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

[Space Lynx]

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]

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.

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]

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.

Cheapest of which is $140

Don't think so.

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.

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]

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]

the new TurdZens

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

 

[HenrySomeone]

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]

Kids these days.

 

[Bones]

Tell me about it.

 

[Space Lynx]

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.

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.

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]

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

 

[Space Lynx]

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]

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]

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

 

[Naito]

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]

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)?

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

 

[Metroid]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.