Not this gen is not. Last gen the CPUs were something taken from tablet or worse. This time is proper APUs, with CPU & GPU faster than 98% of the PCs, if you look at Steam survey.....
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
8600k @ 5.0ghz worth upgrading to 9700k?
- Thread starter 3t3P
- Start date
Not this gen is not. Last gen the CPUs were something taken from tablet or worse. This time is proper APUs, with CPU & GPU faster than 98% of the PCs, if you look at Steam survey.....
Depends games. I moved from 8600K @ 5Ghz to a well tuned 3900X and made big different on ESO & X4 & X:R
I am not saying it will compete with that many cores at all. As you say it depends on games and how they use multi cores or single cores.
I agree.
I can see why people have this view, consoles have been overhyped and under delivered for the last two generations which covers the last 15 years. But this coming generation IS different - as a PC who is not blinded by console fanboy bias, I see through the marketing and can see how powerful the specs on these machines are. The next gen consoles are definitely not being overhyped by most people. there are a small handful of people who think 8k 60fps gaming will be possible, that is very unrealistic but these machines are faster than the vast majority of PCs out there, they will deliver much closer to expectations than the last 15 years of consoles
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2015
- Posts
- 3,043
Previously I wouldn't recommend AMD. Now I wouldn't recommend new purchases of Intel.
What you recommend then? Qualcomm?
AMD, at least that's how i read it.....
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2015
- Posts
- 3,043
What you recommend then? Qualcomm?
Previously I ran 2700X for 6 months but sold it because it was still behind 9900K. Zen+ was only good at bang for the buck.
Now I just discovered that even 3700X is doing a fairly great job compared against 9900K (both single-thread and multi-thread).
I'm not saying that existing 9900K users should switch to AMD, but I certainly wouldn't recommend anyone continue to buy into Intel for the foreseeable future.
Ya... the 9900K is still top dog for gaming, and most productivity tasks when compared to an 8 core Ryzen 3000, you do pay for that, its £200 more, nothing wrong with that, if what you are looking for is the "Ultimate Gaming CPU" there it is...
The difference tho between it and something like a 3700X is not huge, so if you want a really fast CPU, including gaming, for a solid chunk less, a 3700X is about 90% the performance of the 9900K for a lot less, great...
Something for everyone, real competition. These are good times.
On a personal note a Ryzen 3600 makes much more sense than a 9600K, yes in low threaded games the 9600K is a bit faster, much like the 3700X vs 9900K, but in some higher threaded games the 3600 is actually better, there is plenty on the internet from both professional reviewers are ordinary users to say the 9600K suffers from stutter in a small number of games because of a lack of threads, the 3600 on the other hand compared directly to the 9600K doesn't, this will only get worse as games become more advanced. And the 3600 is significantly faster in productivity, its a better all round chip, including for gaming.
Its not that AMD win, Intel lose. I Win
Edit: To keep SMT on lower end CPU's is the smartest decision AMD have made in a long time, the 3600 is now the best-selling chip and by a country mile.... in some outlets AMD sell more 3600's than Intel sell CPU's!
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2015
- Posts
- 3,043
About two years ago I strongly disagreed with your AMD-evangelism. It turns out that you had been correct with the AM4 socket after so many things have evolved.Ya... the 9900K is still top dog for gaming, and most productivity tasks when compared to an 8 core Ryzen 3000, you do pay for that, its £200 more, nothing wrong with that, if what you are looking for is the "Ultimate Gaming CPU" there it is...
The difference tho between it and something like a 3700X is not huge, so if you want a really fast CPU, including gaming, for a solid chunk less, a 3700X is about 90% the performance of the 9900K for a lot less, great...
Something for everyone, real competition. These are good times.
On a personal note a Ryzen 3600 makes much more sense than a 9600K, yes in low threaded games the 9600K is a bit faster, much like the 3700X vs 9900K, but in some higher threaded games the 3600 is actually better, there is plenty on the internet from both professional reviewers are ordinary users to say the 9600K suffers from stutter in a small number of games because of a lack of threads, the 3600 on the other hand compared directly to the 9600K doesn't, this will only get worse as games become more advanced. And the 3600 is significantly faster in productivity, its a better all round chip, including for gaming.
Its not that AMD win, Intel lose. I Win
Edit: To keep SMT on lower end CPU's is the smartest decision AMD have made in a long time, the 3600 is now the best-selling chip and by a country mile.... in some outlets AMD sell more 3600's than Intel sell CPU's!
- IPC of Zen2 has vastly improved for the 3000 series. I couldn't believe this until I personally tested it, especially inside a small form factor case where cooling is limited, the eco-friendly 3700X destroys the 9900K for multi-thread tasks due to much better efficiency. The 9900K is more like a CPU designed for 200W TDP. But again, if the next generation of Ryzen will have another 15% improvement of IPC, then Intel needs to hit 5.75GHz to keep up with single-thread performance. Good luck with Intel
- PS5 and Xbox Series X both have assumed the 3700X to be the choice of CPU. Console game developers will optimise games for more cores and threads, as well as for Zen2's architecture. These games ported from console to PC will likely run better on AMD CPUs. My guess is that the 3600 will no doubt last much longer than the 9600K and maybe even longer than the 9700K due to consoles favouring AMD.
- It's also amusing to see Intel's 9700K, 8700K etc all just got beat up by AMD's laptop CPUs (e.g. Ryzen 4900HS). I certainly wouldn't enjoy running a desktop power-hog when I know that someone has a laptop with better performance!
About two years ago I strongly disagreed with your AMD-evangelism. It turns out that you had been correct with the AM4 socket after so many things have evolved.
- IPC of Zen2 has vastly improved for the 3000 series. I couldn't believe this until I personally tested it, especially inside a small form factor case where cooling is limited, the eco-friendly 3700X destroys the 9900K for multi-thread tasks due to much better efficiency. The 9900K is more like a CPU designed for 200W TDP. But again, if the next generation of Ryzen will have another 15% improvement of IPC, then Intel needs to hit 5.75GHz to keep up with single-thread performance. Good luck with Intel
- PS5 and Xbox Series X both have assumed the 3700X to be the choice of CPU. Console game developers will optimise games for more cores and threads, as well as for Zen2's architecture. These games ported from console to PC will likely run better on AMD CPUs. My guess is that the 3600 will no doubt last much longer than the 9600K and maybe even longer than the 9700K due to consoles favouring AMD.
- It's also amusing to see Intel's 9700K, 8700K etc all just got beat up by AMD's laptop CPUs (e.g. Ryzen 4900HS). I certainly wouldn't enjoy running a desktop power-hog when I know that someone has a laptop with better performance!
Nice of you to say so thanks
AMD are a very good Semi conductor company, they have a history of doing good things, AthlonXP, First X86 multicore CPU, _64, HSA, UMA...... when they have a bit of money they can do stuff, AMD have a process advantage in TSMC's 7nm but that's not the only thing, regardless on the process the CPU core still needs to be fast and power efficient.
Infinity Fabric is another one of those game changing technologies, AMD are splitting the CPU up into its constituent parts so the CPU can be made with mixed lithography processes, the core clusters can be split apart into smaller units making them cheaper to manufacture, glue more of them together to easily make very high core count CPU's, there are complex architectures, technology, IP involved in all this to make it work so that everything ties together in a "Fabric" with little performance loss, its complicated stuff and AMD pulled it off..... And there are so many more possibilities with this technology, they are only just getting started.
To be brutally frank i just don't see Intel in quite the same league.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 5,165
- Location
- South Wales
It's just a shame AMD didn't have better performance from the start with Zen, meaning stuff that favours lower latency or frequency like Intel chips do with gaming. Zen 2 chips are in a good position but seeings it's a new architecture i think some people expected more when comparing to Intel, especially because of the rumours that were going around. Zen 2 got closer but I'm thinking Intel will still have an advantage in games even when Zen 3 comes out, it will probably just close the gap a bit more rather than match/beat them.
Step by step.
AMD came from nothing, They spent a few years developing the technology with little money.
Get the product out there when its good enough, earn some money off the back of it and put it back into R&D to develop it further, Zen and Zen+ are the same CPU with slight tweaks from lessons learned, Zen 2 is a further development, Zen 3 will be again....
AMD now have some R&D money, now they can move forward, even shove some the GPU's divisions way....
AMD came from nothing, They spent a few years developing the technology with little money.
Get the product out there when its good enough, earn some money off the back of it and put it back into R&D to develop it further, Zen and Zen+ are the same CPU with slight tweaks from lessons learned, Zen 2 is a further development, Zen 3 will be again....
AMD now have some R&D money, now they can move forward, even shove some the GPU's divisions way....
Last edited:
Then the accountants will get involved when they are successful, slash the r&d budget and focus on pushing out the same architecture again and again, intel will catch up because they will have had to do R&D and then the cycle will begin again.
I hope if or when that time comes Dr Sue tells the bean counters to #### off.
Haha yes you would hope so but the shareholders will probably see otherwise. Why waste money on R&D when we are making money now?
Because Intel are for from completely useless.
Right now Intel are still shell shocked, their failure to get 10nm working to an effective level, They are running round constantly putting out security fires in their CPU's, turns out their architecture is so bad they have probably lost confidence in themselves and are afraid to commit to any future designs, They did not expect Zen to be as good as it was, they did not expect Zen 2 to be as good as it is and because AMD are, or at least had not been all that good with power management they didn't expect Zen 2 Laptops as good as they turned out to be, Intel in their arrogance had written AMD off as incompetent over and over again.
You would think with AMD seeing the effect of getting too comfortable has they would learn from it. And AMD fear Intel, despite AMD frankly crushing them in technology terms right now they are afraid the big blue beast will wake up, get its #### together and find a way to fight back, the level of healthy respect Intel should have for AMD but doesn't. Yet!
AMD know they cannot just stop when they are ahead.
Last edited:
