god yes. i should still 100% still have my 5700x3d(my 13900k worked out free but still..)
-
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 has a Pretty Big Problem..
- Thread starter Purgatory
- Start date
god yes. i should still 100% still have my 5700x3d(my 13900k worked out free but still..)
Ah, one of those why buy 4 cores when 24 cores will do types.
Last edited:
One of the things which seems to have been buried lately - anything sub 4090 at 1440p or 4K you see very little difference CPU wise, only really the 9800X3D with a 4090 shows much difference at higher resolution/settings compared to other CPUs and even then outside of a few select games it is often not very meaningful. I've had some time to compare a 7800X3D with a 4080 (non-Super) with my 14700K with 4080 Super and for any realistic gaming scenario, unless you are trying to be an eSport pro 1080p high refresh gamer, the difference is within margin of error and the 14700K destroys the 7800X3D for pretty much anything outside of gaming unless the power use and thermals really bother you - which actually isn't as bad as the reviews make out when you measure power use at the wall.
EDIT: On a related note was watching someone benchmark a 9800X3D, 14900KS, 285K and 7900X3D the other day and the 7900X3D really isn't a good choice - in a fair few recent games despite the average FPS not being that far behind the 14900 the minimum FPS was all over the place and in some games 1% low was averaging nearly half the other CPUs and the 285K was sometimes noticeably less smooth than the 9800X3D even when it was putting up similar numbers - not sure what was going on there as the minimum FPS wasn't showing anything especially bad.
Last edited:
i have 32 cores... when 8 would do...
i literally just said that in the post one up from yours i slumbered over a 13900kf and decided to have a go/play and i have be be honest in games i see 60/65c its not a bad as people make out.. if you overclocking and of pushing it limits yes its a monster but people compare it to a locked cpu the 7800x3d.
looking at the 9800x3d's power usage and thermals when overclocked(ingame) under gaming load there about the same.
I generally see about 70C, sometime a little higher, on my 14700K when gaming - but that is with air cooling and my fans on silent profile. Obviously how fast you can remove the heat is the factor in temperatures there rather than how much energy is being wasted as heat.
i have 32 cores... when 8 would do...
Cool, so 31 can sit idol?
I have about 200 and literally need more.
4K gaming still, with my rtx asus strix 2080 super, monitor only 60hz, so not big frames i need.gaming? what GPU. friends son still have his old 6700 with 6600xt gaming happy.
he was going to switch it out but just not needed hahah.
my little girl as a 2500k
Oh God, I've not seen an "but but but IPC" argument since Ryzen 3000 was dunking all over Intel's product stack in real world use cases.
Yes, the 9900K was the very tippy-top CPU if you wanted the ultimate gaming system, and nothing AMD had could touch that. But that was all Intel had to shout about, literally everything else was dominated by Ryzen 3000; power, efficiency, core count, productivity, mainstream gaming, price. Intel had nothing that could touch the 3600 as a real world product in real world usage, it was the go-to CPU. 3900X and 3950X humiliated what was left of Intel's HEDT after Threadripper had run roughshod.
Then Ryzen 5000 just curb stomped them.
Yes, the 9900K was the very tippy-top CPU if you wanted the ultimate gaming system, and nothing AMD had could touch that. But that was all Intel had to shout about, literally everything else was dominated by Ryzen 3000; power, efficiency, core count, productivity, mainstream gaming, price. Intel had nothing that could touch the 3600 as a real world product in real world usage, it was the go-to CPU. 3900X and 3950X humiliated what was left of Intel's HEDT after Threadripper had run roughshod.
Then Ryzen 5000 just curb stomped them.
Last edited:
Tiz why i bought a Ryzen 5800X and not a 10900K, i still have it.......
Thats what i said
Well not really. You said Ryzen 5000 is what enabled AMD to catch up, which is not the case.
AMD caught up with a good chunk of Ryzen 2000, gained leadership in everything bar the tippy-top end of gaming with Ryzen 3000, and then utterly murdered everything with Ryzen 5000.
thats just no true, excluding AMD 5000 tell me what CPU could beat the 8th gen and x299?
EDIT: well 8th, 9th 10th and 11th gen are all Skylake tell me what cpu could compete?
there is just loads of benchmarks showing, your wrong... why was amd 5000 so cheap? but amd 9000 are so expensive
because they had to play value king, because they dominated nothing. now amd are winning where is all the £140 9700x? because now there winning.
dont confuse value with been top tear
£200 got you a cpu, mobo and ram thats why amd was value king, thats not curb stomping anyone...
that's an shien shirt because you can afford Armani, but you still know what best.
EDIT: well 8th, 9th 10th and 11th gen are all Skylake tell me what cpu could compete?
tell me what cpu match for match, dont be comparing no i3 with a 5800x
there is just loads of benchmarks showing, your wrong... why was amd 5000 so cheap? but amd 9000 are so expensive
because they had to play value king, because they dominated nothing. now amd are winning where is all the £140 9700x? because now there winning.
dont confuse value with been top tear
that how was AMD curb stomping them?
£200 got you a cpu, mobo and ram thats why amd was value king, thats not curb stomping anyone...
that's an shien shirt because you can afford Armani, but you still know what best.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 15,671
- Location
- Chengdu
Some extreme bias here, or at least rose tinted. Ryzen 2000 still wasn't exactly fast, it just had cores.
3950X demolished everything on X299, Threadripper 3000 was just humiliation. Threadripper 2000 was already putting the hurt on X299. And I've already said that outside of ultra high-end gaming with the 9900K, Ryzen 3000 took the crown in every meaningful metric from 8th and 9th Gen.
Why would I exclude Ryzen 5000 when that was the contemporary of 10th and 11th Gen? Oh, and 11th Gen wasn't Skylake. It was Rocket Lake. Seriously, go back through all the reviews of Ryzen 3000. Go through the old threads here. Talk to actual owners of Ryzen 3000 on these forums. You can say "not true" all you want, just go back and read.
Anyway, this is veering seriously off topic. Go back and read or don't, it doesn't matter any more.
Why would I exclude Ryzen 5000 when that was the contemporary of 10th and 11th Gen? Oh, and 11th Gen wasn't Skylake. It was Rocket Lake. Seriously, go back through all the reviews of Ryzen 3000. Go through the old threads here. Talk to actual owners of Ryzen 3000 on these forums. You can say "not true" all you want, just go back and read.
Anyway, this is veering seriously off topic. Go back and read or don't, it doesn't matter any more.
It's hardly "extreme bias" to state actual history that Ryzen 2000 made some serious gains on Intel's leadership and in a good chunk of use cases caught right up.
As I said in my previous post, believe it or don't, re-read or don't. It's off topic and doesn't matter any more.
Last edited:
that you have to include 12th and 13th gen...
but you said before 5000 that why we should exclude them.
show me one bench mark where a 3000 chip killed intel on anything
thats right they made some gains, but dint pass anything, they closed in but was still second in a 2 dog race
your not thinking about what your saying, you keep saying they was doing good, they closed the gap... that's the point they didn't win. they just did good and closed the gap.
dont get me wrong the last 4 or 5 CPU's i have had have been ryzen. because they was chap and in a middle of the road system did ok
but im not stupid enought to think my 5700x3d or my brother 5800x3d was ever king of anything because there not.
the CPU i have now is locked down and under volted and still games faster
Last edited:
Yeah, no. All roads lead to Zen.
I never said Ryzen 2000 passed Intel. Not once. Kindly stop putting words into my mouth if you're not going to actually read what I say.
CPU 2019 Benchmarks - Compare Products on AnandTech
CPU 2019 benchmarks: Compare two products side-by-side or see a cascading list of product ratings along with our annotations.
CPU 2019 Benchmarks - Compare Products on AnandTech
CPU 2019 benchmarks: Compare two products side-by-side or see a cascading list of product ratings along with our annotations.
Are we done now? And can you also stop extensively editing your posts after I replied to them please?
Last edited: