• 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.

Zen2. Is Intel now the gamers choice & price/perf king?

Soldato
Joined
5 Nov 2010
Posts
23,904
Location
Hertfordshire
This is a terrible thread. Zen2 isn't even out yet, why would anyone choose one over the other before actually knowing what one of them really is, how it really performs or how much it costs.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Nov 2005
Posts
10,910
Location
manchester,uk
Yes, with one garbage Asus mobo, a Prime X570-P.
While for the same price you might get better Z390 boards such as ASRock Z390 EXTREME4, Gigabyte Z390 AORUS ELITE and Asus PRIME Z390-A.

The Asus X570 Prime is garbage but the Z390 version is good :confused: Not sure how you come to that conclusion. Try running an overclocked 9900K on the Prime Z390-A and see how your VRM temps are ;)
 
Caporegime
Joined
24 Dec 2005
Posts
40,065
Location
Autonomy
What a silly thread.

I had a 9900k sold it...for what I paid...Got a refund on the Asus Hero costing £260

Then bought a MSI Gaming Carbon for £109

I'll be dropping in a 3900x...I'll have 9900k performance...4 more cores for less money....
 
Soldato
Joined
24 Feb 2013
Posts
4,125
Location
East Midlands
I don't know why it's even worth arguing when with amd you're getting a drop in upgrade path as well as pcie4 for hardly anything extra. In 2020, 2021 it's highly likely you could drop in an even faster 12/24 with the best ddr4 memory before ddr5 and regardless of this and pcie5, you'll be good for years to come. This is of course all on the basis of the things we know so far.
 
Caporegime
Joined
1 Jun 2006
Posts
33,484
Location
Notts
What a silly thread.

I had a 9900k sold it...for what I paid...Got a refund on the Asus Hero costing £260

Then bought a MSI Gaming Carbon for £109

I'll be dropping in a 3900x...I'll have 9900k performance...4 more cores for less money....

and in games be slower. for the life time of the new amd processor.

it actually dumbfounds me that people have swallowed the amd hook. the benchmark slide for eg posted earlier. they used a 2080 gtx why ? because the framerates are closer to intel with that still slower than a 9900k ingames overall but close enough . add in a 2080ti then you see the gap grow with intel cpus. you will see this in benchmarks soon. you are basically paying for more cores. if you use those extra cores of 12+ its amazing for you. if you dont use more than 8 then you buying a slower product. makes no sense. pricing needs to change. i think it will once the hype dies down a little and the true benchmarks are out.

the funny thing is gaming elite benchmark slide even shows that the £400 8 core amd new cpu is slower in games than a current 9700k 8 core cpu which costs as little as £350 :p .
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Jun 2009
Posts
6,847
and in games be slower. for the life time of the new amd processor.

it actually dumbfounds me that people have swallowed the amd hook. the benchmark slide for eg posted earlier. they used a 2080 gtx why ? because the framerates are closer to intel with that still slower than a 9900k ingames overall but close enough . add in a 2080ti then you see the gap grow with intel cpus. you will see this in benchmarks soon. you are basically paying for more cores. if you use those extra cores of 12+ its amazing for you. if you dont use more than 8 then you buying a slower product. makes no sense. pricing needs to change. i think it will once the hype dies down a little and the true benchmarks are out.

the funny thing is gaming elite benchmark slide even shows that the £400 8 core amd new cpu is slower in games than a current 9700k 8 core cpu which costs as little as £350 :p .
Uuuuuh, anyone who doesn't have a RTX 2080 Ti doesn't care mate.
 
Caporegime
Joined
1 Jun 2006
Posts
33,484
Location
Notts
the point is the intel cpu is cheaper and quicker in games at said resolution. having a 2080 ti is irrelevant. the only reason i mentioned it is because amd didnt show the benchmarks with that card in because it shows the gap is bigger. moving the goal posts.
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Jun 2009
Posts
6,847
the point is the intel cpu is cheaper and quicker in games at said resolution. having a 2080 ti is irrelevant. the only reason i mentioned it is because amd didnt show the benchmarks with that card in because it shows the gap is bigger. moving the goal posts.
I absolutely agree that their comparison was a bit odd - comparing a £350 i7-9700K to a £380 R7 3800X with the latter losing slightly in gaming (but far ahead in creation workloads). However, there are no goal posts, you're literally creating and planting them yourself. OK, maybe fifty people on the planet care about a few extra FPS while playing at 1080p with a 2080 Ti. No-one else does, so why keep bringing it up?

Except when in 2 years time the xx70 card is as fast as a 2080ti.....
Got to love AMD marketing, 1st gen ryzen was all about 4k/1440p now it's all about 1080p.
And we, myself including swallowed it all up.
You mean in 5+ years presumably. GPUs haven't become more affordable (for a given performance band) for, what, 3 years now?

Again, the twenty people with 1080p 240 Hz monitors who cannot do without those last 10 FPS appreciate you both posting in this type of thread (again).
 
Caporegime
Joined
1 Jun 2006
Posts
33,484
Location
Notts
I absolutely agree that their comparison was a bit odd - comparing a £350 i7-9700K to a £380 R7 3800X with the latter losing slightly in gaming (but far ahead in creation workloads). However, there are no goal posts, you're literally creating and planting them yourself. OK, maybe fifty people on the planet care about a few extra FPS while playing at 1080p with a 2080 Ti. No-one else does, so why keep bringing it up?

im not moving the goalposts. the benchmark they shown was for gaming. its a gaming benchmark that people have ranted on here for months with no knowledge that new amd cpus were as fast as a 9900k. AMDs own benchmark shows they cant even match a 9700k at games. which is the benchmark we talking about. im talking about actual proof shown by AMD that they cant match a cheaper intel cpu in gaming.

yet again you are bringing a 2080ti into the mix. i only suggested why amd didnt show the benchmarks with a 2080 ti . not to go get one or if its even worth it. how is that hard to understand ? AMD have moved the goal posts so they look better to get more people to buy a slower product. even show they have a slower product with their own benchmark shown by there leader on stage in front of millions. how can anyone even deny that its slower and dearer .

if we look at the two cpus in the benchmark the only real problem is amds pricing. as i have said now for a while. i said months ago at gaming amd wont be better or faster. the pricing needs to change make em cheaper then they will be great value for GAMING .
 
Associate
Joined
21 Sep 2018
Posts
895
I absolutely agree that their comparison was a bit odd - comparing a £350 i7-9700K to a £380 R7 3800X with the latter losing slightly in gaming (but far ahead in creation workloads). However, there are no goal posts, you're literally creating and planting them yourself. OK, maybe fifty people on the planet care about a few extra FPS while playing at 1080p with a 2080 Ti. No-one else does, so why keep bringing it up?


You mean in 5+ years presumably. GPUs haven't become more affordable (for a given performance band) for, what, 3 years now?

Again, the twenty people with 1080p 240 Hz monitors who cannot do without those last 10 FPS appreciate you both posting in this type of thread (again).

Oh noes, dont pair the 9700K to 1080P. Gonna bottleneck.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCsQeFqnZWY

Also, it runs out of cores in Battlefield.
 
Back
Top Bottom