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

[EarthDog]

Well, let's hope they can get their sh*t together and stop copy-pasting their CPU architectures! They may not have run into this problem otherwise...

Sorry... AMD finally gets its shit straight on the CPU side after a decade of, at best, mediocrity, and you say this??!?!?! As a company why would I drop hundreds of millions to put my only competition in the grave when just barely improving beyond the status quo is a sound victory, gets more profits, and pleases investors???

You act like these companies are non-profits or something..

 

[theFOoL]

Well I'd say AMD cause *You could still game on the Graphics in the Chip where Intel's is still lacking of any performance gain since 2014 or whatever. Now you couldn't go Ultra settings but Low/Mid or even High depending on the game

 

[EarthDog]

Well I'd say AMD cause *You could still game on the Graphics in the Chip where Intel's is still lacking of any performance gain since 2014 or whatever. Now you couldn't go Ultra settings but Low/Mid or even High depending on the game

AMD's graphics are on low end APUs only... though Intel's graphics are still potato like and on most CPUs not on the HEDT platform.

 

[Naito]

Sorry... AMD finally gets its shit straight on the CPU side after a decade of, at best, mediocrity, and you say this??!?!?

I'm not putting the blame past AMD. It's well known that the lack of competition stagnated Intel's innovation, but Intel has used their market advantage to push around the competition. AMD has been on the back foot against Intel in the market since forever, so you can't fairly blame AMD either as they've never had the R&D budget of Intel. This makes their latest CPUs even more impressive, really.

I will still blame Intel for the vulnerabilities, however.

 

[EarthDog]

I'm not putting the blame past AMD. It's well known that the lack of competition stagnated Intel's innovation, but Intel has used their market advantage to push around the competition. AMD has been on the back foot against Intel in the market since forever, so you can't fairly blame AMD either as they've never had the R&D budget of Intel. This makes their latest CPUs even more impressive, really.

I will still blame Intel for the vulnerabilities, however.

I fairly blame AMD and the market, yes. They HAD THE LEAD for years and didn't do anything with it (where Intel's bullying arrives in part).

The vulnerabilities that really tend to affect data centers MUCH more than any home consumer. Sure.. we can blame them.

 

[RevengE]

For Gaming, Yes. That’s what I use my PC for and that’s why I went with a Core I9. AMD is looking good these days however.

 

[Vya Domus]

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?

Same guy that said :

at least I have no security issues to worry about with new ryzen. 3900x it is for me, hoping I can get a 4.8 all core no downclock with good temps on a NH-D14 cooler

Sorry mate but I keep seeing you around trolling the hell out of every AMD thread either saying how great they are or how terrible they are.

 

[dirtyferret]

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...

you won't find one but based on the same IPC and turbo clock speed as the stock 8700k , one could guestimate they would offer similar gaming performance

just sounds like a badly designed game then. hmmm that is a shame.

Gamers Nexus dropped it from their CPU gaming suite.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

I'm seeing the 9700K as Intels FX9590 moment, yes it does 5 Ghz because it needs to in order to compete or it would'nt be at 5Ghz.

ironic times indeed from haha you needs 5Ghz to haha you cant do 5Ghz.


and it amazes me how weird people are, no matter what I ever bought, ever.

I have never then gone on a site to big up my purchase while knocking my chosen brands competitor, if I buy it I did enough to help a company, let the company advertise and push their own shit , I'm not spending my time/dollar to peddle the wares of some multi billion dollar company,, that's retarded shit imho

 

[Space Lynx]

Destiny 2 doesn’t work with Ryzen? Could have fooled me. I must have been playing something else!

I tried Destiny 2 as well for a bit. Didn't like the game and uninstalled. Didn't notice any issues though.

correct destiny 2 works fine on ryzen 1000 and 2000, but 3000 chips it does not work at all, won't even launch still.

 

[dirtyferret]

I'm seeing the 9700K as Intels FX9590 moment, yes it does 5 Ghz because it needs to in order to compete or it would'nt be at 5Ghz.

ironic times indeed from haha you needs 5Ghz to haha you cant do 5Ghz.


and it amazes me how weird people are, no matter what I ever bought, ever.

I have never then gone on a site to big up my purchase while knocking my chosen brands competitor, if I buy it I did enough to help a company, let the company advertise and push their own shit , I'm not spending my time/dollar to peddle the wares of some multi billion dollar company,, that's retarded shit imho

Not following you, even gamersnexus with their newest review recommend the 9700k over Ryzen 3700 and 3900 for gaming. No one ever recommend the fx-9 for anything other then a hot plate.

 

[aQi]

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.

Most reviews are on average and over-all basis. If you are a gamer then everything counts. If Intel comes with its discrete graphics beating the red and green with friendly price tag. Still people will prefer something according to their needs. So everything is pointless untill you decide what you gona do with all the options and dollars in your pocket.

To be honest we have remarkable hardware but poor OS in terms of gaming/encoding or basically everything. And yes im talking about windows

 

[HenrySomeone]

Not following you, even gamersnexus with their newest review recommend the 9700k over Ryzen 3700 and 3900 for gaming. No one ever recommend the fx-9 for anything other then a hot plate.

Precisely, 9700k remains the go-to high-end cpu for strictly gaming or any other use case, where gaming will be the most cpu-intensive task and if the price comes down a bit, it will only further reinforce that position. I am also almost completely certain that it will still triumph even over 4000 series Ryzens. Then, if we look a notch below, 9600k is the most obvious answer and in the entry-level, it's 9400f. AMD doesn't really win in any of the main categories, only in the most budget oriented builds, one might make a case for a discounted 1st gen chips, but even then, a second hand Intel platform from a couple generations back will still be better and even cheaper. Despite what team red fanboys would like to see, AMD doesn't really have a case for gaming at all...

 

[dirtyferret]

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.

If you live by a microcenter you can pick up the 9700 non ki for $299 or the 8700 non k for $269. You can even get the Ryzen 2600 for $119 which will still give you over 100FPS in games.

 

[Space Lynx]

If you live by a microcenter you can pick up the 9700 non ki for $299 or the 8700 non k for $269. You can even get the Ryzen 2600 for $119 which will still give you over 100FPS in games.

I actually decided to stick with my gtx 1070 gaming laptop for the time being. i had the 9700 non-k in my cart on amazon but decided not to do it. my 1070 is plenty powerful enough and gives me 90 fps 90hz on most games. I guess I just wanted to move to desktop since I won't be traveling anymore, but eh the more I think about the more I realize I kind of like this form factor, so screw it.

 

[HD64G]

Tested with both Radeon 7 and 2080Ti

 

[Vayra86]

I actually decided to stick with my gtx 1070 gaming laptop for the time being. i had the 9700 non-k in my cart on amazon but decided not to do it. my 1070 is plenty powerful enough and gives me 90 fps 90hz on most games. I guess I just wanted to move to desktop since I won't be traveling anymore, but eh the more I think about the more I realize I kind of like this form factor, so screw it.

It sure is nice to sit on a load of cash and consider that purchase But I would suggest to just wait it out a little longer if you're not annoyed with your current performance, and if there is a CPU to buy at this time... not sure if its an Intel? Especially non-K, because the only perk it has is the OC clocks.

Also its worth considering that next gen (7nm) Nvidia or AMD mobile chips will be a good bit more power efficient than the current crop. Very nice for laptops, because that is where they truly gain absolute performance. A next gen laptop with just a simple 1080p panel (maybe 1440p) and an x70 could be a dream come true in terms of heat/size/performance.

 

[DR4G00N]

I'm seeing the 9700K as Intels FX9590 moment, yes it does 5 Ghz because it needs to in order to compete or it would'nt be at 5Ghz.

Except the 9590 wasn't fast & didn't compete, it was hot garbage.

I'd take a 9700K over a 3800/3900X any day because AMD's cpu's still do poorly for 3DMark.

 

[Rahnak]

Tested with both Radeon 7 and 2080Ti

The results on that video are super sketchy. I don't trust it at all.

 

[mouacyk]

@lynx29 We have some kind of innate courtesy complex that says we should appreciate underdogs, for "being able to do it too", finally, within respectable margin. Then, they show us a new trick or two, relevant or not. Elite enthusiasts weren't always -- they forget their origin stories...

 

[erocker]

9700 and 3700x are the same price. No reason to get a 9700.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Except the 9590 wasn't fast & didn't compete, it was hot garbage.

I'd take a 9700K over a 3800/3900X any day because AMD's cpu's still do poorly for 3DMark.

Nice niche bro I don't bench competitively just to measure change(admittedly a lot)

It didn't compete , neither does an I5 now in most use cases for most users.

 

[dirtyferret]

Nice niche bro I don't bench competitively just to measure change(admittedly a lot)

It didn't compete , neither does an I5 now in most use cases for most users.

The i5 is over priced but it's still more then viable and the i5 8400 and 8600k offered the best gaming performance for your dollar at launch. I'm still not sure what you are trying to say...

 

[HenrySomeone]

Recent 6 core i5s compete plenty well, especially in gaming, actually AMD with their spanking new 3000 series just barely matches or slightly beats the 9400f(and in turn 8400) and 9600k(8600k) still beats them handily when properly OCed in like 98% of games, so... Even 7600k is still holding its own in most titles. The only i5s that weren't the greatest of purchases recently were the non-k 7000 series, e.g 7400 and 7500.
Also regarding price - I recently read somewhere and then went to check it myself: on this euro site that team red loves to quote regarding sales numbers, 9600k is now 219 Euros while R5 3600 is 209 - doesn't look so good anymore for the red team, does it? At least not for gaming...

Intel Core i5 9600K 6x 3.70GHz So.1151 WOF - Sockel 1151 | Mindfactory.de

INTEL Desktop von Intel | Intel Core i5 9600K 6x 3.70GHz So.1151 WOF :: Lagernd :: über 15.270 verkauft :: 24 Jahre Kompetenz | Hier bestellen

www.mindfactory.de

AMD Ryzen 5 3600 6x 3.60GHz So.AM4 BOX - Sockel AM4 | Mindfactory.de

AMD Desktop von AMD | AMD Ryzen 5 3600 6x 3.60GHz So.AM4 BOX :: Lagernd :: über 117.880 verkauft :: 24 Jahre Kompetenz | Hier bestellen

www.mindfactory.de

 

[Deleted member 67555]

I love how my rig is holding up...18 months later and AMD is just behind...That means my platform is good at least until DDR5...nice