Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 0
It’s both. As frequency goes up, you gain lower latency and since the secondaries are tertiary timings don’t really change as frequency goes up.
-
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 Claims Its Cheaper To Build A Faster Gaming PC With Its 10th Gen Core CPUs Than AMD Ryzen 3000
- Thread starter RavenXXX2
- Start date
It’s both. As frequency goes up, you gain lower latency and since the secondaries are tertiary timings don’t really change as frequency goes up.
I agree. I was disappointed that the 3000 series couldn't match Intel in games.
Hence waiting for the 4000 series (and hoping).
For all the flack @~>Dg<~ gets, I suspect most people are simply annoyed that, well, he's not wrong. Intel are still better for absolute gaming performance.
I'll be excited to see AMD finally match/beat Intel. I assume all people shouting at @~>Dg<~ will not herald that moment, because it won't mean anything when it happens?
Ie because AMD are already "as good" as Intel for gaming right now So there will be nothing to celebrate?haha, fat chance. When AMD pull ahead with the 4000 series these people will be shouting it from the rooftops and holding parties in the street. Whilst at the same time saying the 3000 series was just as good
It's a case of mental gymnastics, a bit anyhow.
If you don't care about value for money, sure.. The 2017 8700 (6/12) he used in his example was pretty much the same launch price as the 2020 10600 (6/12). That's what this gaming performance marketing is about, milking gamers some more for an overclocked Skylake. As humbug said (can't remember this thread or another), the 3600 sells like hotcakes cos it is better value.
The only way Intel look better value is comparing a 3900XT (12/24) to a 10700K (8/16), BS is BS.
The 2017 8700 (6/12) he used in his example was pretty much the same launch price as the 2020 10600 (6/12). That's what this gaming performance marketing is about, milking gamers some more for an overclocked Skylake. As humbug said (can't remember this thread or another), the 3600 sells like hotcakes cos it is better value.The only way Intel look better value is comparing a 3900XT (12/24) to a 10700K (8/16), BS is BS.
If you don't care about value for money, sure..
The only way Intel look better value is comparing a 3900XT (12/24) to a 10700K (8/16), BS is BS.
the 8700 arguement holds no weight. its actually funny because if you brought one when they were released 3 years ago you could have had the same performance as everyone raves about now on AMD and if you factor in the price ratio over the years of use it will probably come out simular to what you waited 3 years to buy now.
basically 8700 £300 keep for 5 years. £60 a year for ownership. ( non k which is the same for gaming as any current amd)
amd 3600 will probably be good for 2 -3 years from now. 175 -180 quid £60 per YEAR LOL.
the 8700 is just as good value and you could have had it 3 years ago !
also before people rant....im waiting for the new amd cpus to come out to buy and build a pc with them. its just there has been no reason to go amd cpu wise since athlon days.
I agree. I was disappointed that the 3000 series couldn't match Intel in games.
Hence waiting for the 4000 series (and hoping).
For all the flack @~>Dg<~ gets, I suspect most people are simply annoyed that, well, he's not wrong. Intel are still better for absolute gaming performance.
I'll be excited to see AMD finally match/beat Intel. I assume all people shouting at @~>Dg<~ will not herald that moment, because it won't mean anything when it happens?
haha, fat chance. When AMD pull ahead with the 4000 series these people will be shouting it from the rooftops and holding parties in the street. Whilst at the same time saying the 3000 series was just as good
Few buy Intel these days, even for gaming, the only people that care about this are those with 2080TI's wanting their extra 7 FPS at 1080P.
There are a lot of very happy Ryzen owners.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 0
the 8700 arguement holds no weight. its actually funny because if you brought one when they were released 3 years ago you could have had the same performance as everyone raves about now on AMD and if you factor in the price ratio over the years of use it will probably come out simular to what you waited 3 years to buy now.
basically 8700 £300 keep for 5 years. £60 a year for ownership. ( non k which is the same for gaming as any current amd)
amd 3600 will probably be good for 2 -3 years from now. 175 -180 quid £60 per YEAR LOL.
the 8700 is just as good value and you could have had it 3 years ago !
also before people rant....im waiting for the new amd cpus to come out to buy and build a pc with them. its just there has been no reason to go amd cpu wise since athlon days.
the 8700k and 9900k will prove to be good long term purchases if you bought them early on. The closer to launch you bought the longer their value holds up, given that neither saw price cuts.
Having said that, the current line up is awkward mainly due to price points. You can get it to out perform an equal core count Ryzen part but it requires a fair amount of tuning knowledge to maximize the platform where the amd counterparts are pretty much close to ideal out of the box.
I didn't make an argument that buying a 8700 was a bad decision at the time. I'm talking about value for money if you're buying today and who consistently leads the market in offering more for less money.the 8700 arguement holds no weight. its actually funny because if you brought one when they were released 3 years ago you could have had the same performance as everyone raves about now on AMD and if you factor in the price ratio over the years of use it will probably come out simular to what you waited 3 years to buy now.
basically 8700 £300 keep for 5 years. £60 a year for ownership. ( non k which is the same for gaming as any current amd)
amd 3600 will probably be good for 2 -3 years from now. 175 -180 quid £60 per YEAR LOL.
the 8700 is just as good value and you could have had it 3 years ago !
also before people rant....im waiting for the new amd cpus to come out to buy and build a pc with them. its just there has been no reason to go amd cpu wise since athlon days.
The reason the 3600 was big-upped on release is because it offered a 6/12 CPU with comparable performance to (what were then) higher-tier parts, at a lower price point. Intel are manipulating their marketing to make them look better value for gaming, but they haven't been since Skylake.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 2,193
- Location
- Droitwich, UK
Nonsense from Intel, typical marketing trash. They're faster in gaming without question but to make them seem the value option they have to choose the AMD chip from the tier above, as the comparable AMD product with the same core count costs less than their equivalent (with the same gaming performance as the one chosen).
Fancy a marketing department, trying to show their products in the best light possible, even if that is the unrealistic minimum!
We all know that very, very few people will have a system with a 2080 Ti, and a cheap CPU unless you are using the GPU for GPU work not games. Is it important to be fastest, of course it is, but the same can be said for having great value (price to performance) which is way, way, way more important to many more people than being the fastest in very specific situations.
You'd have to have be an utter idiot to get a system with an 8700K, then put a GTX 1060 in it, but that is all you could budget after spending £400 on the CPU, when you could have got a GTX 1080 Ti and a Ryzen 5 1600 instead, the CPU is the cheaper part and easily upgradable. Heck you could change the board and CPU for ~£200 (after selling the old one), and have had a much better system for much longer, try doing that with the graphics card and all you would have done is pee'd money up the wall, since the 2070S is only as fast as the 1080 Ti, and you would have wasted way more money to end up in the same position as you would have been 3 years ago.
People seem to get the importance of the CPU mixed up with the GPU more often than not when specifying a gaming system, "Oh you need Intel it is the fastest" forgetting the poor sod is only using a £400 GPU so utterly wasteful and it is that mentality that makes people end up with stupid machines unbalanced and not performing as well as they could have if they bothered to stop and think about what is actually best for each individual situation, not just a default answer.
We all know that very, very few people will have a system with a 2080 Ti, and a cheap CPU unless you are using the GPU for GPU work not games. Is it important to be fastest, of course it is, but the same can be said for having great value (price to performance) which is way, way, way more important to many more people than being the fastest in very specific situations.
You'd have to have be an utter idiot to get a system with an 8700K, then put a GTX 1060 in it, but that is all you could budget after spending £400 on the CPU, when you could have got a GTX 1080 Ti and a Ryzen 5 1600 instead, the CPU is the cheaper part and easily upgradable. Heck you could change the board and CPU for ~£200 (after selling the old one), and have had a much better system for much longer, try doing that with the graphics card and all you would have done is pee'd money up the wall, since the 2070S is only as fast as the 1080 Ti, and you would have wasted way more money to end up in the same position as you would have been 3 years ago.
People seem to get the importance of the CPU mixed up with the GPU more often than not when specifying a gaming system, "Oh you need Intel it is the fastest" forgetting the poor sod is only using a £400 GPU so utterly wasteful and it is that mentality that makes people end up with stupid machines unbalanced and not performing as well as they could have if they bothered to stop and think about what is actually best for each individual situation, not just a default answer.
Another error most people make is not considering frame rate and resolution. If the system can hold 50-100 FPS VVR, I don’t see any point of aiming for higher without increasing settings.
If I was a tech journalist I’d omit all results under 50 and above 100 FPS. That would encourage Nvidia and AMD to improve the PC gaming experience.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 6,354
- Location
- Manchester
So if they used a 3700x it would be the same price but still faster ?
A quick google shows the 3700X is around £100 cheaper than the 10700K? So Intel would be a little faster in games for £100 more (sorry havne't looked at the other prices for mob, memory etc).
Once it becomes 10700K vs 3900X I'd far rather spend the extra and get the 3900X for the long term flexibility.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 6,354
- Location
- Manchester
Maybe using a 3800x so the price is almost the same would have been a better comparison. I think everyone knows Intel are faster but more expensive.
If you play those 6 titles with a 2080ti and need the extra 15%, maybe that would make sense.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,457
whats wrong intel is quicker. no debate they are at games currently. current amd cpus are the same as a 8700. non k. they two gens behind on games. the new ones should be about level or just in front.
before people try to debate that AMD are as quick..AMD used them being as fast as a 8700 non k in there press launch....
so intel are faster at games currently and there is no debate.
You might say that, but hilariously if you look at their last slide, they show a benchmark of 30 games, and then show in yellow boxes those where intel were more than 3% faster.
Only 13 games have a yellow box. All the 'on a par' games are listed on intels side, if you actually showed them on AMD side... they'd have more.
Its a very strange way to represent the games, again it doesn't matter given the card and the res.
thats absolutely hilarious, you are of course right. haha. i wonder how much a system with those components will cost vs the intel spec.
