• 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.

Core 9000 series

  • Core i9-9900K (8 Core / 16 Thread) ~450 USD
  • Core i7-9700K (8 Core / 8 Thread) ~350 USD
  • Core i5-9600K (6 Core / 6 Thread) ~250 USD
  • Core i3-9350K (4 Core / 4 Thread) ~170 USD

These are the price of 12core CPUs these days. Someone didn't notified Intel about it :P
 
You trade multi core performance for single core performance. For regular consumer stuff single core is a lot more relevant but a lot of people deluded themselves into thinking that you need 32 cores to play CSGO and have Chrome and Discord open in the background.
 
AndreiD said:
You trade multi core performance for single core performance. For regular consumer stuff single core is a lot more relevant but a lot of people deluded themselves into thinking that you need 32 cores to play CSGO and have Chrome and Discord open in the background.
Click to expand...

+1
 
AndreiD said:
You trade multi core performance for single core performance. For regular consumer stuff single core is a lot more relevant but a lot of people deluded themselves into thinking that you need 32 cores to play CSGO and have Chrome and Discord open in the background.
Click to expand...

Which will run fine off a non overclocked quad core.
 
AndreiD said:
You trade multi core performance for single core performance. For regular consumer stuff single core is a lot more relevant but a lot of people deluded themselves into thinking that you need 32 cores to play CSGO and have Chrome and Discord open in the background.
Click to expand...

My way of thinking too,,, Also when games dont use all gpu or cpu power but run plenty smooth enough, people say "its badly coded or whatever....I dont see the point of games using more power then needed, its pointless.
 
P.B said:
My old 3930k did 4.9ghz got 1235 cinebench score which is only 70 points of my 4.4ghz 6800k :(
Click to expand...

The top score (1324) in this is at 3.95Ghz

iVTgxPy.png
 
gavinh87 said:
So we'll done for beating a 7 year old cpu by 100 points in cinebench.......
You are easily pleased, humbug.
Click to expand...

It also beats the previous generation HEDT 6 core at 4.4Ghz.

Do you think that's bad for a 1'st gen mid rage Ryzen? i think that's really damned good, an excellent score full stop, it beats a 5Ghz 8600K.
 
humbug said:
It also beats the previous generation HEDT 6 core at 4.4Ghz.

Do you think that's bad for a 1'st gen mid rage Ryzen? i think that's really damned good, an excellent score full stop, it beats a 5Ghz 8600K.
Click to expand...

No I don't think it's bad. But it's certainly not as good as people like yourself make it out to be.
As for beating the 8600k, hardly surprising given it has 6 extra threads in a test that uses all available threads is it??
The same way I'm not surprised the 8700k beats 8600k, that is similar to what you are comparing it to.
 
gavinh87 said:
No I don't think it's bad. But it's certainly not as good as people like yourself make it out to be.
As for beating the 8600k, hardly surprising given it has 6 extra threads in a test that uses all available threads is it??
The same way I'm not surprised the 8700k beats 8600k, that is similar to what you are comparing it to.
Click to expand...

The Ryzen 1600 was a £160 CPU 18 Months ago, yes its been that long, it was on-sale at the same time as the £450 6800K that it beats, before the £220 8600K that it also beats.

Its replacement is even faster scoring 1450.
 
AndreiD said:
You trade multi core performance for single core performance. For regular consumer stuff single core is a lot more relevant but a lot of people deluded themselves into thinking that you need 32 cores to play CSGO and have Chrome and Discord open in the background.
Click to expand...

No one thinks you need 32 cores to game.
 
Phil2008 said:
People need to stop doing benchies and use the things in the real world, and then tell us if more cores are better or not
Click to expand...

Better at what?

For my usage profile, yes, more cores is better - aptly illustrated by this Blender run.

8JEOL73.png


The reason we use benchies like the above is that I'm hardly going to share my commercial files with you am I? So we use real world apps (e.g. Blender or Cinema4D) so we can compare performance.
 
humbug said:
The Ryzen 1600 was a £160 CPU 18 Months ago, yes its been that long, it was on-sale at the same time as the £450 6800K that it beats, before the £220 8600K that it also beats.

Its replacement is even faster scoring 1450.
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah we've heard it all before. It isn't that good. The only reason Intel were allowed to get away with that performance and prices for so long was because of AMD's shocking fx series.
Yeah AMD are onto something decent with ryzen and might be able to best Intel across the board in the next iterations. So far it's hit and miss, in some benches they are nowhere near.
So no, it isn't as good as you think it is and certainly doesn't warrant you banging on about it in every thread.
Don't you have enough ryzen threads?
 
gavinh87 said:
Yeah yeah we've heard it all before. It isn't that good. The only reason Intel were allowed to get away with that performance and prices for so long was because of AMD's shocking fx series.
Yeah AMD are onto something decent with ryzen and might be able to best Intel across the board in the next iterations. So far it's hit and miss, in some benches they are nowhere near.
So no, it isn't as good as you think it is and certainly doesn't warrant you banging on about it in every thread.
Don't you have enough ryzen threads?
Click to expand...

I remember when Ryzen and its performance was just a rumour, people screaming Intel would crush Ryzen soon after with brand new architectures they have up their sleeves because Intel = God.

Intel are still rehashing the same CPU's over and over again two years on and will be for the next two years, meanwhile AMD are running off into the distance.

Yes i am pretty down on Intel right now, for years they took us for granted and fleeced us for everything rehashing the same stuff over and over again, and still they are trying to do the same thing, AMD made a massive **** up with the FX line, absolute junk, but that's no excuse for Intel's behaviour during those years, and the absolutely despicable behaviour the last time AMD was kicking Intel's arse... now they are getting their just deserve.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
I remember when Ryzen and its performance was just a rumour, people screaming Intel would crush Ryzen soon after with brand new architectures they have up their sleeves because Intel = God.

Intel are still rehashing the same CPU's over and over again two years on and will be for the next two years, meanwhile AMD are running off into the distance.

Yes i am pretty down on Intel right now, for years they took us for granted and fleeced us for everything rehashing the same stuff over and over again, and still they are trying to do the same thing, AMD made a massive **** up with the FX line, absolute junk, but that's no excuse for Intel's behaviour during those years, and the absolutely despicable behaviour the last time AMD was kicking Intel's arse... now they are getting their just deserve.
Click to expand...

How about if Intel didn't get complacent during the FX years?
If Intel kept improving at any decent rate then AMD would have no chance right now.
When ryzen can beat Intel in every benchmark and test I'll look at ryzen in a different way.
For now, as I've said it's hit and miss. If your programs don't use every available thread then with ryzen you are SOL and need to keep your fingers crossed that the performance isn't worst than your last CPU.
 
gavinh87 said:
How about if Intel didn't get complacent during the FX years?
If Intel kept improving at any decent rate then AMD would have no chance right now.
When ryzen can beat Intel in every benchmark and test I'll look at ryzen in a different way.
For now, as I've said it's hit and miss. If your programs don't use every available thread then with ryzen you are SOL and need to keep your fingers crossed that the performance isn't worst than your last CPU.
Click to expand...

I don't care.

After 5 years away AMD slapped a mid range £160 6 core on the table and it beat Intel's £450 HEDT, that just shows how absolutely pathetic, fat and complacent Intel had got.

One brand or the other i don't care which the fact is Intel took us for **nts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom