Intel kills 10nm ?? oO

[jigger]

Maybe it's true, but from a pure gaming perspective (literally couldn't care about anything else perspective), I'm not seeing AMD offer much more than Intel.

Sure the chips may be technically superior, and I personally wouldn't buy Intel at this point in time.

But in gaming and gaming alone, the perf/£ AMD give isn't really different to the perf/£ Intel give. Because like it or not, Intel's chips are still better in many games.

AMD still have work to do on the gaming front. Why I still haven't bought in to Ryzen quite yet.

AMD offer more but must improve because they offer more?

A 1600AF is probably the best bang for buck gaming chip, followed by the 3600 and 3600X.

 

[humbug]

Maybe it's true, but from a pure gaming perspective (literally couldn't care about anything else perspective), I'm not seeing AMD offer much more than Intel.

Sure the chips may be technically superior, and I personally wouldn't buy Intel at this point in time.

But in gaming and gaming alone, the perf/£ AMD give isn't really different to the perf/£ Intel give. Because like it or not, Intel's chips are still better in many games.

AMD still have work to do on the gaming front. Why I still haven't bought in to Ryzen quite yet.

Depends on where you are looking.

The 9900K is the best gaming CPU, yes.

But i would sooner buy a Ryzen 3600 over a 9600K even at the same price, Intel's problem is they offer (just enough and no more for the day) and the 9600K is exactly that, it has no SMT and with that already stutters in a couple of games due to a lack of threads, so yeah while the 9600K is 10 FPS faster in most games the 3600 is more a kin to an 8700K and with that far better future proofed, more than that, if you're looking for 1080P high FPS BF One or BFV the 9600K already has horrible stutter in places, what does 140 vs 130 FPS matter when it feels like 32 on the 9600K?

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Even Gamers Nexus didn't recommend the Core i5 9600K,despite them testing some older games,and said the Ryzen 5 3600 was their recommendation. Plus when you have CPUs such as the Ryzen 5 1600 AF for under £90,Intel really offers nothing that comparable in the price range. You could get a Core i5 9400F for around £130 I suppose. The £40 saving would probably make more sense for a bigger SSD,or a better graphics card.

Now,Intel are going to introduce SMT with their new CPUs,so the Core i5 probably will have SMT like the Ryzen 5 CPUs,but then you will have Ryzen 4000 after that,which promises another good IPC increase,etc.

 

[jigger]

Depends on where you are looking.

The 9900K is the best gaming CPU, yes.

But i would sooner buy a Ryzen 3600 over a 9600K even at the same price, Intel's problem is they offer (just enough and no more for the day) and the 9600K is exactly that, it has no SMT and with that already stutters in a couple of games due to a lack of threads, so yeah while the 9600K is 10 FPS faster in most games the 3600 is more a kin to an 8700K and with that far better future proofed, more than that, if you're looking for 1080P high FPS BF One or BFV the 9600K already has horrible stutter in places, what does 140 vs 130 FPS matter when it feels like 32 on the 9600K?

The issue for me with the 9900 is it costs almost the same as the 3950X and offers little more than a well tuned 3800X with the disadvantages of a dead end platform. The 9900 chips only make sense if look at them from a the point of building a money no object gaming system paired with a £1500 graphics and a couple of megapixel monitor. The problem is that isn’t a sensible configuration and the bang for buck element isn’t relevant.

For the same price you could build 3800X system with a lot of upgrade potential, PCI-E 4 and all the trimmings plus a high resolution monitor and a fully kitted out NAS/home server.

 

[humbug]

The issue for me with the 9900 is it costs almost the same as the 3950X and offers little more than a well tuned 3800X with the disadvantages of a dead end platform. The 9900 chips only make sense if look at them from a the point of building a money no object gaming system paired with a £1500 graphics and a couple of megapixel monitor. The problem is that isn’t a sensible configuration and the bang for buck element isn’t relevant.

For the same price you could build 3800X system with a lot of upgrade potential, PCI-E 4 and all the trimmings plus a high resolution monitor and a fully kitted out NAS/home server.

Agreed but for someone looking for a pure 2080TI gaming rig the 9900K is the one to get, for now....

 

[humbug]

Depends on where you are looking.

The 9900K is the best gaming CPU, yes.

But i would sooner buy a Ryzen 3600 over a 9600K even at the same price, Intel's problem is they offer (just enough and no more for the day) and the 9600K is exactly that, it has no SMT and with that already stutters in a couple of games due to a lack of threads, so yeah while the 9600K is 10 FPS faster in most games the 3600 is more a kin to an 8700K and with that far better future proofed, more than that, if you're looking for 1080P high FPS BF One or BFV the 9600K already has horrible stutter in places, what does 140 vs 130 FPS matter when it feels like 32 on the 9600K?

In fact on BFV the 3600 is faster anyway.....

At 1080P it is in most games. 9600K already struggling to keep up.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1977-amd-ryzen-1600-af/

 

[jigger]

Agreed but for someone looking for a pure 2080TI gaming rig the 9900K is the one to get, for now....

I don’t think anyone could tell the difference between a 3800X with 3800Mem/1900IF and a 9900 system. Plus the 3950X is in the price range and literally twice the chip.

 

[FoxEye]

Depends on where you are looking.

The 9900K is the best gaming CPU, yes.

But i would sooner buy a Ryzen 3600 over a 9600K even at the same price, Intel's problem is they offer (just enough and no more for the day) and the 9600K is exactly that, it has no SMT and with that already stutters in a couple of games due to a lack of threads, so yeah while the 9600K is 10 FPS faster in most games the 3600 is more a kin to an 8700K and with that far better future proofed, more than that, if you're looking for 1080P high FPS BF One or BFV the 9600K already has horrible stutter in places, what does 140 vs 130 FPS matter when it feels like 32 on the 9600K?

But that's the point.

Who cares about cores and threads if the Intel is 10 FPS faster than the AMD?

Do you win prizes for having more cores and more threads?

If you are just focusing on gaming perf then AMD are still behind in the mid- and high-end brackets. In raw FPS. The metric that most matters.

 

[humbug]

But that's the point.

Who cares about cores and threads if the Intel is 10 FPS faster than the AMD?

Do you win prizes for having more cores and more threads?

If you are just focusing on gaming perf then AMD are still behind in the mid- and high-end brackets. In raw FPS. The metric that most matters.

This completely ignores everything i said, i'll say it again, it depends of what you are looking for, sweeping statements simply don't reflect reality. let me turn everything you said back on you, if i have £200 to spend on a CPU my choices are 3600X or 9600K, why would i buy the 9600K? give me ANY reason.

 

[FoxEye]

This completely ignores everything i said, i'll say it again, it depends of what you are looking for, sweeping statements simply don't reflect reality. let me turn everything you said back on you, if i have £200 to spend on a CPU my choices are 3600X or 9600K, why would i buy the 9600K? give me ANY reason.

It's faster in many games... I haven't heard reviewers complaining about stuttering on the Intel. Just hear the usual AMD fans talking about it.

 

[humbug]

It's faster in many games... I haven't heard reviewers complaining about stuttering on the Intel. Just hear the usual AMD fans talking about it.

That's the thing, it isn't, it runs hotter, uses more power, is less secure, has much lower productivity performance and is no faster in games, in fact look at the BFV slide i posted, the 3600 has 25% higher 1% lows, there is a reason for that, it suffers from a lack of threads and looking at the latest reviews, the 3600 has been around for 7 months now and is far more mature, the 9600K looks like its trailing the 3600 in quite a lot of games, that will only get worse.

There is no reason what-so-ever to get the 9600K, the 3600 is in every conceivable way better, and cheaper to boot.

 

[FoxEye]

That's the thing, it isn't, it runs hotter, uses more power, is less secure, has much lower productivity performance and is no faster in games, in fact look at the BFV slide i posted, the 3600 has 25% higher 1% lows, there is a reason for that, it suffers from a lack of threads and looking at the latest reviews, the 3600 has been around for 7 months now and is far more mature, the 9600K looks like its trailing the 3600 in quite a lot of games, that will only get worse.

There is no reason what-so-ever to get the 9600K, the 3600 is in every conceivable way better, and cheaper to boot.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1871-amd-ryzen-3600/

This is pretty typical of what I've seen. Scroll down all the way to the bottom. Ignore the productivity benchmarks if you would.

In several games the 9600k is slaughtering the 3600.

It's not as cut and dried as you and others say.

 

[Doobedoo]

https://www.techspot.com/review/1871-amd-ryzen-3600/

This is pretty typical of what I've seen. Scroll down all the way to the bottom. Ignore the productivity benchmarks if you would.

In several games the 9600k is slaughtering the 3600.

It's not as cut and dried as you and others say.

Well the conclusion from that web page said this.

The Intel Core i5 was a little faster in a few of the games tested, but the R5 3600 was miles faster where you’ll notice it. So this one's pretty cut and dry unless Intel decides to cut pricing heavily.

 

[humbug]

https://www.techspot.com/review/1871-amd-ryzen-3600/

This is pretty typical of what I've seen. Scroll down all the way to the bottom. Ignore the productivity benchmarks if you would.

In several games the 9600k is slaughtering the 3600.

It's not as cut and dried as you and others say.

Assassin's Creed Odyssey: 3600 win
BFV: 3600 win
SoTR: 3600 win
The Division 2: 3600 win

FC ND: 9600K win
Rage 2: 9600K win
Hitman 2: 9600K win
Total war TK: 9600K win


WWR-Z 9600K (this was in July 2019 before a patch that fixed a performance bug with Ryzen)

Only one of those games is the 9600K more than 10% faster and that's FC ND.
Again in BFV the 9600K was trailing the 3600 by 25% on the 1% lows, that will only get worse as game become more demanding.

And as @Doobedoo pointed out...

The Intel Core i5 was a little faster in a few of the games tested, but the R5 3600 was miles faster where you’ll notice it. So this one's pretty cut and dry unless Intel decides to cut pricing heavily.

The 3600 is in every conceivable way better than the 9600K, including gaming. i just wouldn't buy a 9600K for gaming, or anything.....

 

[FoxEye]

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-3700x/16.html

Again showing the 9600 and esp 9700 well ahead of Ryzen 3 in gaming.

I'm just not seeing AMD dominate anything here. They still look to be behind in gaming perf.

The graphs don't lie.

 

[Doobedoo]

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-3700x/16.html

Again showing the 9600 and esp 9700 well ahead of Ryzen 3 in gaming.

I'm just not seeing AMD dominate anything here. They still look to be behind in gaming perf.

The graphs don't lie.

When looking at gaming, our results confirm that AMD has caught up big time here, too, and the performance differences are much smaller. At higher resolutions like 1440p and 4K, the gap is pretty much non-existent, and parity with Intel has been reached. However, you probably don't even need such a fast CPU for gaming at these resolutions as even the Intel Core i5 processors deliver almost identical frame rates here. I expect the same will be true for AMD's Ryzen 5 3600/3600X we'll be reviewing very soon. The king of the hill for gaming performance is still the Core i9-9900K, though, and this becomes apparent at the resolution of 720p, which completely removes the GPU bottleneck and puts CPU performance under a microscope. Here, both the Intel Core i7-9700K and Core i9-9900 have a lead of about 10%, though pretty much only because their processors run at higher clock frequencies.

So in conclusion buy the 9600/9700k if you game at 720p or if you are sensitive enough to perceive the extra 3-5 FPS advantage in some games.

 

[Woodsta888]

Ah the 'ol 1080p much faster.

Mid to high end...............1080p.

k

 

[FoxEye]

So in conclusion buy the 9600/9700k if you game at 720p.

Or you need the best single threaded perf on the market. That's still Intel.

The Zen 2 chips are a step in the right direction for AMD, but I think Zen 3 is going to the first point where they're actually ahead in all metrics.

And that's why I'm waiting. Plus the remaining doubt about whether Zen 3 will be AM4 or a new socket.

 

[Doobedoo]

Or you need the best single threaded perf on the market. That's still Intel.

The Zen 2 chips are a step in the right direction for AMD, but I think Zen 3 is going to the first point where they're actually ahead in all metrics.

And that's why I'm waiting. Plus the remaining doubt about whether Zen 3 will be AM4 or a new socket.

Yep I agree the extra couple of FPS’s makes all the difference. Bit gutted I saved a fair bit of money and went for a 3600

 

[FoxEye]

Yep I agree the extra couple of FPS’s makes all the difference. Bit gutted I saved a fair bit of money and went for a 3600

Well just because you have no use for single threaded perf doesn't mean nobody does.

Again the claim is being made that AMD are better in all metrics and it just isn't true today. It might be true after Zen 3... watch this space.