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

[Kursah]

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

 

[moproblems99]

Don't think so.

Where are those prices?

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

 

[EarthDog]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Manu_PT]

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]

Pointless thread tbf.

 

[cucker tarlson]

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]

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

 

[cucker tarlson]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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 understand is having a Wraith Stealth actually makes the CPU clock 100MHZ less,so there is no advantage to AMD here.

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]

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]

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]

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