• 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.

Can Intel Beat the Ultimate AMD Gaming PC?

The interesting thing as well is that's just for gaming. Add in the effect of streaming etc and the double number of cores and threads will just stretch the lead further!
 
Yeah, in gaming the Intel is just a little behind, but with half the cores, it's going to drown against the AMD as soon as you do anything with productivity, or anything at the same time as gaming such as streaming. I only expect that gap to get bigger as more games arrive with heavy multicore support because the hardware is in the consoles. The real problem is supply constraints, and there are people going Intel because you can get those CPUs and Intel has slashed prices to make them sell.

It's pretty amazing how many games are coming out on PC now. There's a few XB or PS5 exclusives, but almost anything that's on either console is also going to be on a PC too.
 
And........................................................................................................................................................it's a NO from me.
 
The hilarious thing about this video, and alluded to in fact, is that the 5950X doesn't really perform better in pure gaming than the 5800X. So you don't even need to build the "ultimate" Ryzen rig, Intel can't even beat the mid-range CPU. Bonus chuckle that the 11900K is more expensive than the 5800X, AMD wins and is cheaper too!
 
Take a £900 AMD CPU and a £600 Intel CPU, compare them and conclude the £900 AMD CPU is better, but caveat that with "But the £600 Intel CPU is cheaper" and yet in their testing the £390 version of the AMD CPU is just the same and there in also faster.

This is the problem with videos like this, you take what is apparently the best of each but completely omitting the fact that the more expensive CPU is anything up to twice as fast, while there are other CPU's that are cheaper and still faster, but are not "the ultimate" of the range.
 
I think this video, humbug, is simply illustrating the role reversal Intel and AMD find themselves in right now. You can take literally every word you just posted and apply it to the 9900K and all the Ryzen competition at that time. You didn't need a 9900K to beat Ryzen in pure gaming performance, but it was the "ultimate" performer and coveted by those who will pay for the best of the best, regardless of how much it costs.

Did the 9900K game much better than a 9700K? Did the 3800X offer sufficient gaming performance? Doesn't matter, frame chasers and the elitists always went for the 9900K (and KS). It's exactly the same now, only this time the frame chasers will go for the 5950X.

This is not a video for logic, balance and min/maxing components for best bang for buck, it's simply outright Intel's best vs AMD's best and who wins. And dare I say turning the Intel faithful's old 9900K argument back on them.
 
philo-sofa said:
Now it's £839 for a 5950X, £629 for a 5900X.

The latter obviously makes a good comparison to the 11900K right now in terms of price points. But we should really be comparing the £389 5800X to the top Intel chip; they're both eight cores after all.
Click to expand...

Well one could compare to the 11900K, if one could find it anywhere, bar a small launch amount, it still doesn't really seem to exist anywhere.
 
philo-sofa said:
But we should really be comparing the £389 5800X to the top Intel chip
Click to expand...
But that's not the point of the video. The point of the video is to cut out all arguments and take the best Intel offers, the best AMD offers and face them off against each other to see who prevails as the best gaming rig.

Let's save the other permutations for when the Intel apologists come out and start rehashing Ryzen's arguments for themselves ;)

But in seriousness, doing the comparison you've said nets the same result.

Best (11900K) vs Best (5950X): Ryzen wins
Best (11900K) vs price equivalent (5900X): Ryzen wins
Best (11900K) vs core equivalent (5800X): Ryzen wins
Actual best (10900K) vs any of the above: Ryzen wins

Actually in stock (11600K or 11400F) vs actually in stock (5600X): Ryzen wins
Actually in stock (11600K or 11400F) vs actually in stock at a price you're willing to pay (nil): Intel wins


All hail the 11400F!
 
LePhuronn said:
But that's not the point of the video. The point of the video is to cut out all arguments and take the best Intel offers, the best AMD offers and face them off against each other to see who prevails as the best gaming rig.

Let's save the other permutations for when the Intel apologists come out and start rehashing Ryzen's arguments for themselves ;)
Click to expand...
Yeah you’re right, it’s a bit of a derail to even talk about the best of one team versus the other.’

But it’s still the (irrelevant) case that eight cores should really be benchmarked against eight cores. In truth Intel aren’t even competing at the highest end anymore due to 14nm.

Anyway: sorry for sought derail. It’s been my thing today.
 
philo-sofa said:
But it’s still the (irrelevant) case that eight cores should really be benchmarked against eight cores.
Click to expand...

Alternatively the £599 11900k should be benchmarked against the £629 5900X. I would argue that the equivalent cost comparison is more relevant than a core to core comparison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom