I don't really know where to post this as we don't appear to have a "General Discussion" section that focuses on general topics rather than specific hardware issues or people asking for advice on a particular piece of hardware and build advice.
So, I've been toying with a new build for some time now, and like most, I had been waiting for the release of the next generation AMD chipset before making a decision on how to go forward with my new build.
Now that the chips have finally been released and the real world benchmarks have begun to appear, as a gamer I'm struggling to see why you would take the 3700X over the alternative 9700K. There is a £19 difference in favor of the 3700X but the benchmarking puts the 9700K out in front in every game test that I've seen (averaging anywhere from 5-15% which in today's CPU world is pretty big). To be fair to the 3700X it does hold its own and win out in the majority of production/creation based tasks and activities (and by some margin depending on the software/task benchmarked). This trend appears to continue across the range, with the 3900X and 9900K (the £19 difference in favor of the 9900K on this occasion). Aside from a few obscurities which are always experienced during benchmarking the Intel chips at the same price points appear to come out on top.
Once you factor in the exorbitant prices for the newest X570 motherboards (take comparable Asus TUF Gaming boards as an example - Z390 £145 / X570 £240), sure you get the improvements with things like PCIe 4 but from current hardware and existing data is this even offering an improvement that can justify the cost? (I'm a firm believer in that "futureproofing" doesn't really exist and at the point of upgrade you are most likely outdated to a level where a full build is a more obvious option - basically if you buy today you are highly unlikely to upgrade during this product life cycle meaning by the time you do the compatibility and new availability mean you'll opt for the new build over sourcing what would be "legacy" components to try and extend the life cycle of the system which you'll inevitably upgrade anyway). Sure you could drop back down to a X470/B450 board but wouldn't that defeat the purpose of going for the new 3000 series chipset... or are the improvements between the two so marginal that this would actually be the "preferred" option when compiling a new build (this would bring the two in-line with one another price wise at least).
Effectively, the majority of people would opt for the AMD build over Intel for the savings, but in this case, you appear to be paying more for less... which just doesn't add up. Are people being drawn in by clever marketing, have the reviewers and benchmarks got it wrong (or furthermore, have I misinterpreted the information?).
Looking at everything we know so far about Ryzen 3000 is it actually the "best" choice when it comes to building a new gaming PC in 2019, or has the 9 months "lead" that Intel has had with their 9000 series give them better market position due to prices dropping since launch and more availability on components making a build come in far cheaper?
Sorry for the ramblings, on new medication and suffering a serious bout of insomnia haha! Just some food for thought and definitely something I thought worthy of discussion with everyone here on Overclockers. Additionally, if I've got this wrong or missed something vital please point it out (knowledge is power!) as it easy to get lost in a wall of data/charts/benchmarking and I've now been on-the-go for 72 hours so fell a little sleep deprived lol!
So, I've been toying with a new build for some time now, and like most, I had been waiting for the release of the next generation AMD chipset before making a decision on how to go forward with my new build.
Now that the chips have finally been released and the real world benchmarks have begun to appear, as a gamer I'm struggling to see why you would take the 3700X over the alternative 9700K. There is a £19 difference in favor of the 3700X but the benchmarking puts the 9700K out in front in every game test that I've seen (averaging anywhere from 5-15% which in today's CPU world is pretty big). To be fair to the 3700X it does hold its own and win out in the majority of production/creation based tasks and activities (and by some margin depending on the software/task benchmarked). This trend appears to continue across the range, with the 3900X and 9900K (the £19 difference in favor of the 9900K on this occasion). Aside from a few obscurities which are always experienced during benchmarking the Intel chips at the same price points appear to come out on top.
Once you factor in the exorbitant prices for the newest X570 motherboards (take comparable Asus TUF Gaming boards as an example - Z390 £145 / X570 £240), sure you get the improvements with things like PCIe 4 but from current hardware and existing data is this even offering an improvement that can justify the cost? (I'm a firm believer in that "futureproofing" doesn't really exist and at the point of upgrade you are most likely outdated to a level where a full build is a more obvious option - basically if you buy today you are highly unlikely to upgrade during this product life cycle meaning by the time you do the compatibility and new availability mean you'll opt for the new build over sourcing what would be "legacy" components to try and extend the life cycle of the system which you'll inevitably upgrade anyway). Sure you could drop back down to a X470/B450 board but wouldn't that defeat the purpose of going for the new 3000 series chipset... or are the improvements between the two so marginal that this would actually be the "preferred" option when compiling a new build (this would bring the two in-line with one another price wise at least).
Effectively, the majority of people would opt for the AMD build over Intel for the savings, but in this case, you appear to be paying more for less... which just doesn't add up. Are people being drawn in by clever marketing, have the reviewers and benchmarks got it wrong (or furthermore, have I misinterpreted the information?).
Looking at everything we know so far about Ryzen 3000 is it actually the "best" choice when it comes to building a new gaming PC in 2019, or has the 9 months "lead" that Intel has had with their 9000 series give them better market position due to prices dropping since launch and more availability on components making a build come in far cheaper?
Sorry for the ramblings, on new medication and suffering a serious bout of insomnia haha! Just some food for thought and definitely something I thought worthy of discussion with everyone here on Overclockers. Additionally, if I've got this wrong or missed something vital please point it out (knowledge is power!) as it easy to get lost in a wall of data/charts/benchmarking and I've now been on-the-go for 72 hours so fell a little sleep deprived lol!
