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

[dirtyferret]

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

 

[trparky]

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.

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]

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]

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

Exactly.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

We thank you for your effort

 

[EarthDog]

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]

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]

Even amd marketing wasn't setting such lofty goals.

 

[HenrySomeone]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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.

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]

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.

BTW you happen to be an Intel employee or something?

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

 

[Bones]

@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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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

HWBOT is a site dedicated to overclocking. We promote overclocking achievements and competitions for professionals as well as enthusiasts with rankings and a huge hardware database.

hwbot.org

Intel Core i9 9900K @ HWBOT

HWBOT is a site dedicated to overclocking. We promote overclocking achievements and competitions for professionals as well as enthusiasts with rankings and a huge hardware database.

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.

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]

I never said it wasn't

oh?

A difference of 5% within margin of error

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]

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.

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


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.

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]

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.