat the cooler, but im almost 100% sure its mounted correctly.  Idle temps at the moment under 100% fan speed on the X62 sits between 45-55c. 

Heres the thing this CPU idles @ auto voltage anywhere between 1.4-1.5v causing high idle temps. Once stressed (cpuz stress test) voltage drops to 1.36v, clocks drop to 4.1GHZ and temps stay around 74c.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 27, 2019)

advanced3 said:


> Performance is roughly the same @ 3440x1440 in game.
> 
> I'm definitely going to reseat the cooler, but im almost 100% sure its mounted correctly.  Idle temps at the moment under 100% fan speed on the X62 sits between 45-55c.
> 
> Heres the thing this CPU idles @ auto voltage anywhere between 1.4-1.5v causing high idle temps. Once stressed (cpuz stress test) voltage drops to 1.36v, clocks drop to 4.1GHZ and temps stay around 74c.



Tbf i dont run auto voltages on anything cpu related, try dropping it manually to 1.32-1.36 and see.

There are plenty of how to videos to tune any platform on youtube.


----------



## advanced3 (Jul 27, 2019)

eidairaman1 said:


> Tbf i dont run auto voltages on anything cpu related, try dropping it manually to 1.32-1.36 and see.
> 
> There are plenty of how to videos to tune any platform on youtube.



I can overclock, this CPU will do 4.3 all core, but no lower than 1.4v. Its set to all default now because of updating the BIOS. Im just amazed to see such high voltage on auto when the PC is pretty much doing nothing. Im watching on Ryzen Master the voltage bounce between 1.45-1.5v and temps @ 45-55c.

Even running 4.3 @ 1.4v doesnt help much. The idle maybe slightly lower, but its now higher under load because constant voltage.


----------



## HD64G (Jul 27, 2019)

advanced3 said:


> I can overclock, this CPU will do 4.3 all core, but no lower than 1.4v. Its set to all default now because of updating the BIOS. Im just amazed to see such high voltage on auto when the PC is pretty much doing nothing. Im watching on Ryzen Master the voltage bounce between 1.45-1.5v and temps @ 45-55c.
> 
> Even running 4.3 @ 1.4v doesnt help much. The idle maybe slightly lower, but its now higher under load because constant voltage.


I hope you have installed the latest AMD chipset driver and applied the AMD power profile in windows. Might help in those issues me thinks.


----------



## advanced3 (Jul 27, 2019)

HD64G said:


> I hope you have installed the latest AMD chipset driver and applied the AMD power profile in windows. Might help in those issues me thinks.



Yes and Yes, still the same.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jul 27, 2019)

does amd have any equivalent of xtu ? should do it for the short term.


----------



## Kissamies (Jul 27, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> does amd have any equivalent of xtu ? should do it for the short term.


Ryzen Master afaik, don't use any software OC myself though.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jul 27, 2019)

software oc is a lot more convenient.


----------



## advanced3 (Jul 27, 2019)

I resat the cooler and reapplied thermal paste (MX-4 laying around) didn't improve anything.  @1.4v under CPUZ stress test sees temps @ 84c. Id hate to see what they hit with the stock cooler..... Fans are @ 75% and pump @ 100%


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jul 27, 2019)

advanced3 said:


> I resat the cooler and reapplied thermal past some (MX-4 laying around) didn't improve anything.  @1.4v under CPUZ stress test sees temps @ 84c


it's clearly buggy bios


----------



## Khonjel (Jul 27, 2019)

@advanced3, all AGESA (AMD micro code) issue. High idle temp is because of high stock voltage. High voltage, whea error, unplayability of Destiny 2, not reaching advertised clock speed everything.

Amd will will release a new agesa, motherboard vendors will edit it and release as bios update, you (luckily not me for at least a week) "lucky" beta testers will flash the update and report it to AMD HQ at r/Amd.

And the wheel goes round and round.


----------



## advanced3 (Jul 27, 2019)

Khonjel said:


> @advanced3, all AGESA (AMD micro code) issue. High idle temp is because of high stock voltage. High voltage, whea error, unplayability of Destiny 2, not reaching advertised clock speed everything.
> 
> Amd will will release a new agesa, motherboard vendors will edit it and release as bios update, you (luckily not me for at least a week) "lucky" beta testers will flash the update and report it to AMD HQ at r/Amd.
> 
> And the wheel goes round and round.



Hopefully it gets straightened out at some point. I am on the newest ASUS BIOS. It seems odd that at idle its running its highest voltage and clocks, I'll keep it running as my main gaming PC, but I may switch back to the 7700K at some point.


----------



## Psychoholic (Jul 27, 2019)

Here's what fixed idle voltages and temps for me (May also fix WHEA Errors)
-Anything in bios that has an "auto" and "normal" for voltages be sure to set it to normal.
-Set Power profile to "high performance" (Not ryzen high performance) and change min and max processor states to 1 and 100 respectively.

My 3800x idles in the 30s and vcore is under 1.0v


----------



## Kissamies (Jul 27, 2019)

advanced3 said:


> I'll keep it running as my main gaming PC, but I may switch back to the 7700K at some point.


4c/8t on a gaming rig instead of 8c/16t in 2019?


----------



## advanced3 (Jul 27, 2019)

Ya but 5.2Ghz all core and much lower temps... I really wanted to like this CPU too. I basically threw $160 away on this cooler when the stock would of yielded similar results. I am now wondering how much this cooler would improve the 7700k temps over my old H105.


----------



## Kissamies (Jul 27, 2019)

I had a 7700K @ 5.1 last year and there's not a smallest chance I'd go back for that instead using my current R5 2600 @ 4.1.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jul 27, 2019)

Chloe Price said:


> 4c/8t on a gaming rig instead of 8c/16t in 2019?


7700k at 5.2ghz will trounce a 3700x in most games except for odyssey maybe


----------



## Kissamies (Jul 27, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> 7700k will trounce a 3700x in most games except for odyssey maybe


Even 9900K isn't that much better









						AMD Ryzen 7 3700X Review
					

AMD's $330 Ryzen 7 3700X is an 8-core, 16-thread CPU that's clocked high enough to compete with Intel's offerings. Actually, its application performance matches even the more expensive Intel Core i9-9900K. Gaming performance has been increased significantly, too, thanks to the improved...




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jul 27, 2019)

Chloe Price said:


> Even 9900K isn't that much better
> 
> 
> 
> ...


this is totally different scenario tested.This is actually a good explenation by Vayra










						3700X vs 9900K, that is the question...
					

It is. Other tests show consistent deltas between two sets of two processors. Yours show consistent deltas between two processors, but wildly different deltas for two other processors, of the same set of four. This is an anomaly.  thinking that just because a 720p test shows XX% difference...




					www.techpowerup.com
				





tpu runs normal gpu tests,but at 720p,it's the average fps. of a cpu's maxium
in game testing may reveal something completely and utterly different as you find yourself in cpu heavy locations


----------



## AsRock (Jul 27, 2019)

ShurikN said:


> I would like to be directed to a 9700 non k review with game benchmarks, because I couldn't find any. How do you know the 9700 is that much faster than a 3700X?
> The non K has much lower base clock than its unlocked sibling and 200MHz lower boost clock.
> Also, according to TPU, 9700K is 5% faster than 3700X at 1080p...



Ok it's 5% faster, but by time have a AV, software firewall Hard drive Sentinel + a bunch other other apps like steam keyboard mouse apps. would i still get that 5%.

Sorry a much as i love Wizards reviews or some others most of the time their done with a clean system with just whats required.

I like to know as some time i run a dedi server as well play some games would buying AMD chip be better than intel ?. I often do this as i do not want to be running 3 PC's to play a game.


----------



## advanced3 (Jul 27, 2019)

Performance wise for me they're similar in game at my resolution and refresh. My issue is voltages and temperatures at idle and load currently and general stability at times. When the CPU is 84c and air coming across my radiator and the radiator itself is still cool.....


----------



## Kissamies (Jul 27, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> this is totally different scenario tested.This is actually a good explenation by Vayra
> 
> 
> 
> ...


720p in 2019, yeah...

And I can bet that people wouldn't know are they gaming with an AMD or Intel CPU if there wouldn't be framerate shown and they wouldn't know the specs.

Well, at least I'll go for AMD and use that saved money for other components.


----------



## advanced3 (Jul 27, 2019)

720p testing puts all the load on the CPU......That's the point.


----------



## Kissamies (Jul 27, 2019)

advanced3 said:


> 720p testing puts all the load on the CPU......That's the point.


Exactly, but who actually gives a crap, since nobody buys these for 720p gaming.


----------



## 64K (Jul 27, 2019)

Chloe Price said:


> Exactly, but who actually gives a crap, since nobody buys these for 720p gaming.



That's not the intention of the test. The intention is to measure the performance potential of the CPU and not the GPU.

It's not a GPU test. 

Once a person knows whether or not their CPU can send enough draw calls at 720p for the desired FPS then they know whether or not their CPU can deliver enough for any resolution 720p/ 1080p/ 1440p/ 4K (they are mostly the same) and then they can look at potential GPUs to get the FPS desired.


----------



## Kissamies (Jul 27, 2019)

64K said:


> That's not the intention of the test. The intention is to measure the performance potential of the CPU and not the GPU.
> 
> It's not a GPU test.
> 
> Once a person knows whether or not their CPU can send enough draw calls at 720p for the desired FPS then they know whether or not their CPU can deliver enough for any resolution 720p/ 1080p/ 1440p/ 4K (they are mostly the same) and then they can look at potential GPUs to get the FPS desired.


I'm not that stupid.

My point is who cares about 720p tests? I have a feeling that users who buy these, they'll use these in real-life scenarios, not something what you can almost call as a synthetic benchmark.

Testing these with 720p is nothing else than cherry-picking.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jul 27, 2019)

Chloe Price said:


> I'm not that stupid.
> 
> My point is who cares about 720p tests? I have a feeling that users who buy these, they'll use these in real-life scenarios, not something what you can almost call as a synthetic benchmark.


yeah,the avg. of a 720p benchmark run is not really representative of much.
it's not like a gpu nor like cpu bound scenario you'll see in games.

it's like what your gpu can do if not restrained by taxing resolution but not really like what your cpu would be able to handle in a cpu heavy location.

when I run odyssey bench at 720p I still get 75 fps avg stock 2070s and 79 fps oc'd 2070s.Once I'm in game in a cpu heavy location I may stop at 57 or 60 fps and dropping resolution down from 1440p to 1080p sees no difference,hardly a single fps.


----------



## Dinnercore (Jul 27, 2019)

64K said:


> That's not the intention of the test. The intention is to measure the performance potential of the CPU and not the GPU.
> 
> It's not a GPU test.
> 
> Once a person knows whether or not their CPU can send enough draw calls at 720p for the desired FPS then they know whether or not their CPU can deliver enough for any resolution 720p/ 1080p/ 1440p/ 4K (they are mostly the same) and then they can look at potential GPUs to get the FPS desired.



And the problem is that many people don´t understand how to read those test results, or apply them to their specific use-case. 

I got a few people around me that still tell me things like this: 'I don´t have much money so I NEED to buy an intel CPU with my 1060, because with AMD I will have even 5% less fps if I go with AMD and dont get the full value of my 1060!' 
I can try to explain all I want that this is not how it works and that they won´t run into much of a CPU bottleneck at 1440p with a 1060 but they don´t listen or maybe lack the capability of understanding these coherences.
It seems to be burned into many minds that AMD = bad / stutter, Intel = a must have, no matter the cost. I have given up to try and teach some of my friends, I just let them be happy with whatever they choose.


----------



## Khonjel (Jul 28, 2019)

BTW @advanced3's mouse pointer disappearance is kinda Nvidia driver issue it seems : https://www.techpowerup.com/257708/...431-68-driver-to-address-broken-mouse-pointer


----------



## advanced3 (Jul 28, 2019)

Its not after exiting a game, it can be something as simple as browsing the web. The BIOS update seems to have straightened it out. I haven't changed drivers yet, I'm on 431.36 still.


----------



## silkstone (Jul 28, 2019)

I have a i7 8700k on my gaming rig and I just purchased a R5 3600 for a server/HTPC build. The 3600 was A LOT cheaper and just as suitable for the purpose I'm putting it to.
$200 CPU + $50 mobo compared with $350 CPU and $170 mobo.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 28, 2019)

well


silkstone said:


> I have a i7 8700k on my gaming rig and I just purchased a R5 3600 for a server/HTPC build. The 3600 was A LOT cheaper and just as suitable for the purpose I'm putting it to.
> $200 CPU + $50 mobo compared with $350 CPU and $170 mobo.




as long as you don't play destiny 2 yeah AMD is a good deal.  destiny 2 still doesn't work with ryzen 3000 chips. and AMD still doesn't have a stable BIOS fix for it yet. they thought they had it fixed, but they pulled it.  motherboard manufacturers are still waiting for a new BIOS for destiny 2 fix. nothing Bungie can do on their end.  /shrug


----------



## biffzinker (Jul 28, 2019)

Dinnercore said:


> It seems to be burned into many minds that AMD = bad / stutter, Intel = a must have, no matter the cost. I have given up to try and teach some of my friends, I just let them be happy with whatever they choose.


Same with friends and some family, they seem to think there isn't any alternative on the market for a smartphone besides  the iPhone.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jul 28, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> Same with friends and some family, they seem to think there isn't any alternative on the market for a smartphone besides  the iPhone.


I laugh at all my friends who buy older iphone models while those new chinese phones that I have myself just crush them in value,a lot cheaper and a lot better.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 28, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> I laught at all my friends who buy older iphone models while those new chinese phones that I have myself just crush them in value,a lot cheaper and a lot better.



Yep, I hear you there. I got a Samsung Galaxy A50 recently when I was in Ireland for around 210 Euro's. It literally competes with flagships (oh sorry, it doesn't have the latest Snapdragon... who gives a crap?)  the screen is gorgeous OLED, and after calibrated looks better than my Dad's Samsung Note 9, which doesn't make sense since it is also OLED and Samsung's top offering. The A50 also has an excellent camera on it, well three of them actually and a depth of field sensor, and face unlock, and in-glass fingerprint reader... all for 210 Euro... and 4000 mah battery... same as Note 9... lol

Hoping it lasts me a good 3-5 years or so. Enjoy your 1 grand phones folks, lol.


----------



## biffzinker (Jul 28, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> Enjoy your 1 grand phones folks, lol.


Hey now, don't make fun of my Note9.


----------



## Frick (Jul 28, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> I laught at all my friends who buy older iphone models while those new chinese phones that I have myself just crush them in value,a lot cheaper and a lot better.



You are a good friend.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jul 28, 2019)

Frick said:


> You are a good friend.


I'm okay with paying premium for better,but what do people see in buying those old iFarts I have no idea.


----------



## 1d10t (Jul 28, 2019)

Didn't we already had that kind of thing ,use for gaming only and it's cheaper?Not from AMD or Intel though, but it's still 1080p 
And these "gaming only machine", are you not gonna browse with it? Updating or patching a game while playing on it? Share it, stream it?
PC is only winning in keyboard and mouse support, in these regard.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jul 28, 2019)

1d10t said:


> Didn't we already had that kind of thing ,use for gaming only and it's cheaper?Not from AMD or Intel though, but it's still 1080p
> And these "gaming only machine", are you not gonna browse with it? Updating or patching a game while playing on it? Share it, stream it?
> PC is only winning in keyboard and mouse support, in these regard.



the added value of a PC is that it's  a PC.
plus take a look at yt videos comparing a pc vs console at the same price,pc wins every time.ps4 will struggle to keep new games running at 900p with medium quality.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 28, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> I'm okay with paying premium for better,but what do people see in buying those old iFarts I have no idea.



it's all about image. my nephew who is 17 just paid more for his used iphone 7 than I did for my brand new A50. screen is way worse, specs worse, terrible design where mine is modern, etc.  but for him it's not about that, girls want to see that blue Apple text, not green. it's about image, cliques, doing what girls like, etc. that's only reason he got the iphone 7 anyway. you would be surprised how many iphone users think they are better than android, because it means 'they come from a better area, have more money, clean pure look, etc' it's all very disgusting imo. and more power to them, cause when I watch netflix on my phone I get a way better experience than them, so enjoy your small world guess.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jul 28, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> it's all about image. my nephew who is 17 just paid more for his used iphone 7 than I did for my brand new A50. screen is way worse, specs worse, terrible design where mine is modern, etc.  but for him it's not about that, girls want to see that blue Apple text, not green. it's about image, cliques, doing what girls like, etc. that's only reason he got the iphone 7 anyway. you would be surprised how many iphone users think they are better than android, because it means 'they come from a better area, have more money, clean pure look, etc' it's all very disgusting imo. and more power to them, cause when I watch netflix on my phone I get a way better experience than them, so enjoy your small world guess.


the swag generation.


----------



## 64K (Jul 28, 2019)

1d10t said:


> Didn't we already had that kind of thing ,use for gaming only and it's cheaper?Not from AMD or Intel though, but it's still 1080p
> And these "gaming only machine", are you not gonna browse with it? Updating or patching a game while playing on it? Share it, stream it?
> PC is only winning in keyboard and mouse support, in these regard.



.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 28, 2019)

back on topic, I am going to wait for better gpu's from AMD. I decided I am not upgrading my gtx 1070 laptop until AMD can match Nvidia RTX 2080 Super. hopefully within 9 months, cause I am tired of waiting. I think there is a possibility it will happen though. but, just not too happy with nvidia's telemetry lately, and Intel's security issues. hoping to be all red team within 9 months if they can give me reason to do so.  Hopefuly the RX 5800 rumors are true, I mean it makes sense, why else would you name your product line 5600, 5700... then stop? 

fyi this topic needs to die before it turns it an all out war though lol


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jul 28, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> back on topic, I am going to wait for better gpu's from AMD. I decided I am not upgrading my gtx 1070 laptop until AMD can match Nvidia RTX 2080 Super. hopefully within 9 months, cause I am tired of waiting. I think there is a possibility it will happen though. but, just not too happy with nvidia's telemetry lately, and Intel's security issues. hoping to be all red team within 9 months if they can give me reason to do so.  Hopefuly the RX 5800 rumors are true, I mean it makes sense, why else would you name your product line 5600, 5700... then stop?
> 
> fyi this topic needs to die before it turns it an all out war though lol


2080S is still 30% faster than 5700xt according to tpu so probably more than just one sku from 5700xt.

why? this topic asks a legitimate question,though it should be more precise since you're mainly asking about specific skus+mobo combinatios,not across the board.same way 3600 on b350 will eat 9600k+z390 in value.

you know it's legitimate when in the first post you've got ppl deflecting the topic to datacenters when the question is specifically about gaming


----------



## 1d10t (Jul 28, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> the added value of a PC is that it's  a PC.
> plus take a look at yt videos comparing a pc vs console at the same price,pc wins every time.ps4 will struggle to keep new games running at 900p with medium quality.



Beat the purpose of gaming only doesn't it? 
Also i found it kinda funny,when they comparing console launch price with PC used parts, why not comparing actual price within same price bracket?



64K said:


> .







Oh yeah,everyone else is mediocre, said the one in bottom of food chain


----------



## 64K (Jul 28, 2019)

1d10t said:


> Beat the purpose of gaming only doesn't it?
> Also i found it kinda funny,when they comparing console launch price with PC used parts, why not comparing actual price within same price bracket?
> 
> 
> ...



Bear in mind that the percentage of revenue represents all of the consoles pitted against a single PC platform. How many hundreds of millions of consoles out there and they collectively earn around the same revenue as PC. It's pretty pitiful for console gamers imo


----------



## 1d10t (Jul 28, 2019)

64K said:


> Bear in mind that the percentage of revenue represents all of the consoles pitted against a single PC platform. How many hundreds of millions of consoles out there and they collectively earn around the same revenue as PC. It's pretty pitiful for console gamers imo



Wow,i didn't know that PC is a "single" platform, so who's gonna take the lead, Windows Store, Steam, Origin, UPlay or newborn Epic Game Store? 
Also I was wondering, why they grouped smartphone and watches, aren't we had Apple Store,Android Playstore or Tencent WeGame?
...oh yeah,because this is a chart as general (duh).

I game in multiple platform, be it on PC,console or mobile handheld, and I just accept the fact that PC gaming is depriving each year.Say what you want about PC being superior,but game dev most likely had a tendency to lean to biggest chunk of market.
Well,that kind of far off topics, but I found it (still) funny that people build PC for single purpose only and talk about value in the same sentences


----------



## Kissamies (Jul 28, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> Same with friends and some family, they seem to think there isn't any alternative on the market for a smartphone besides  the iPhone.


Apple did a good job, it's true that iPhone is "the smartphone" for many people.

Well, I have nothing against iPhones, but a phone with a clean Android (so no manufacturers' own UI or any bloatcrap) is my thing. Grabbed this Google Pixel from a friend and I paid 100 euros.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 28, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> Same with friends and some family, they seem to think there isn't any alternative on the market for a smartphone besides  the iPhone.


That's sad. 

I dont let apple in my house... my kids can get an iPhone, but they lose inhouse support.


----------



## 64K (Jul 28, 2019)

1d10t said:


> Wow,i didn't know that PC is a "single" platform, so who's gonna take the lead, Windows Store, Steam, Origin, UPlay or newborn Epic Game Store?
> Also I was wondering, why they grouped smartphone and watches, aren't we had Apple Store,Android Playstore or Tencent WeGame?
> ...oh yeah,because this is a chart as general (duh).



PC is a single platform. I think you are mixing up a digital store with a platform.




EarthDog said:


> That's sad.
> 
> I dont let apple in my house... my kids can get an iPhone, but they lose inhouse support.



Funny stuff.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 28, 2019)

advanced3 said:


> When the CPU is 84c and air coming across my radiator and the radiator itself is still cool.....



This seems strange to me but, your 7700K  presumably didn't run much cooler did it ? I have a somewhat hard time figuring out why this is problematic.


----------



## trparky (Jul 29, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> iphone users think they are better than android


Apple isn't Google which many see as a bonus. I personally see Google as an existential threat to our privacy.

And as far as the specs of many iPhones, it doesn't matter. iOS 12 runs great even on an iPhone 7 Plus that is three years old. That, of course, is because the OS is married to the hardware at a level that Android OEMs can't even dream of making possible. And not only that but because Apple controls the whole entire system from the hardware to the software they can push out software and security fixes faster than the Android OEMs can which to this day is an absolute joke.


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 29, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> it's all about image. my nephew who is 17 just paid more for his used iphone 7 than I did for my brand new A50. screen is way worse, specs worse, terrible design where mine is modern, etc.  but for him it's not about that, girls want to see that blue Apple text, not green. it's about image, cliques, doing what girls like, etc. that's only reason he got the iphone 7 anyway. you would be surprised how many iphone users think they are better than android, because it means 'they come from a better area, have more money, clean pure look, etc' it's all very disgusting imo. and more power to them, cause when I watch netflix on my phone I get a way better experience than them, so enjoy your small world guess.



A 17 year old boy concerned about what his female peers think of him?  I'm just flabbergasted in disbelief.  Next you will be stating something crazy like EA's latin motto isn't "pro bono publico"!


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 29, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> A 17 year old boy concerned about what his female peers think of him?  I'm just flabbergasted in disbelief.  Next you will be stating something crazy like EA's latin motto isn't "pro bono publico"!



sadly this scales. lot of people who buy Apple products regardless of age think they are still in high school.  but thanks for taking the entire point out of context.   and welcome to my ignore list.



trparky said:


> Apple isn't Google which many see as a bonus. I personally see Google as an existential threat to our privacy.
> 
> And as far as the specs of many iPhones, it doesn't matter. iOS 12 runs great even on an iPhone 7 Plus that is three years old. That, of course, is because the OS is married to the hardware at a level that Android OEMs can't even dream of making possible. And not only that but because Apple controls the whole entire system from the hardware to the software they can push out software and security fixes faster than the Android OEMs can which to this day is an absolute joke.












						Siri records fights, doctor’s appointments, and sex (and contractors hear it)
					

In a new report, Apple takes its turn in the crosshairs over how it reviews user recordings.




					arstechnica.com
				




Apple is just as bad as a threat to your privacy, you're just a fanboy.    "Siri auto turns on when she hears a zipper"  LOL  talk about sketchy as hell.


----------



## trparky (Jul 29, 2019)

But you didn't mention a thing about the absolute shitshow that is Android when it comes to the release of software fixes especially security fixes. Unless you own a Google-branded device such as a Pixel, good luck getting security fixes on time. Own a Samsung or any other Android device (the exception being Google-branded devices)? You'll be waiting until hell freezes over for security fixes.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 29, 2019)

trparky said:


> But you didn't mention a thing about the absolute shitshow that is Android when it comes to the release of software fixes especially security fixes. Unless you own a Google-branded device such as a Pixel, good luck getting security fixes on time. Own a Samsung or any other Android device (the exception being Google-branded devices)? You'll be waiting until hell freezes over for security fixes.



Nokia has actually stepped up to the plate on this one and offers a device in every price range with Android One, 3 years OS updates and security updates monthly.  Their current lineup is a little lacking I admit as far as screen quality goes, but the Nokia 8.2 will be released in a couple months, should be the best bang for buck phone out there when it does come out.

Also, my new Samsung Galaxy A50 phone gets bi-monthly security updates and two years of OS updates, on time, Samsung confirmed they are stepping up their game with this new line.


----------



## trparky (Jul 29, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> Samsung Galaxy A50 phone gets bi-monthly security updates and two years of OS updates


Must not be a carrier-branded device then. Most people in the US buy a carrier-branded device and the carriers take forever a damn day to release updates.


lynx29 said:


> Samsung confirmed they are stepping up their game with this new line.


I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 29, 2019)

trparky said:


> Must not be a carrier-branded device then. Most people in the US buy a carrier-branded device and the carriers take forever a damn day to release updates.
> 
> I'll believe it when I see it.



Can confirm, my A50 has the June 2019 update, and before that it had the April 2019 update. So far so good, I did read a article about it. (edit, after googling I can't find said article again for some reason, eh)

Regardless, you still don't want this phone if you care about privacy. It comes pre-loaded with Facebook and you can't uninstall it.  But it was 1/6 the cost of an Apple phone with OLED, so... lol I had to make a choice. I just want a pretty screen for Netflix on the go as I ride the bus a lot.


----------



## John Naylor (Jul 29, 2019)

I never understood how  various mindsets are formed ... every user with an internet connection comes in saying "well I read on the internet ...."  So before we go any further I play this video.

h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DZbSlkFoSU

I didn't want to clog the post with a video link so copy / paste the link and get rid of the space after the h on http.

If i hear anything about cores, nm whatever, I just say stop.  The ONLY thing worthy of discussion is "how fast does it run your apps ?" ... not benchmarks ... not things you do once a year, noth things that run while you're sleeping ... just stuff that you do on  a routine basis.

If you are building a pure gaming rig, no I just don't see AMD with a place here.    Where AMD has really nailed a market niche, it's best market niche in terms of potential sales numbers is the gamer / video editor / streamer hobbyist.   If you are making a living doing video editing, time is money and spending $2,000 for a CPU will have a payback period of 4 - 6 weeks.






> $ 1.000 budget - or hat I like to call the  "cost doesn't matter, I'm gonna make money by spending it" category, got give the video editing to Intel.  Here any gaming that is getting down is "after hours, blow off some steam" kinda thing.

@$ 750 Budget Here the only thing that make s sense is the 2950X ... tho not for someone who's a gamer.  The 3900x would make more sense at $455 for better gaming.  This vategory really doesn't make a lot of sense but wanted to have something between $ 500 and $ 1,000.

@ $ 500 - Lotta candidates here and, at 1st glance,  which to pick would depend on how much gaming versus how much editing.  The two top contenders are the 9900KF (no one is seriously gaming on a IGP) and the 3900X.  A 1.6 % edge to the 3900x in video editing, versus a 1.6% edge to the 9900K in gaming @ 1440p.  However, with the 9900Ks better overclocking, even more based upon user reports, for the KF, to my view, Intel takes this category.   What it proves here however is that while you can find synthetic utilities and apps that will do better w/ more cores, contrary to popular belief a) video editing is not one of them and b) most things that most folks do are not among them.  That being said ... it's hard to make an argument against either the 9900k or the 3900X "by the numbers"

@ $250 - The obvious candidates are he 9600k and 3500, tho can't throw out the older generation 2700x.  An argument could be made that ...

The 2.27 % increase in video editing speed of the 9600k isn't worth the 22% increase in price
The 3.31 % increase in gaming speed of the 9600k isn't worth the 22% increase in price

This is a bogus argument however as the CPU doesn't accomplish this on it's own.  Adding the cost of a decent cooler to the cost difference .. we are likely talking $1290 versus $1200, we are looking at about a 7.5% increase in price.  Personally, I would go Intel for the overclocking ability but again, I don't see a valid argument to be made against either choice.

There's an anecdote from the political spectrum in the story of "Joe the Plumber".  Joe was an average dude thrust into the spotlight when he spoke up on the campaign traul saying the a specific candiates tax plan was no good for him  ... he said that people in specific tax brackets would be negatively affected and that folks in a specific tax bracket would also suffer.   Joe soon found himslef effectively on the campaign trail so to speak as journalists would continue to ask him questions.  It turned out that Joe was not a business owner ... Joe was not in that tax bracket and as he researched more on thiese topics to put him in a better position to answer questions, he realized that the tax plan he had been speaking against actually would significantly improve his lot in life and he switched sides ... but Joe's 15 minutes of fame ended as he'd been show to speak passionately in favor of proposals whiuch were not in hos own interest.

The point here is that all too often uses make a component list by making emotional choices rather than ones that make the most sense for **their** actual usage.  More cores / threads is no a panacea ... smaller die sizes do not necessarily bring anything to the table.    It's all fine and good to search for information on the internet ... but it's the numbers that matter not.  I gave my reasons why I would make a specific choice ... but in all but the top tier, whose going to get top dog status depends more upon one's individual actual usage than the dominance of one CPU over another ... and cores or nm is not in the running for being the "significant factor".  What I think or anyone else thinks is in essence immaterial as only "the numbers" for your apps ... how you use your PC every day is relevant to your particular choice.


----------



## advanced3 (Jul 29, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> This seems strange to me but, your 7700K  presumably didn't run much cooler did it ? I have a somewhat hard time figuring out why this is problematic.



My I7 was de-lided and ran much cooler (60-70c).  The 3700x will idle at dumb voltages (1.45-1.5) with crazy  fluctuating temperatures (45-60c) and will drop voltage and clocks ( Lucky to maintain 4GHZ all core) when CPU load is increased. I have  also never once seen it hit its advertised boost on a single core, 4.35 (usually 4.3) max.


----------



## 95Viper (Aug 2, 2019)

Keep it on topic.
Take the cell phone talk to the appropriate forum and make a thread.

Thank You.


----------



## boise49ers (Aug 22, 2019)

I play both FC5 and New Dawn on a FX 6300 with a 8 GB RX470  and have no problems. I do the in game benches and runs around 40 fps at 5760x1080p on high setting. Plays fine for me. I have played every Far Cry game and last 2 are the best IMO.


----------

