• 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 to launch 6 core Coffee Lake-S CPUs & Z370 chipset 5 October 2017

~>Dg<~

~>Dg<~

~>Dg<~

Caporegime
Joined
1 Jun 2006
Posts
33,508
Location
Notts
no intells are quicker in gaming.its that simple. debate about cost whatever.its just how it is.amd cpus are good for the price though and offer adequate performance often close to intel cpus in gaming.
 

humbug

humbug

humbug

Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,648
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
~>Dg<~ said:
no intells are quicker in gaming.its that simple. debate about cost whatever.its just how it is.amd cpus are good for the price though and offer adequate performance often close to intel cpus in gaming.
Click to expand...

Well.... that is very very very close :D

jliokhj.png
 

~>Dg<~

~>Dg<~

~>Dg<~

Caporegime
Joined
1 Jun 2006
Posts
33,508
Location
Notts
take all benchmark sites with pinch of salt.as said intels are the quickest gaming cpu.if you want great performance nothing wrong with amd.as i said 5 times and your benchmarks show.you pay a premium on intel because they are the quickest.if amd can have the fastest cpu they will do the same.
 

gavinh87

gavinh87

gavinh87

Soldato
Joined
29 Jan 2015
Posts
4,904
Location
West Midlands
~>Dg<~ said:
take all benchmark sites with pinch of salt.as said intels are the quickest gaming cpu.if you want great performance nothing wrong with amd.as i said 5 times and your benchmarks show.you pay a premium on intel because they are the quickest.if amd can have the fastest cpu they will do the same.
Click to expand...

Are you actually defending the 7800x here?
 

Dirk Diggler

Dirk Diggler

Dirk Diggler

Soldato
Joined
6 Jan 2013
Posts
21,849
Location
Rollergirl
In gaming terms, none of them are offering anything above what has been readily available for the past couple of years. If there's cash to spend, it's the next GPU that's going to make the difference, or a monitor upgrade.

I'd love to invest in some shiny new upgrade great, but alas... :(
 

KompuKare

KompuKare

KompuKare

Associate
Joined
31 Dec 2010
Posts
2,441
Location
Sussex
[QUOTE="~>Dg<~, post: 30999310, member: 50592"]take all benchmark sites with pinch of salt.as said intels are the quickest gaming cpu.if you want great performance nothing wrong with amd.as i said 5 times and your benchmarks show.you pay a premium on intel because they are the quickest.if amd can have the fastest cpu they will do the same.[/QUOTE]

Actually, for well threaded games (and no that's not just BF1...) the reason to take benchmark sites with a pinch of salt as the leave too good an impression of 4C/4T and 4C/8T CPUs like the 7600K and 7700K because they run their benches on clean installs with most background tasks disabled, and they don't necessarily test the most CPU stressful areas etc. (BF1 multiplayer etc.).

But not to worry, all 'the quad core Intel i7 is king of gaming, more cores are not required' tune is about to change Intel launch the 6C/12T Coffee Lake, after which the mantra will be 'the six core Intel i7 is king for gaming'.
 

Doogles

Doogles

Doogles

Soldato
Joined
22 Mar 2014
Posts
3,956
KompuKare said:
[QUOTE="~>Dg<~, post: 30999310, member: 50592"]take all benchmark sites with pinch of salt.as said intels are the quickest gaming cpu.if you want great performance nothing wrong with amd.as i said 5 times and your benchmarks show.you pay a premium on intel because they are the quickest.if amd can have the fastest cpu they will do the same.
Click to expand...

Actually, for well threaded games (and no that's not just BF1...) the reason to take benchmark sites with a pinch of salt as the leave too good an impression of 4C/4T and 4C/8T CPUs like the 7600K and 7700K because they run their benches on clean installs with most background tasks disabled, and they don't necessarily test the most CPU stressful areas etc. (BF1 multiplayer etc.).

But not to worry, all 'the quad core Intel i7 is king of gaming, more cores are not required' tune is about to change Intel launch the 6C/12T Coffee Lake, after which the mantra will be 'the six core Intel i7 is king for gaming'.[/QUOTE]

Yeah that is how it's going to go, tbh the main reason not to get Ryzen for gaming is because it has lower clock speed with lower IPC still excellent chips for everything but gaming where it's average, if you buy Ryzen for gaming the best one is the R5 1600 for the price. Quad cores in gaming suffer with close to 100% usage even for the 6700k/7700k which is why Intel need to bring in 6c to the mainstream sooner rather than later.

EDIT: For some reason the quote has broke but I'm on my TV so cba with fixing it
 

humbug

humbug

humbug

Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,648
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
Yeah that is how it's going to go, tbh the main reason not to get Ryzen for gaming is because it has lower clock speed with lower IPC still excellent chips for everything but gaming where it's average, if you buy Ryzen for gaming the best one is the R5 1600 for the price. Quad cores in gaming suffer with close to 100% usage even for the 6700k/7700k which is why Intel need to bring in 6c to the mainstream sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...

IPC, Instructions Per Clock.

If CPU A gets 127 FPS @ 4.7Ghz and CPU B gets 126 FPS @ 4Ghz then CPU B is getting higher performance per clock, Its "instructions per clock" are higher

Another example, CPU A gets 138 FPS @ 4.9Ghz CPU B is running at 4Ghz with 126 FPS CPU A has 9% higher frame rates than CPU B, but CPU A is clocked 22% higher, so again CPU B has higher Instructions Per clock (IPC) :)

jliokhj.png
 
Last edited:

Rroff

Rroff

Rroff

Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
91,158
KompuKare said:
because they run their benches on clean installs with most background tasks disabled
Click to expand...

Personally I tend to keep things pretty decently house kept on systems I'm gaming on - regardless of how many cores you have some stuff will impact on gaming performance randomly if you have too much going on in the background.
 

~>Dg<~

~>Dg<~

~>Dg<~

Caporegime
Joined
1 Jun 2006
Posts
33,508
Location
Notts
:D

and if said amd cpu cant get above 4ghz like most ryzen cant and most i7 that are new do 5ghz ? or there abouts ? = faster intel cpu.for games.i dont get why you trying to argue when every game benchmarks show what i say is true.doesnt matter if its 1 fps difference.intel cpus are quicker for games. :p

some people just want the quickest. its not about value.
 

humbug

humbug

humbug

Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,648
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
~>Dg<~ said:
:D

and if said amd cpu cant get above 4ghz like most ryzen cant and most i7 that are new do 5ghz ? or there abouts ? = faster intel cpu.for games.i dont get why you trying to argue when every game benchmarks show what i say is true.doesnt matter if its 1 fps difference.intel cpus are quicker for games. :p

some people just want the quickest. its not about value.
Click to expand...

Then Intel ain't going to be selling any i9's
 

Smffy

Smffy

Smffy

Soldato
Joined
4 Dec 2015
Posts
3,221
Location
London
~>Dg<~ said:
:D

and if said amd cpu cant get above 4ghz like most ryzen cant and most i7 that are new do 5ghz ? or there abouts ? = faster intel cpu.for games.i dont get why you trying to argue when every game benchmarks show what i say is true.doesnt matter if its 1 fps difference.intel cpus are quicker for games. :p

some people just want the quickest. its not about value.
Click to expand...

You can barely type a sentence let alone present any worth while information... 'ignore all the benchmarks designed to compare products and just make it up'. Quite obviously Ryzen is not a mile behind, it depends on the title a lot whats the point in even saying that to you if you think 1FPS is worth typing about.
 

~>Dg<~

~>Dg<~

~>Dg<~

Caporegime
Joined
1 Jun 2006
Posts
33,508
Location
Notts
the whole point is you are on a enthusiast forum for pcs.many of us want the utter best or as high as we can afford.people are trying to say ryzen is as fast as intels they can be close just arent as fast.you pay for having the best.thats why the intels generally cost more.it doesnt matter if you agree or not.you pay for that small extra.then people are arguing about value.

it isnt generally 1 fps though.in reality often the ryzen are 10-20 fps behind a 7700k or a 6700k ocd.they arent even that dear as the high end x299 that people slate because they on the amd bus.the funny thing is some of the x299 cpus destroy the ryzen chips in games.not close destroy.now is it worth the huge amount of money? thats upto you.one person wont mind some will be happy with amd performance which is close on many games.thats why they talk about value and not worth the extra.

intel chips on the whole though are still quite a bit faster across the board unless some biased benchmark websites who are often affiliated want to show otherwise.

doesnt matter if ryzen isnt a mile behind its still slower in games.many enthusiasts want the fastest.not value.
 

muon

muon

muon

Soldato
Joined
8 Nov 2006
Posts
22,979
Location
London
~>Dg<~ said:
take all benchmark sites with pinch of salt.as said intels are the quickest gaming cpu.if you want great performance nothing wrong with amd.as i said 5 times and your benchmarks show.you pay a premium on intel because they are the quickest.if amd can have the fastest cpu they will do the same.
Click to expand...

Cool. So take all benchmarks with a pinch of salt but take your word for it that the 7800X is better.

The argument held when comparing the 7700K to Ryzen, but Skylake-X actually falls behind Broadwell-E in a few games. No doubt this is because of the lack of optimisation for the Mesh structure, but I don't remember Intel fans allowing that argument for Ryzen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom