• 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

Threepwood said:
Aye, but if it cant reach high clock speed then there are plenty of games that it won't be as good with as intel.
Click to expand...

That's right. IF. And if it does?

My R7 2700 with a base clock of 3.2GHz at stock runs Cine15 on all cores at only 3.3GHz getting only 1500 points. At all core of 4.1GHz OC it gets 1900 points. Doubt the 7nm will OC less than a 12nm chip. A lot of IFs.
 
depending on how soon you need it, i would wait for the Ryzen 3000 series to be released and get one of those chips for maximum cpu performance. Same with the motherboards that are going to be released with it.

In the mean time you can look for other components that you can just buy now (monitor, psu, ram etc...) and then buy the mobo/cpu when they're released
 
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...

We already know its at least as fast as the 9900K with the same number of threads.

i9 9900K 16 threads = 2040
R5 3600 16 threads = 2057

And those scores are not finalised clock speeds, in fact because of its system power consumption 180 Watts 95 TDP 9900K vs 130 watts this Ryzen sample; its believed it isn't even the higher clocked 3600X but the 65 watt 3600.

Intel are in deep poo, wait is my advice.
 
humbug said:
We already know its at least as fast as the 9900K with the same number of threads.

i9 9900K 16 threads = 2040
R5 3600 16 threads = 2057

And those scores are not finalised clock speeds, in fact because of its system power consumption 180 Watts 95 TDP 9900K vs 130 watts this Ryzen sample; its believed it isn't even the higher clocked 3600X but the 65 watt 3600.

Intel are in deep poo, wait is my advice.
Click to expand...

Its the dawn of a new age... pc's are finally going to get to crazy levels of performance (from what we've had ALL this time cause of stinktel)
 
humbug said:
We already know its at least as fast as the 9900K with the same number of threads.

i9 9900K 16 threads = 2040
R5 3600 16 threads = 2057

And those scores are not finalised clock speeds, in fact because of its system power consumption 180 Watts 95 TDP 9900K vs 130 watts this Ryzen sample; its believed it isn't even the higher clocked 3600X but the 65 watt 3600.

Intel are in deep poo, wait is my advice.
Click to expand...

Well there you have it, cine bench score does not lie, to be honest i think the ipc would be the same or a bit better over the 9900k judgeing from the cinebench score.

Unless there is a way to work that one out since both processors the 9900k and the 3600 score about the same.

I mean come on the 9900k and the 3600 both have the same cores and threads and same score, what not eh... i think they have the same ipc as well which is likely.

So same score same amount of cores same amount of threads, possibly different processor architecture and same ipc.

Unless same score same cores same threads and not same instructions per clock is my argument and not having same instructions per clock should cause the score to go down i think.

Anyways people would know cinebench better than i and know it's strengths and weakness as a benchmark tool?

Either way ryzen 3000 is looking bright.

Dan.
 
Last edited:
Praz94 said:
Its the dawn of a new age... pc's are finally going to get to crazy levels of performance (from what we've had ALL this time cause of stinktel)
Click to expand...

Pinch of salt rumours but in the press briefing before the CES Keynote AMD's representatives were said to have boasted that their lowest end Ryzen 3000 would have the same number of threads as Intel best from 3 months ago (That would be the 8700K) and beat it in performance.
 
humbug said:
Pinch of salt rumours but in the press briefing before the CES Keynote AMD's representatives were said to have boasted that their lowest end Ryzen 3000 would have the same number of threads as Intel best from 3 months ago (That would be the 8700K) and beat it in performance.
Click to expand...

Jesus christ.. Its actually taking the **** if you think about what intel has been doing all these years with their pathetic quad cores.

Now that cpu's aren't going to be held back by core count, creators can get really creative and finally unleash the full potential with Ryzen.
 
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?
Click to expand...

Clearly Intel has the most bugs;

AMD bugs

Meltdown-BR
Spectre-PHT (Bounds Check Bypass)
Spectre-BTB (Branch Target Injection)

Intel bugs

Meltdown-US
Meltdown-P (Foreshadow)
Meltdown-GP (Variant 3a)
Meltdown-NM (Lazy FP)
Meltdown-RW (Variant 1.2)
Meltdown-PK
Meltdown-BR
Spectre-PHT (Bounds Check Bypass)
Spectre-BTB (Branch Target Injection)

If you're claiming that AMD has more bugs in games, then that would be down to the game developers for writing sloppy code. Either way, it sounds like you're plucking claims out of the air, in a last-ditch attempt to make AMD look bad.
 
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...

AMD beat Intel in Cinebench with an equal number of cores/threads. We dont know the clockspeed of the AMD CPU, although it would be better for AMD if the clockspeed was much lower than the Intel CPU.
If some games are heavily optimised for a certain CPU, it doesn't make that CPU faster. It would be like Usain Bolt doing the 100m race uphill and claiming he's a slower runner.
 
CuriousTomCat said:
Clearly Intel has the most bugs;

AMD bugs

Meltdown-BR
Spectre-PHT (Bounds Check Bypass)
Spectre-BTB (Branch Target Injection)

Intel bugs

Meltdown-US
Meltdown-P (Foreshadow)
Meltdown-GP (Variant 3a)
Meltdown-NM (Lazy FP)
Meltdown-RW (Variant 1.2)
Meltdown-PK
Meltdown-BR
Spectre-PHT (Bounds Check Bypass)
Spectre-BTB (Branch Target Injection)

If you're claiming that AMD has more bugs in games, then that would be down to the game developers for writing sloppy code. Either way, it sounds like you're plucking claims out of the air, in a last-ditch attempt to make AMD look bad.
Click to expand...

Didn't intel mitigate those except Foreshadow and Portsmash? But, still, if you have clients data in your network, then it's just ethical to protect them as much you can.
 
CuriousTomCat said:
I should hope so. I was just defending AMD from trentlad who thinks AMD make inferior products with more bugs.
Click to expand...

Couldn't be happier with my r5 2600. Smooth framegraphs and games just work.. *wink wink* replaced a i7 4790k which when that was bought was a fantastic cpu but was starting to show its age a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom