• 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.

AMD Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000) - *** NO COMPETITOR HINTING ***

easyrider said:
And faster on 9900k? Your point? :)
Click to expand...

With a faster GPU a 9900K will get even higher performance, the point is Ryzen is a good alternative to Intel right now, in that game and some others even a Skylake i7 8 thread would not get anywhere near the performance i get.

Its not been that long since 4 core Intel's were the best you could get. not anymore. :)
 
I'm gonna jump in here.

Well intel is the performance king and amd is the budget bang for buck performance king,

4k gaming is another story your better off with a 2700x over a 9900k when playing at that res and use the saved money on a better graphics card so that is a nice alternative there.

So at stock clocks with the 2 processors used to the fullest amd is the value for performance king and the 9900k is the performance king.

But however if you overclock it which is the 2 processors changes all of that to be frank.

As far as i know a 8700k at 5ghz overclock scores the same as the 2700 x at stock clock on cinebench, so yeah with games using 6 cores the 8700k certainly is far ahead over the 2700x.

I think as time goes on and people in this thread know ryzen is a nice alternative etc, etc, etc over the intel processors or the 9900k.

my 2 p.

if you disagree with me then please correct me so i stand corrected, i must admit i am not that well informed but after spending a lot of time researching so yeah.

Dan.
 
easyrider said:
Intel only slept due to no competition....Its basic economics and how drip fed tech works.
Click to expand...

Wrong. intel are sleeping to this very date. I guess they hit a brick wall with the x86 architecture and possible performance improvements. This said, we haven't seen no meaningful IPC improvements from them for at least 5 years, maybe up to 10 years.

lltfdaniel said:
I'm gonna jump in here.
4k gaming is another story your better off with a 2700x over a 9900k when playing at that res and use the saved money on a better graphics card so that is a nice alternative there.
Dan.
Click to expand...

Yes, one will see better overall 4K performance if using Ryzen 7 2700 with RX Vega 64 than if one uses i9-9900K with RX 590.
 
4K8KW10 said:
Wrong. intel are sleeping to this very date. I guess they hit a brick wall with the x86 architecture and possible performance improvements. This said, we haven't seen no meaningful IPC improvements from them for at least 5 years, maybe up to 10 years.
Click to expand...

Yep, No competition....Drip feed your products


Yes, one will see better overall 4K performance if using Ryzen 7 2700 with RX Vega 64 than if one uses i9-9900K with RX 590.
Click to expand...

This statement is just a joke...

At 4k it doesn't matter what CPU...Its your GPU that counts...So stop with the trolling.

PLEASE Your posts are boring now.
 
lltfdaniel said:
I'm gonna jump in here.

Well intel is the performance king and amd is the budget bang for buck performance king,

4k gaming is another story your better off with a 2700x over a 9900k when playing at that res and use the saved money on a better graphics card so that is a nice alternative there.

So at stock clocks with the 2 processors used to the fullest amd is the value for performance king and the 9900k is the performance king.

But however if you overclock it which is the 2 processors changes all of that to be frank.

As far as i know a 8700k at 5ghz overclock scores the same as the 2700 x at stock clock on cinebench, so yeah with games using 6 cores the 8700k certainly is far ahead over the 2700x.

I think as time goes on and people in this thread know ryzen is a nice alternative etc, etc, etc over the intel processors or the 9900k.

my 2 p.

if you disagree with me then please correct me so i stand corrected, i must admit i am not that well informed but after spending a lot of time researching so yeah.

Dan.
Click to expand...

I agree on all counts, as it currently stands.

But, and this relates to the thread, Intel have 3% higher per-core IPC, but because AMD are a bit more efficient with Multithreading they actually score 4% high in MT when the same number of core at the same clock speed, this is Cinebench and actually taking higher tier AVX out of the equation, things that Ryzen does not yet have and needs to emulate the IPC is as Cinebench right across the board, this includes games that have been patched for Ryzen or newer games.

So what Intel have is a clock speed advantage, nothing more, if Ryzen 3000 get a 10% hike in IPC its IPC will be that much higher, add 400Mhz higher clocks and what you will end up with is a Ryzen 3000 that will have at least the same per-core performance as Intel's 9000 series.

There is not a lot that AMD need to do to catch Intel up to the point where Intel have nothing over Ryzen. so with Ryzen 3000 you will get the same per-core performance at a significantly lower cost and more cores to boot, so Intel will lose thier mainstream performance crown unless they also come up with a 12 or 16 core chip, even then all they can do is match AMD.

And i think Intel are just not going to be willing to put 12 let alone 16 cores on a Mainstream CPU at all, let alone for $400?
 
easyrider said:
Yep, No competition....Drip feed your products




This statement is just a joke...

At 4k it doesn't matter what CPU...Its your GPU that counts...So stop with the trolling.

PLEASE Your posts are boring now.
Click to expand...

To be honest you gloating about the 9900k is much more tedious than him.
 
easyrider said:
This statement is just a joke...

At 4k it doesn't matter what CPU...Its your GPU that counts...
Click to expand...

What actually counts is money or the value of the product:

What I meant is that:
1>>>2

1:
My basket at Overclockers UK:
Total: £699.48 (includes shipping: £10.50)​
​


2:
My basket at Overclockers UK:
Total: £720.48 (includes shipping: £10.50)​
​

Hope now you will get it :D :D
 
Well that is your choice it is indeed the better chip.

But there is no point in having a Ferrari that is stuck in a 30mph slow lane.

I think we already know that.

Dan.
 
4K8KW10 said:
What actually counts is money or the value of the product:

What I meant is that:
1>>>2

1:
My basket at Overclockers UK:
Total: £699.48 (includes shipping: £10.50)
​


2:
My basket at Overclockers UK:
Total: £720.48 (includes shipping: £10.50)
​

Hope now you will get it :D :D
Click to expand...

What’s not to get? £289 v £469 is the bottom line...£180 so what ?

Is the 9900k worth £180 more thats up to the individual.
 
easyrider said:
Not sure I get you?
Click to expand...

Exactly as i said like with 4K8KW10 post with the processor and gpu bundles.

In layman's terms what i was saying the 30mph slow lane is 4k gaming.

Anyways i for one would go with saving £180 by picking the ryzen 2700x over the 9900k and that is just me.

Anyways i have said enough

Dan.
 
lltfdaniel said:
Exactly as i said like with 4K8KW10 post with the processor and gpu bundles.

In layman's terms what i was saying the 30mph slow lane is 4k gaming.

Anyways i for one would go with saving £180 by picking the ryzen 2700x over the 9900k and that is just me.

Anyways i have said enough

Dan.
Click to expand...

I was thinking that myself and thought YOLO...more fun clocking 9900k than plonking in a 2700x and getting 100mhz...

5ghz 8/16 is where it’s at :D
 
easyrider said:
I was thinking that myself and thought YOLO...more fun clocking 9900k than plonking in a 2700x and getting 100mhz...

5ghz 8/16 is where it’s at :D
Click to expand...

I fully agree with you mate as have said overclocking changes the whole scene.

It makes Intel the entire winner if you can win the silicon lottery and thus get 5ghz+ speeds just by overclocking.
 
Last edited:
easyrider said:
Whatever, I’ve mentioned it a few times...but go ahead be butt hurt cause I didn’t buy an inferior chip
Click to expand...

You can buy whatever you want, some people buy gold plated toilets to make themselves feel better about their lives. Doesn't make them immune from criticism though.

For the majority of people, the 2700x is probably the better chip (and the 2600x probably better still), as they don't have unlimited money to throw at the problem and the performance gains in real world usage aren't really worth the extra outlay. The irony is that in gaming, as you've said yourself, at your screen resolution you are much more likely to be GPU limited than at lower resolutions.
 
Came in for ryzen news, read 3 pages of somebody talking about 9900k. Leaving none the wiser. @easyrider why not take the 9900k gloating into the 9900k thread (its the one directly below this one labeled 9900k) where I'm sure the circle jerk can continue in earnest.
 
Klo said:
You can buy whatever you want, some people buy gold plated toilets to make themselves feel better about their lives. Doesn't make them immune from criticism though.

For the majority of people, the 2700x is probably the better chip (and the 2600x probably better still), as they don't have unlimited money to throw at the problem and the performance gains in real world usage aren't really worth the extra outlay. The irony is that in gaming, as you've said yourself, at your screen resolution you are much more likely to be GPU limited than at lower resolutions.
Click to expand...

£180 is nothing in the grand scheme of things...Not upgraded in years so thought why not? Plus I got £400 for my 6700k

So the upgrade cost me £600

When people are wasting £1200 on a 2080ti £180 for a 9900k puts things into perspective.
 
Vince said:
Came in for ryzen news, read 3 pages of somebody talking about 9900k. Leaving none the wiser. @easyrider why not take the 9900k gloating into the 9900k thread (its the one directly below this one labeled 9900k) where I'm sure the circle jerk can continue in earnest.
Click to expand...

See that’s the problem, I’m a AMD nut probably more than most in here, but I’m not deluded.

:)
 
easyrider said:
£180 is nothing in the grand scheme of things...Not upgraded in years so thought why not? Plus I got £400 for my 6700k

So the upgrade cost me £600

When people are wasting £1200 on a 2080ti £180 for a 9900k puts things into perspective.
Click to expand...
​
Depends on what you are looking for, I can get >30+ % performance increase sacking off my 1080Ti for a 2080Ti when gaming @ 4k, a faster CPU would net me zero performance increase, so would be terrible value compared to selling off my watercooled GPU for a 2080Ti. I'd of thought the same would be true in your case with a X34P, not quite 4k but still high enough to make 1080 a bottleneck.
 
Last edited:
easyrider said:
See that’s the problem, I’m a AMD nut probably more than most in here, but I’m not deluded.

:)
Click to expand...

But nobody cares, checking this for ryzen 3000 news just becomes a massive chore when you have to filter through 3 pages of 2700x vs 9900k and the same argument comes up in almost every cpu thread. We know what the 9900k and the 2700x are capable of and have benchmarks available to us. The title of this thread is ryzen 3000, not 9900k. If I want to know how good that chip is I'll look in the thread below.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom