To be fair with the 2600(X) builds I've done lately - I've literally dropped it in, changed two settings in the BIOS (one XMP which I'd either do or setup RAM manually anyhow even on Intel) rebooted and it is all ready to go. Two more minor tweaks, if desired, to enable certain performance enhancements and they boost close to the good manual overclocks without any fuss - but the people I've built them for aren't gamers and just want solid, stable stock frequency.
-
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.
best CPU for gaming
- Thread starter Subzero85
- Start date
To be fair with the 2600(X) builds I've done lately - I've literally dropped it in, changed two settings in the BIOS (one XMP which I'd either do or setup RAM manually anyhow even on Intel) rebooted and it is all ready to go. Two more minor tweaks, if desired, to enable certain performance enhancements and they boost close to the good manual overclocks without any fuss - but the people I've built them for aren't gamers and just want solid, stable stock frequency.
Soldato
What in the blue flying f-- are you talking about? Are sweeping generalisations and assumptions the flavour of the day? Blame? What blame? The only blame I see here is you blaming AMD for everything. "You don't get bugs with Intel, only AMD have issues with hardware" ergo it's all AMD's fault. "resentment and hatred"? lolwhut? Tell you what, stop projecting your own issues onto your skewed argument and we might all have a better time of things. The spurious tripe you're posting here reveals a lot more than YOU realise.
Holy Hell, some people.
OP if you intend to play mainstream games and use mainstream hardware then you won't be impacted too much with either Intel or AMD. However, if you start to push that envelope and move into more experimental gaming hardware (i.e. virtual reality, eye tracking, hand tracking) and intend to play early access games (i.e. Escape From Tarkov) then an AMD CPU shouldn't be your first choice for gaming.
I already gave a solid example and you can't even answer the question I posed because that reveals my entire point.
Look at how you're conducting yourself, it's embarrassing. In your flying rage you've convinced yourself that I've claimed Intel get zero bugs.
I already gave a solid example and you can't even answer the question I posed because that reveals my entire point.
Look at how you're conducting yourself, it's embarrassing. In your flying rage you've convinced yourself that I've claimed Intel get zero bugs.
Last edited:
Soldato
And I countered your solid example by saying it is also a viable resolution to not by a Vive, rather than the default response of "buy Intel instead". Not quite sure where I've exhibited "rage", but if that's how you wish to interpret a counter argument then please feel free to conduct yourself in a similarly embarrassing fashion.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 May 2007
- Posts
- 3,220
It really about budget,how likely you are to overclock and if you want an easy upgrade path. If you have a large budget and want top performance Intel is currently ahead but not by as much as previously.
I had a choice between risking the new Ryzen 1700 8c/16t and an i7-6700k 4c/8t. My guess was having more cores plus the multigenerational support for the AM4 socket was a better long term buy. If the third generation of Ryzen CPU’s perform as suggested I will likely be getting a 3700x to drop in as a replacement for the 1700. So far this has worked well for me gaming on a 1080p 144 screen, with games like bf v having fps 100-144 mainly towards 144 with custom video settings in game. It has been completely stable once the simple overclock was tweaked a little.
I had a choice between risking the new Ryzen 1700 8c/16t and an i7-6700k 4c/8t. My guess was having more cores plus the multigenerational support for the AM4 socket was a better long term buy. If the third generation of Ryzen CPU’s perform as suggested I will likely be getting a 3700x to drop in as a replacement for the 1700. So far this has worked well for me gaming on a 1080p 144 screen, with games like bf v having fps 100-144 mainly towards 144 with custom video settings in game. It has been completely stable once the simple overclock was tweaked a little.
I see you're still refusing to answer the question I posed.
Sorry but your solution to using a Rift as the replacement for the official wireless adapter on the Vive makes zero sense. The Rift has no official wireless adapter and they don't plan to either. So no, that's quite far from anything considered a counter.
You can't help but type expletives in your previous post and jump to extreme elaborations while stating that devs like HTC/Valve are morons. Far from a cool headed debate.
ok just in from work, what happened at ces, should i go intel now or wait for AMD, when new amd chipsets coming out ?
Soldato
June - Id wait. They showed an 8 core Ryzen (maybe 5?) beating a 9900k inn cinebench.
Associate
Yes wait for sure, some unknown ryzen chip with 8 cores and 16 threads is virtually on par with a 9900k in cinebench but scores higher then the 9900k but not by much.
Caporegime
Wait, defiantly wait.
Top job, will definetely be buying in June though, june could come and people will be saying wait on intel late 2019 maybe, and the cycle continues 
Soldato
wait 6 months or so for possibly similar performance at stock in a benchmark that means very little and can vary upto 50pts (min/max) or just buy now and enjoy knowing you already then have the best, done. 
wait 6 months or so for possibly similar performance at stock in a benchmark that means very little and can vary upto 50pts (min/max) or just buy now and enjoy knowing you already then have the best, done.
Yeah and cinebench is not a game.
Caporegime
Top job, will definetely be buying in June though, june could come and people will be saying wait on intel late 2019 maybe, and the cycle continues
The difference is Intel are not going to be pulling a 9900K crushing CPU for around £200 "late 2019"
Any links to confirm that £200 cost ?
You post it with conviction of actual real evidence of release pricing...
Solid info would help
Thanks
Soldato
What will the core speed be like on these though?
Last edited:
No one knows the price
No one knows the clock speeds
It’s an unrealeased product and still in development.
Many are ruining the the boards at the moment by posting BS as if it’s fact.
No link will posted as he hasn’t got one.
Soldato
I'll take a future forcasting guess then & suggest the core speed will not beat intel. Meaning they will only equal intel with some heavily multi cored games and even then not be quite as good.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 895
Well we know it is an ES that is as fast as the i9 9900K in multi-core but uses less power. I forecast being cheaper. At least 100 Euro.