Overall they are evenly matched except for high fps gaming where the 5800x has a huge fps increase in select titles. Winner is the 5800X with better gaming and more power efficient, it has a way better upgrade path with AM4.
-
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.
11700K v 5800X for best gaming CPU
- Thread starter RavenXXX2
- Start date
A couple of things about this, as we have seen many times before the 5800X doesn't stretch its 20% + leads over the Intel CPU until we get to very high frame rates, and the high percentage leads are completely consistent with high FPS games. This is down to the diffrence in how much the GPU is the Bottleneck and how much the CPU is the bottleneck.
Of course they don't tell you that. Steve here calls these games "high FPS games" and makes the argument "well who needs more than 200 FPS?" there are such things as 240Hz and 360Hz screens but that's besides the point, he also uses those arguments to say "there is really no difference in performance between these CPU's" Well clearly there is.
Its this completely dismissive nature of Zen 3 performance in games that narks me a little, its as if he's a little annoyed that AMD have answered their critics and are now the best choice in CPU's no mater what you want or need them for, in other words AMD are no longer the ones whose sole existence is to provide a price check and cheap alternatives to Intel, and they don't like it because now they can't say "AMD's CPU should be much cheaper than Intel's" which has been their whole theme for years, so now what? Say that to Intel? No, never going to happen.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,457
This is known information. Not convinced it needed a new thread.
Worst thing is the 11900k doesn't really change the above at all.
Its simply a slighter higher clocked 11700k, which can likely now be counted by a little bit of curve optimising the ryzen.
Worst thing is the 11900k doesn't really change the above at all.
Its simply a slighter higher clocked 11700k, which can likely now be counted by a little bit of curve optimising the ryzen.
Agreed, people who bought that chip are insane.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,457
define pls?
Steve Burke = Gamers Nexus Steve, often referred to by fans of TechTubers as "Tech Jesus".
And every time he reviews an AMD product that is competitive with Intel he comes across as all huffy and pompous.
He does, don't know what his problem is. I always wondered how some of these people would react to a reversal of competitive positioning between AMD and Intel.
Huffy and dismissive.....
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,457
Disagree
His content is very science based
Repeatable
I have no issues with his content
His content is very science based
Repeatable
I have no issues with his content
WTF has this got to do with GN Steve?
HUB Steve gathers a lot of information and concisely presents what he feels is relevant to most people. GN Steve does very thorough job of testing products, presenting it in a more scientific way.
HUB Steve won't address the edge use cases, GN Steve is incredibly critical.
Both Steves are very good at what they do. You're probably just not their intented audiences.
HUB Steve gathers a lot of information and concisely presents what he feels is relevant to most people. GN Steve does very thorough job of testing products, presenting it in a more scientific way.
HUB Steve won't address the edge use cases, GN Steve is incredibly critical.
Both Steves are very good at what they do. You're probably just not their intented audiences.
I think another problem is Intel have always been quite willing to pay big money to do feature news, testing, benching, overclocking competitions and general stuff like that outside of the normal none paid product release reviews.
Intel aren't winning any more, clearly not, so they just don't bother with stuff like that now and AMD have never really paid for out of regular review editorials.
I'm sure Intel are trying to steer their product review editorial but to make Intel look good they would have to cherry pick and do a lot of fudging, the sort of fudging that Intel do on their marketing slides and these reviewers know their audience would see right through it.
So all they can do is damage limitation for as far as they can get away with it and run through the motions with a face that looks like they are chewing a wasp.
Be it deserved or not that's what happens when you're hyperbolically critical of AMD during their bad times and live off all the stacks Intel keep handing you, when the tables are turned AMD treat you at arms length because you didn't build up a rapport with them over the years, if anything you've set fire to your bridges. So AMD just aren't interested in supporting YOUR business..
Intel aren't winning any more, clearly not, so they just don't bother with stuff like that now and AMD have never really paid for out of regular review editorials.
I'm sure Intel are trying to steer their product review editorial but to make Intel look good they would have to cherry pick and do a lot of fudging, the sort of fudging that Intel do on their marketing slides and these reviewers know their audience would see right through it.
So all they can do is damage limitation for as far as they can get away with it and run through the motions with a face that looks like they are chewing a wasp.
Be it deserved or not that's what happens when you're hyperbolically critical of AMD during their bad times and live off all the stacks Intel keep handing you, when the tables are turned AMD treat you at arms length because you didn't build up a rapport with them over the years, if anything you've set fire to your bridges. So AMD just aren't interested in supporting YOUR business..
It has everything to do with GN Steve when you're overtired and totally get the wrong bloody YouTube thumbnail in your brain and think it's GN, not HUB.
So my bad.
Ah so this is why my thread was deleted, fair.A couple of things about this, as we have seen many times before the 5800X doesn't stretch its 20% + leads over the Intel CPU until we get to very high frame rates, and the high percentage leads are completely consistent with high FPS games. This is down to the diffrence in how much the GPU is the Bottleneck and how much the CPU is the bottleneck.
Of course they don't tell you that. Steve here calls these games "high FPS games" and makes the argument "well who needs more than 200 FPS?" there are such things as 240Hz and 360Hz screens but that's besides the point, he also uses those arguments to say "there is really no difference in performance between these CPU's" Well clearly there is.
Its this completely dismissive nature of Zen 3 performance in games that narks me a little, its as if he's a little annoyed that AMD have answered their critics and are now the best choice in CPU's no mater what you want or need them for, in other words AMD are no longer the ones whose sole existence is to provide a price check and cheap alternatives to Intel, and they don't like it because now they can't say "AMD's CPU should be much cheaper than Intel's" which has been their whole theme for years, so now what? Say that to Intel? No, never going to happen.
cc @Sarge2255
Wut? did i miss something?
No I posted a new thread with a link to the video but didn't see it had already been posted.Wut? did i miss something?
No I posted a new thread with a link to the video but didn't see it had already been posted.
Oh ok
that is, until we look at games that are not GPU bound
There are two ways to look at "CPU for gaming".
Whether one is faster than the other in absolute terms
Whether they are sufficiently fast
I am personally always more interested in former. Game performance in non GPU bound scenarios is a proxy for other workloads. Single-to-low thread, low-latency, cache intensive performance workloads.
The "sufficient" argument is used when recommending parts for new system (do you game at 1440p? etc). And then on same breath the words "future proof" will be uttered, usually in regards of number of cores.
Yet the absolute performance is much better for future proofness than plain number of cores.
Sure but when one is "sufficiently fast" and the other "excessively fast" and they cost around the same why setting for sufficient?
What is sufficient and excessive is subjective anyway but the Intel lot used to say "well if you want the best you have to pay for it" others didn't put it quite so delicately "AMD are for poor people" Now the tables have turned its all "well i play at X resolution and who needs high Frame Rates anyway????"
Its like; REALLY???????? so NOW you agree with me????
