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

[Sithaer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Not upgrading is not the same as buying an inferior chip

 

[EarthDog]

"I like glass ceilings" - Ralph Wigam

 

[Bones]

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]

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

 

[ppn]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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 9400,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!

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]

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.

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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$.

X370 boards support it, higher end b350s too