• 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

Jamie Archer said:
d

I'm going to guess you are a Linux user and that in itself must be pretty difficult in terms of finding compatible games/software for it in the first place .....There is Directx12 with windows 10 and isnt Nvidia renowned for having the better and more frequently updated drivers?
Click to expand...

I use Linux and Windows. Unix a little too. Nvidia drivers are lagging behind AMD I'd say.

I think the most difficult aspect or frustrating is finding games worth playing.
 
Jamie Archer said:
Poople make constant points on future proofing and value for money being with amd and so on, but please correct me if im wrong here but as gpu's improve and provide higher framerates at the higher resolutiions, wont this then increase draw calls for the cpu, thus resulting in being reverted back to the same situations at 1440p+ as we already do now at 1080p? (where cpu clockspeed and ipc need to be fast enough to push those frames else you drop fps). The point is that the amd options are always going to struggle to maintain a certain number of fps without seeing penalties in performance once the gpu can sufficiently provide those numbers of frames per second (regardless of resolution)...or as i say, am i totally wrong here and this just me thinking this?

If i am indeed correct then regards gaming, the 9900k as with the 8700k will be more futureproof and more significant for more years due to having the higher ipc, higher clockspeed and better oc headroom potential (especially now the top 9000 series will be soldered).

For now they say Ryzen (only at the high resolutions) will result in seeing little to no performance losses due to the main workloads being put mostly onto the gpu's (that at present cant maintain the same high frames and cpu pressure you would expect to see at 1080p and lower).
Click to expand...

All of that is generally true but you are ignoring the fact that newer games are consistently able to use more and more cores. That's why Intel's 8c/8t i7 will likely be a beast at gaming but who knows, in 1-2 years an R7 2700X might outperform an i7-8600K or below in new games. The argument that newer GPUs will be bottlenecked by CPUs that are currently not bottlenecking assumes that this doesn't really happen. In the single core days it made sense, and in the last decade it made sense because 4 cores was the norm for so long and hence all games were optimised for 4 cores.

Jamie Archer said:
As an enthusiast and mostly gamer, i personally have the opinion that unless youre on a really tight budget, then it's not a good idea to be going for the lesser performing components for your needs, simply because it is cheaper and ONLY in certain scenarios TODAY that you can get away with it. This will always result in tomorrows situations or other scenarios/circumstances where this option shows all the negative signs of why it was the cheaper option.
Click to expand...
That assumes you'll keep your CPU for 2-3 GPU generations and that GPUs will keep advancing steadily every year. That isn't happening at the moment anyway - no-one is going to be able to swap out their 1070 for an equivalently priced more powerful card and find their CPU is now bottlenecking. Most "enthusiasts" don't tend to do this, so the point is moot. If you're not an enthusiast but are just going for a long term gaming setup then yeah an 8c/8t Intel might be the best bet. It's hard to say without a crystal ball.

gavinh87 said:
https://www.asus.com/uk/Monitors/ROG-SWIFT-PG279Q/
IPS, superior to that VA of yours but I digress.

I don't understand why you are in this thread, are you going to buy one? Do you own one?
Click to expand...
Eh, I liked my VA panel until it died. At least it didn't have backlight bleed like my current IPS does.
 
jigger said:
I use Linux and Windows. Unix a little too. Nvidia drivers are lagging behind AMD I'd say.

I think the most difficult aspect or frustrating is finding games worth playing.
Click to expand...

Funny though, as whenever i speak to someone in defence of amd, they often tell me about how in 2 years time the amd drivers would have caught up with nvidias and will probably even mean their gpus performances will surpass the current (at the time) nvidia counterpart due to late driver refinements etc.
 
Jamie Archer said:
Funny though, as whenever i speak to someone in defence of amd, they often tell me about how in 2 years time the amd drivers would have caught up with nvidias and will probably even mean their gpus performances will surpass the current (at the time) nvidia counterpart due to late driver refinements etc.
Click to expand...

Standard guff because some AMD gpu once got slightly better over time. :p
 
DragonQ said:
All of that is generally true but you are ignoring the fact that newer games are consistently able to use more and more cores. That's why Intel's 8c/8t i7 will likely be a beast at gaming but who knows, in 1-2 years an R7 2700X might outperform an i7-8600K or below in new games. The argument that newer GPUs will be bottlenecked by CPUs that are currently not bottlenecking assumes that this doesn't really happen. In the single core days it made sense, and in the last decade it made sense because 4 cores was the norm for so long and hence all games were optimised for 4 cores.


That assumes you'll keep your CPU for 2-3 GPU generations and that GPUs will keep advancing steadily every year. That isn't happening at the moment anyway - no-one is going to be able to swap out their 1070 for an equivalently priced more powerful card and find their CPU is now bottlenecking. Most "enthusiasts" don't tend to do this, so the point is moot. If you're not an enthusiast but are just going for a long term gaming setup then yeah an 8c/8t Intel might be the best bet. It's hard to say without a crystal ball.


Eh, I liked my VA panel until it died. At least it didn't have backlight bleed like my current IPS does.
Click to expand...

No backlight bleed is a plus but smeary blacks and over saturated reds, no thanks.
 
Jamie Archer said:
Funny though, as whenever i speak to someone in defence of amd, they often tell me about how in 2 years time the amd drivers would have caught up with nvidias and will probably even mean their gpus performances will surpass the current (at the time) nvidia counterpart due to late driver refinements etc.
Click to expand...

Well in my experience (working not just gaming) I wouldn't say there is much in it, slight edge to AMD.
 
Last edited:
Jamie Archer said:
Thats far from my argument. We all have different budgets of course, but as enthusiasts, we should all want or at least appreciate the very latest in cutting edge performance (the very thing we're enthused by)
Click to expand...

Intel are giving us rewarmed Skylake, that is itself based on a decade old design. And to your other point, Intel exited the enthusiast market when they decided to drop the desktop design and pull parts from the mobile and Xeon range to fill the void. At extortionate prices no less. Intel don't care about enthusiasts past how much money they can extract from the master race.
 
DragonQ said:
All of that is generally true but you are ignoring the fact that newer games are consistently able to use more and more cores. That's why Intel's 8c/8t i7 will likely be a beast at gaming but who knows, in 1-2 years an R7 2700X might outperform an i7-8600K or below in new games. The argument that newer GPUs will be bottlenecked by CPUs that are currently not bottlenecking assumes that this doesn't really happen. In the single core days it made sense, and in the last decade it made sense because 4 cores was the norm for so long and hence all games were optimised for 4 cores.


That assumes you'll keep your CPU for 2-3 GPU generations and that GPUs will keep advancing steadily every year. That isn't happening at the moment anyway - no-one is going to be able to swap out their 1070 for an equivalently priced more powerful card and find their CPU is now bottlenecking. Most "enthusiasts" don't tend to do this, so the point is moot. If you're not an enthusiast but are just going for a long term gaming setup then yeah an 8c/8t Intel might be the best bet. It's hard to say without a crystal ball.


Eh, I liked my VA panel until it died. At least it didn't have backlight bleed like my current IPS does.
Click to expand...

So basically, it all hits home that what really matters mostly is 'today' and the 'here and now' because as you say, in the future, games may utilise many cores (although theyve said this for years and years and yet still 99.9% of games only require 4 cores or less)... So really futureproofing goes out the window from most aspects and it's pretty much irrelevant as none of us have crystal balls and no one knows what or who will be most beneficial for the future, I agree with this because by the time games are commonly using more cores or we indeed need a different outlook on cpus, then there will be newer and more relevent tech and whats currently on offer 'here and now' will likely be obsolete anyway.

So, with all that being said....Intel has best gaming performance 'now', best IPC 'now', best OC headroom 'now' and best stock clocks out of the box 'now', and with 8/16 the i9 is no slouch in multicore workloads 'now' either..... that is why it has the premium it has, that is why it will sell well even at a relatively hefty price, and that is also why as an enthusiast in performance you should want it or at least admire it 'now' (even if it is perhaps out of a lot of peoples budget and not the best bang for buck or value for money).
 
Jamie Archer said:
So basically, it all hits home that what really matters mostly is 'today' and the 'here and now' because as you say, in the future, games may utilise many cores (although theyve said this for years and years and yet still 99.9% of games only require 4 cores or less)... So really futureproofing goes out the window from most aspects and it's pretty much irrelevant as none of us have crystal balls and no one knows what or who will be most beneficial for the future, I agree with this because by the time games are commonly using more cores or we indeed need a different outlook on cpus, then there will be newer and more relevent tech and whats currently on offer 'here and now' will likely be obsolete anyway.

So, with all that being said....Intel has best gaming performance 'now', best IPC 'now', best OC headroom 'now' and best stock clocks out of the box 'now', and with 8/16 the i9 is no slouch in multicore workloads 'now' either..... that is why it has the premium it has, that is why it will sell well even at a relatively hefty price, and that is also why as an enthusiast in performance you should want it or at least admire it 'now' (even if it is perhaps out of a lot of peoples budget and not the best bang for buck or value for money).
Click to expand...

Well most games will scale well, so no. The market is full of CPU's that offer very similar performance at very different prices when it's come to just running a game in real world conditions. If you want to build a benchmarking system that is little more than a tool to show the highest numbers then you wan't the highest binned 8086 8 pack chip you can afford.
 
jigger said:
Joke is on you. Intel are getting murdered by AMD.
Click to expand...
Again you state things to suit yourself with no backing, show us all why, where or how AMD are murdering intel. Show me some facts, figures or links to the performance benchmarks to back what you say.
Intel very much had 6 cores pencilled in anyway (long befoire Ryzen even made an appearance). Sure intel may have pushed things forward but you cant tell me Intel have no future plans in the pipeline and being on top for a decade, lost all R&D funding into mid air.
 
Last edited:
Don't worry Jamie jokes on them both because Apple and Samsung are going to merge and take over Disney!
:) ;) :p :D
giphy.gif
 
Jamie Archer said:
again you state things to suit yourself with no backing, show us all why, where or how AMD are murdering intel. Show me some facts, figures or links to the performance benchmarks to back what you say.
Intel very much had 6 cores pencilled in anyway (long befoire Ryzen even made an appearance). Sure intel may have pushed things forward but you cant tell me Intel have no future plans in the pipeline and being on top for a decade, lost all R&D funding into mid air.
Click to expand...

It's pretty obvious how far ahead AMD are. Intel are in a very bad situation and unless they have planed something in secret without the boards go ahead it will be many years before they can make challenges to AMD's parts.
 
jigger said:
It's pretty obvious how far ahead AMD are. Intel are in a very bad situation and unless they have planed something in secret without the boards go ahead it will be many years before they can make challenges to AMD's parts.
Click to expand...

So Intel are doomed?
And most games don't scale well, far from it.
The 7700k is still holding it's own with cpus that has double it's cores and threads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom