As good as RKL-S might be I can see AMD releasing their 5800/5700X and 5600 to offer a more value alternative. I just hope RKL-S is competitive although I would like to see AMD gain a bit more market share before Intel come out all guns blazing just to try and prevent a Bulldozer era repeat.
-
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 Core i7-11700K beats Ryzen 9 5950X by 8% in Geekbench 5 single-core benchmark
- Thread starter Dave2150
- Start date
As good as RKL-S might be I can see AMD releasing their 5800/5700X and 5600 to offer a more value alternative. I just hope RKL-S is competitive although I would like to see AMD gain a bit more market share before Intel come out all guns blazing just to try and prevent a Bulldozer era repeat.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2017
- Posts
- 1,762
I don't think a repeat of Bulldozer is likely, as those chips were hot garbage, at least Zen has kinda been competitive since it's release... 1000 series weren't amazing for gaming, but they paved the way for MCM and now it's Intel's architecture that's struggling, hence the regression back to 8 cores I'd imagine.
Really everyone should want both of these companies to do well from a tech standpoint and be close to each other in performance for all metrics (and hopefully not price fix) and the customers win as they are forced to compete more on price. AMD are simply doing what Intel did, which is charge more because they have the better product, so me personally, I'd rather see intel gain their gaming crown back, then go tit for tat with AMD on performance and force it into a price not tech war.
30-50fps you must mean Ryzen 1000 series, as the 1700x was barely any better than my old Xeon except for minimum frame rates. The 2700x I had was absolutely fine though at 1080p, always ran over 100fps at worst on pube-g. The generational improvement from each round of CPU's was pretty significant when it came to gaming, but the 2000 series never competed with intel in that regard, the 8700k or whatever was out at the time was always quicker by a healthy margin. The 3000 series however closed the gap to slightly outside of margin of error for the most part.
I feel like you're comparing issues with Ryzen 1000 though, as friends that bought into those in the early days had a lot of issues with RAM, but again, XMP profiles are for intel and that's changed now. I never had a single issue on my 2700x, I didn't even need to re-install windows after swapping out all my intel parts. Plugged it in, set XMP and that was it, booted up and into windows after a short delay for hardware config. I've built 2 intel systems and about 4 Ryzen systems this year for other people and not had a single issue with any of them, but had to do the exact same things on both, which was set XMP for the ram.
Price wise yeah it's not ideal when an 8 core is costing £440, but that's IF you can get one, so they are selling regardless and that could largely be in part where people like me look at an upgrade and can justify it, because we already own a motherboard that works with it. I bought my x470 when the 2700x came out and had it ever since, so that's 3 CPU generations making it an easier pill to swallow. Fact is, on Intel if you wanted 3 consecutive generations of CPU upgrades, chances are you'd also need 3 different motherboards over that timespan. £440 on the 5800x only seems poor value if you need to buy a motherboard for it to work.
I also don't think anecdotal forum issues points to evidence of widespread issues either, people generally use the internet for help, not to post up "My PC booted up fine today".
1st gen 1950x - 3440x1440 with rad 7 and everything turned to full I average more than 120fps on PUBG and am always in the game before my mate on 6th gen intel. Perhaps this used to be a thing but as far as I can tell there are no 'issues' with pubg on ryzen. Mind you I questioned this same rationality years ago and posted up my figures on this same comment back then.
Averaged over the last 100 hours of gameplay my average fps is 120.2 fps.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2017
- Posts
- 1,762
Yeah I've certainly never experienced any, nor can I recall anyone from the OCUK old discord group having any when we all used to play it. Even my mates on 1st gen never had 'issues', just lower FPS than Intel CPU's at that time, which is expected given the infancy of the architecture and the lower clock speeds. I certainly dont agree with Locky's assessment of everyone with Ryzen had issues on it, to me that's just pure nonsense.
Like you I now play it at 3440x1440p and have zero problems and my FPS is always well over my 144hz refresh.
That's a combination of several factors. One being diminishing returns, I. E. All the easy gains (low hanging fruit) have already gone.
2. Some of the gains were also directly related to die shrinks/process gains, again these are harder to find.
3. How much cpu is enough cpu? For numerous reasons, there has been no real incentive to increase desktop cpu performance for quite some time.
4. Last but certainly not least, mobile phones came along. This diverted investment and talent away from other areas of the semiconductor industry, x86 cpu design in particular. If the x86 CPUs had mirrored progress in mobile phone CPUs, then we wouldn't be having these conversations, but the market changed.
Game loading speed is also dependant on your storage device, number of other applications running that are also using the same storage device and to some degree, OS settings/optimisation.
For example, my 6700k (to be replaced with a 11900k in March) system could perhaps load Cyberpunk faster than a 5950X system could. IF the 5950x system is using a terrible SSD, bogged down OS and loads of other programs.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 5,154
- Location
- South Wales
Recent tests by Hardware Unboxed show there is very little difference between a budget SSD and NVME in game loading times.
It's not too surprising is it? Even my first 128GB SSD in 2009 loaded games a hell of a lot faster than a standard HDD.
Multiplayer i was often first in game by a good 10-20 seconds or so for a while.
Not to mention an SSD uses a lot less power and are more reliable.
I wonder what ram speeds will be compatible with 11th gen.
I have read "One thing that will come as good news is Rocket Lake’s new memory controller, which will now increase supported DDR4 memory speeds up to 3200MHz"
Does that mean that ram speeds over 3200mhz won't work? I don't understand.
Last edited:
No, not at all just not *officially* supported , there isn't a cpu out yet that supports higher than 3200mhz officially (i don't think), but generally most modern Intel cpu's have no issue running up to 4000mhz ram in a compatible motherboard.
Phew that's good to know. I read that that like you said (that is the speed officially supported), anything over that speed is an overclock and not guaranteed. I didn't realise that most or no CPUs don't officially support more than 3200mhz ram! Thank you for the reply
Basically what you said
Last edited:
same here had the 6700k for 5 years wanting to upgrade, lets hope the pricing is good but I very much doubt it
It think has to be. Intel need a win. Though the global shipping situation could mean some delays, though I'm confident Intel will have much more stock than Ryzen 5000 had at launch.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2015
- Posts
- 1,276
- Location
- Portslade area
wh
amd and nvidia were as bad as each other for instance and people thought amd would be better
at makes you think that ? out of curiosity
amd and nvidia were as bad as each other for instance and people thought amd would be better
They might be ok because they have their own foundry, just depends on how many chips are produced by the time they announce it. AMD definitely didn’t have much in their backlog for RDNA2.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2015
- Posts
- 1,276
- Location
- Portslade area
ah thats true i forgot that a lot of the delays have been because of outsourcing parts of the production process
ah thats true i forgot that a lot of the delays have been because of outsourcing parts of the production process
Yea, TSMC work with AMD, Apple, Qualcomm, and a couple others all with major releases. AMD also allocated a lot of their production to consoles and servers, so retail consumers got a bit screwed.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,579
- Location
- Rutland
Intel has not been without stock issues in the last years despite having its own fabs though.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2015
- Posts
- 1,276
- Location
- Portslade area
we need people on the inside for this information ha ha
There are new benchmarks leaked and it looks like that the I9-11900k is performing worse than the I9-10900k
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2015
- Posts
- 1,276
- Location
- Portslade area
is it lower power consumption or something ?