its the easiest arguement. games dont support more cores. or amd. so think...if thats the case why would amd make cpus knowing the formula for that ? listen right now id but amd but are they the best performing in games . no. anyone who tells you that is lying.
-
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.
Intel CEO says the industry should stop using benchmarks
- Thread starter CuriousTomCat
- Start date
its the easiest arguement. games dont support more cores. or amd. so think...if thats the case why would amd make cpus knowing the formula for that ? listen right now id but amd but are they the best performing in games . no. anyone who tells you that is lying.
And what’s this got to do with the CEO’s desperate comment? You saying there is no need for benchmarks because intel is always better in games?
Zen 3 will likely soon beat Intel in every way, wonder if you will be still defending intel in every thread
Intel suck, simples. Full of security issues and don’t deserve a penny after getting complacent and holding things back and milking us for so long.
Oh Rly? why is that Intel?
Thats the exact reason. Gamer looks at cinebench score and buys amd cpu only to learn that its inferior in gaming.
If all you do is rendering all day then ya get amd.
Plenty of people out there bought amd based on the cinebench when its even slower than intel in web browsing.
Horses for courses
1) A gamer will not look at a cinebench score when deciding what CPU to buy.
2) And even if they did, a gamer will not even notice the difference. You could say its inferior, I bet you if I put a 10900k and 3600 next to eachother running a game you could not guess which is which just by playing the game.
I think Intel should start making CPU's that only play games and can't do anything else, so gamers are not easily confused.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,609
- Location
- Rutland
Whilst playing at 1080P with a £1k GPU.
Well intel don’t beat them in every game as games are starting to shift to use more cores. As said above intel need to push to 5ghz just to match amd ipc.
Anyway people should buy the product they want not the brand, if intel was best value for money then sure I would recommend them (I did before Zen) but I simply can’t recommend them at the moment as AMD are way more value for the money without noticing a performance difference. As for my friend there no way he would be more happy with a new intel chip over the AMD one he bought. He saved money has a upgrade path to a new cpu without a new motherboard.
I’m not sure if you noticed, but everyone is buying AMD. Intel are just inferior in every way.
I've had Intel my entire life, but this time around I am going for AMD.
I understand the 10600k is the 'best' gaming cpu, and beats the 3700x (by a tiny margin), however the 3700x has 2 extra cores, which in a couple/few years will contribute to a higher performance in games, as games start to take advantage of these additional cores.
Also, with AMD I can get the 3700x now, enjoy top gaming performance and then in 3-5 years time buy a second hand 4000 series Ryzen and plug it into the same motherboard, to boost my performance if I so wish.
If you change rigs every 2 years, then sure, the 10600k is the go-to gaming chip. If you tend to keep your PCs for longer than that, then currently AMD makes a lot more financial sense, without any impact in performance worth talking about, and with an advantage in future performance, both due to the higher core count and also an upgrade path to next gen cpus.
*I am comparing these two rather than 3600x due to price similarity. The same points stand if you get the 3600x, apart from the extra cores obviously.
I understand the 10600k is the 'best' gaming cpu, and beats the 3700x (by a tiny margin), however the 3700x has 2 extra cores, which in a couple/few years will contribute to a higher performance in games, as games start to take advantage of these additional cores.
Also, with AMD I can get the 3700x now, enjoy top gaming performance and then in 3-5 years time buy a second hand 4000 series Ryzen and plug it into the same motherboard, to boost my performance if I so wish.
If you change rigs every 2 years, then sure, the 10600k is the go-to gaming chip. If you tend to keep your PCs for longer than that, then currently AMD makes a lot more financial sense, without any impact in performance worth talking about, and with an advantage in future performance, both due to the higher core count and also an upgrade path to next gen cpus.
*I am comparing these two rather than 3600x due to price similarity. The same points stand if you get the 3600x, apart from the extra cores obviously.
that's why their CPUs pull twice as much power as AMD equivalent. it's crazy...the extra cooling you need as well. 100w is a lot of heat to be taken out. my 1600Af can reach 100w with all core overclocked to 4.1GHz (which is what it is set to atm but with c/p-state enabled so it doesn't run at 4.1GHz constant), and the CPU reaches 73 on that hot day we just had while I was stress testing it to see what kind of temps I was getting (fans on 800rpm tho). so if the chip is pulling 200w+ i think my AIO will be in trouble or I will go deaf as my fans have to run at full pelt (2100RPM) which is not what I want lol.
also many people dont think about electricity bill but that extra 100w costs money with all the added bits of things you need to do to make it run cool etc. if you do average 4hr gaming/day, it adds up.
so by the CEO's new mantra, I think intel will fail pretty hard here on how the CPU makes me feel.
None of the available AMD or Intel chips make any kind of financial sense right now. Intel's been on Skylake architecture and 14nm process for years, and still beats AMD in games. AMD have a brand new architecture, brand new process, and still can't beat Intel's old garbage in games.
In the next few quarters, we'll see a new architecture from Intel and AMD, DDR5, PCI-E v4/v5, USB4, new motherboards with new sockets that will last years. That's the time to invest if you want to keep your platform for many years.
no so, new tech - DDR5 pcie 5 etc will be more expensive from the onset. It won’t get cheaper until the platform or tech become more mainstream in uptake and production.
you just need to look at the DDR4 prices over time to see what it will be like.
So if you wait for something affordable then you will be waiting a long time and then you will be looking at mature tech meaning the next gen is coming.
also don’t agree that current crop of AMD CPU makes no financial sense. Fast CPU that’s with 5% margins of the fastest intel CPU for half of the price is good value and at the same time offering significant boost on core counts and productivity.
bear in mind that games will move to heavily threaded engines soon. So I think right now it is a perfect time to buy into the future. You are buying maturing technology so taking advantage of cheap production costs resulting in cheap components. Also you are not dabbing into new tech with potential compatibility issues etc.
If you have a 3700x or 3900x you are probably golden for a very long time to come. The only requirement is to upgrade GPU as games become more demanding and that’s where X570 PCIe 4.0 will offer you. And you can put that system together with a respectable GPU for around £1100 to £12000 (all components new). If you wait for new tech i suspect you will be paying much more for the same performance. DDR5 and PCIe5 will offer more bandwidth but the ram and GPU will take some time to catch up and start to eat up any significant amount of that bandwidth.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,609
- Location
- Rutland
Not a chance. Intel changes it's sockets more often than I change my undies.
Game benches show otherwise.
Granted amd are doing well but blanket statements like the one above are straight up wrong.
Intel may change sockets but the consumer may not. Just because something new comes out doesnt mean your old stuff wont even power on any more. Im still using 10 year old mobo and cpu and its still serves its purpose.
Could always do with more cpu power for video encoding though.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,230
- Location
- London
Intel CEO says "we're really sorry" and the industry should stop buying AMD.
I've explained why AMD makes complete financial sense both due to the core count and also socket support with new gen cpus. And sure, like I said, Intel beat AMD in games, by a tiny margin, which will close up when you compare current gen, due to games taking advantage of more cores in future.
That's a really silly thing to say given the Internet is stuffed with gaming benchmarks..... i mean really?
Last edited:
AMD are more than well.