Do you think this opinion validates it as fact because its your opinion? because if so this may explain your exasperated confusion, your opinion is no more valid than others and there are plenty of them.
Last edited:
-
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.
How do you choose your intel cpu?
- Thread starter GGizmo
- Start date
Do you think this opinion validates it as fact because its your opinion? because if so this may explain your exasperated confusion, your opinion is no more valid than others and there are plenty of them.
Ryzen is the most advanced CPU given to consumers in the history.
With the improvements that Ryzen 2 brings, Intel will be in a very deep mess, from which I do not know how they would get out.
Emulation is probably THE killer app in favour of Intel, I'm amazed you even tried Ryzen. It being weak in a particular area doesn't make it a potato though, don't be so melodramatic.
I do, its much better than the Intel CPU its replaced, also, i don't believe a word you say about having owned a Ryzen CPU.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 2,209
Lol at Ryzen being crap, some folk can write any old rubbish on a forum eh?
Its prob the most advanced, or up with with the most advances CPU available for x64 use.
It can be found in quad thread to 64 thread guise and uses far less power than its equivalent competitor while outperforming them in many situations as well as being significantly cheaper.
Yes AMDs chip is crap... Jeezus...brilliant dude...brilliant.
Its prob the most advanced, or up with with the most advances CPU available for x64 use.
It can be found in quad thread to 64 thread guise and uses far less power than its equivalent competitor while outperforming them in many situations as well as being significantly cheaper.
Yes AMDs chip is crap... Jeezus...brilliant dude...brilliant.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,310
- Location
- Dormanstown.
Yeah, AMD can't really touch Intel in the emulation space, I hope that changes within AM4's lifetime.
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 1,010
I normally compare the passmark number on here to get a rough idea.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php
These days a 2.5GHz of one generation can be faster than a 3GHz of the previous. The cache can make a huge difference.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php
These days a 2.5GHz of one generation can be faster than a 3GHz of the previous. The cache can make a huge difference.
I tend to try and take a holistic approach. I spend quite a bit of time checking forums (like here) to see what CPUs are popular, look at trends and compare bench marking.
My desktop CPU history goes: 386DX 25mhz, Pentium 100mhz, Pentium 2 400mhz, AMD XP1800+, AMD Barton 3200, Q6700, i5 [email protected] ghz and now a delidded [email protected]. I don't really care about vendor and like to think I'm picking the better tech for the right price.
Sometimes I also just make snap decisions. I think I did this with the 7900x... I didn't appreciate the need to delid to run cooler and it def wasn't the bargain option. My PC is for home use, but I also run some of my work sims at home. These apps use multiple cores but are also only certified for Intel CPUs. They would probably run on AMD chips but I needed the results to be comparable to those in the office. I was also more familiar with the Intel motherboard chip sets so all that swayed me.
Btw I'm totally happy with my new 7900X, it's running BF1 and Vermintide2 really well. However if I'd had more time to wait and see how the threadripper chips progressed, looking at their multicore performance I think I might have have gone that way. Seems a no brainer if you want/need that kind of mutil-thread performance for the money.
My desktop CPU history goes: 386DX 25mhz, Pentium 100mhz, Pentium 2 400mhz, AMD XP1800+, AMD Barton 3200, Q6700, i5 [email protected] ghz and now a delidded [email protected]. I don't really care about vendor and like to think I'm picking the better tech for the right price.
Sometimes I also just make snap decisions. I think I did this with the 7900x... I didn't appreciate the need to delid to run cooler and it def wasn't the bargain option. My PC is for home use, but I also run some of my work sims at home. These apps use multiple cores but are also only certified for Intel CPUs. They would probably run on AMD chips but I needed the results to be comparable to those in the office. I was also more familiar with the Intel motherboard chip sets so all that swayed me.
Btw I'm totally happy with my new 7900X, it's running BF1 and Vermintide2 really well. However if I'd had more time to wait and see how the threadripper chips progressed, looking at their multicore performance I think I might have have gone that way. Seems a no brainer if you want/need that kind of mutil-thread performance for the money.
even for amd this is what i look at most when looking up processors..
- model
- price
- cores/threads
- clock speed
- power
Have you tried runnig CS on ryzen ? Enjoy your dips to 100fps while intel is strolling at 500fps+
CS?
One of the problems with Ryzen there is still software out there that uses legacy approaches especially to threading - I use a compiler (data not code) quite a bit that was optimised for Intel Hyper Threading back in the day - on an 8 core 16 thread Ryzen it runs 50% slower than my 4820K unless I disable SMT at which point its pretty much on par with my 4820K clock for clock. Not quite sure what the problem is as certain Intel server CPUs see a similar hit though not as bad but older Intel CPUs that are basically multiple dies cobbled together don't so not as simple as cross core/CCX latency.
Which puts me in a bit of a meh spot for upgrading as if I do I want to move to at least 8 core 16 thread - while the Intel offerings really are like the 7820X which are overpriced and fairly meh.
Counter Strike?
I can tell you i play Insurgency a lot and it plays a lot better on the Ryzen 1600 than it did on the 4690K, a lot better, check out the CPU cores, all at 100% a lot of the time and that cause a lot of microstutter, in fact you can see how stuttery it is even when the cores are not that highly loaded, its horrible and believe me it felt even worse than it looks, that's now completely gone with the 1600, its like night and day. smooth as butter.
Insurgency and Counter Strike use the same engine.
BTW, i ran that at 4K because if i ran it at lower res the stuttering got worse, the lower the res the worse it got, on the Ryzen 1600 i'm running it at 1080P pretty much locked to the 300 FPS cap.
It feels like Doom running on Vulkan, lovely
It feels like Doom running on Vulkan, lovely
Jesus are you Gavin87 in disguise? Your hatred of AMD is ridiculous.
Rude.
Atleast your famous now. We gotta keep those AMD Fanboys from taking over threads like these eh
Title clearly says Intel and not ryzen so enough said.
But but AYYYMMMDDD!!