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

[EarthDog]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

 

[kapone32]

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.

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.

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]

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...

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.

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]

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!

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]

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]

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.

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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!!