• 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

LePhuronn said:
AMD kit has always benefit from a bit of fiddling, and at stock there's always a little bit of performance missing. AMD kit has always tried to push the boat out - to mixed success - and try a few different things. However much of a shocker Bulldozer and its successors turned out to be, AMD tried a different approach with it, they got 8 cores to the mainstream a long time before Intel were forced to, they got 5GHz boost clock years ago, but you can't just "drop in and go" with AMD (even now with Ryzen) and it's seen as inferior as a result.
Click to expand...

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.
 
trentlad said:
Are you honestly trying to tell me that a gamer using an Intel CPU would be just as likely to encounter bugs in new games and new technology than a gamer using an AMD CPU? If so, there's literally zero point continuing this exchange and you can continue blaming everyone else.

I can only imagine the resentment and hatred in your comments towards devs emanate from your own experiences with your very own AMD CPU. Reveals a lot more than you realize.

You said it! While you're waiting, I'll be gaming.
Click to expand...

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.


LePhuronn said:
"You don't get bugs with Intel, only AMD have issues with hardware" ergo it's all AMD's fault.
Click to expand...

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:
trentlad said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
LePhuronn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 ?
 
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 :)
 
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. :D
 
Subzero85 said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

The difference is Intel are not going to be pulling a 9900K crushing CPU for around £200 "late 2019"
 
Threepwood said:
IWhat will the core speed be like on these though?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Threepwood said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom