the thing is generally its true what i put about running a intel cpu over a amd one. far less drama to just get it working. go read through amd threads. you will see . amd to get the best out of them messing with progs for voltage , heat , matching memory lala you get the idea. intel cpu put in works.
-
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.
Mistake? 10900K over 5950/5900/5800?
- Thread starter Cavallino
- Start date
the thing is generally its true what i put about running a intel cpu over a amd one. far less drama to just get it working. go read through amd threads. you will see . amd to get the best out of them messing with progs for voltage , heat , matching memory lala you get the idea. intel cpu put in works.
well as i said, people with problems will shout from the roof top more.
i switched from intel to AMD earlier this year. pull the build together, no dramas. swapped out a motherboard, no dramas & no OS fresh install required everything just worked when plugged in. bought a brand new CPU, mobo, and GPU recently - all installed and booted up no dramas. I didnt even have to do a fresh install of my OS when i swapped out CPU, Mobo and GPU, i was up and running in 2 hours, plus all the settings I had from the previous build worked off the bat on the new build with no dramas.
so for me no drama is my experience. you still use intel so how can you say there are issues from personal experiences?
the voltages, heat issues, matching memory all that LALA LALA flaff affect intel platform equally. if you dont know what you doing in the bios and set volts or OC sky high then you are asking for trouble. everything off the stock or default works fine on 99.999% of the systems like intel. the odd one will have broken hardware, like with intel. it is when people start to "tweak and tinker" is when they run into deep waters - intel OC also has similar problems - a quick search on this very forum yield people with RAM compatibility issues, heat, CPU not boosting, stuck OC clocks etc etc on intel platform. shall we say Intel is now plagued with issues also??
AMD gives you more scope to tune memory if you CHOOSE to do it to eek out more performanc otherwise XMP setting works out of the box just like intel.
not sure what you issue is with AMD.
Last edited:
Direct Storage is what the Xbox is using. We can surmise that if there was no performance difference between NVMe and Sata, then they would have just used sata SSD's in the xbox to meet a lower price point.
Edit: Also, who wants to reinstall windows when the first decent game that utilises it comes out. I know I don't. The PC I am currently building, just like my current one will run on the same installation for as long as possible.
Folks. I dont wish this to be an AMD vs Intel calamity but
I think I have managed to get what I want from this thread.
Here is my summary
Thats pretty much what I have extrapolated from the comments made here, research on the internet (articles/YT) etc.
Fair summary?
I think I have managed to get what I want from this thread.
Here is my summary
- 10900 seems to be priced higher today compared to what it was some months ago. Supply and Demand has made an impact on this. Nature of the economy and the beast. I am prepared to swallow the extra 200 notes.
- The Zens are clearly ahead of Intel for things like Cinebench and other CPU multicore intensive stuff. Thats given.
- Intel seems to be slightly ahead on single core I believe?
- Both points above do not affect me be because I am predominantly gaming on this new rig.
- The 10900 seems to edge the 5900 and 5800 on most games but not all (similarly price CPUs)
- The 5950 edges the 10900 in most games but not all (5950 200-300 more expensive than the 10900)
- PCIe Gen 4 on Ryzens not on Intel, again not something Im personally fussed over, I think the rig I have (will have a 3080 inside it) is plenty for me for gaming at 3440 x 1440.
- Appreciate comments on Direct Storage, but as of today I dont think this is a bottle neck for any games currently available or upcoming?
Thats pretty much what I have extrapolated from the comments made here, research on the internet (articles/YT) etc.
Fair summary?
It's DG that's the issue. He is the last Bastian for Intel, it used to be gaming, now it's DG
Even when AMD took the crown DG was arguing otherwise! I doubt many would be recommending the 10900 over Zen3 simply because pcie/4, platform, etc etc... Right now unless they (Intel) floor the prices it's still AMDs market.For the bullet points.
- 10900 seems to be priced higher today compared to what it was some months ago. Supply and Demand has made an impact on this. Nature of the economy and the beast. I am prepared to swallow the extra 200 notes.
- The Zens are clearly ahead of Intel for things like Cinebench and other CPU multicore intensive stuff. Thats given.
- Intel seems to be slightly ahead on single core I believe? - Incorrect AMD have the single core lead and by quite a bit.
- Both points above do not affect me be because I am predominantly gaming on this new rig.
- The 10900 seems to edge the 5900 and 5800 on most games but not all (similarly price CPUs) - Not sure where you are looking at these benches I make the 5000 series overall ahead in gaming. Even the 5600x is up there.
- The 5950 edges the 10900 in most games but not all (5950 200-300 more expensive than the 10900)
- PCIe Gen 4 on Ryzens not on Intel, again not something Im personally fussed over, I think the rig I have (will have a 3080 inside it) is plenty for me for gaming at 3440 x 1440.
- Appreciate comments on Direct Storage, but as of today I dont think this is a bottle neck for any games currently available or upcoming?
Last edited:
Cheers Vince. Apologies about the incorrect points.
Regarding the benchmarks, I should rephrase, the 5800 on some games is ahead and others its not. Check some youtube vids.
Also it is very subjective it seems since some review show the 10900 down in the dumps whilst others not.
I quickly checked videso of 10850/700 vs 10900, yes you are right about your comment. The difference between a 700 and a 900 is perhaps 5-10fps?
For a couple of hundred quid I dont mind, especially considering there are some people paying over a grand, going from 3080 to 3090 to get the same increase in FPS.
I think in my mind I am quite happy with the setup
If I was doing any of the stuff mentioned above, then no brainer I will cancel my order right now.
But what I am intending to use it for, its good for me.
Regarding the benchmarks, I should rephrase, the 5800 on some games is ahead and others its not. Check some youtube vids.
Also it is very subjective it seems since some review show the 10900 down in the dumps whilst others not.
I quickly checked videso of 10850/700 vs 10900, yes you are right about your comment. The difference between a 700 and a 900 is perhaps 5-10fps?
For a couple of hundred quid I dont mind, especially considering there are some people paying over a grand, going from 3080 to 3090 to get the same increase in FPS.
I think in my mind I am quite happy with the setup
If I was doing any of the stuff mentioned above, then no brainer I will cancel my order right now.
But what I am intending to use it for, its good for me.
Cheers Vince. Apologies about the incorrect points.
Regarding the benchmarks, I should rephrase, the 5800 on some games is ahead and others its not. Check some youtube vids.
Also it is very subjective it seems since some review show the 10900 down in the dumps whilst others not.
I quickly checked videso of 10850/700 vs 10900, yes you are right about your comment. The difference between a 700 and a 900 is perhaps 5-10fps?
For a couple of hundred quid I dont mind, especially considering there are some people paying over a grand, going from 3080 to 3090 to get the same increase in FPS.
I think in my mind I am quite happy with the setup
If I was doing any of the stuff mentioned above, then no brainer I will cancel my order right now.
But what I am intending to use it for, its good for me.
I I recon thats the best way to do it. Am I happy, does it fit my requirements. Honestly any cpu from amd 3600 up and intel 9900/10700 up and your experience imo os going to be more than good enough.
Genuinely im on a 1950x on my main rig and there really isnt a game I have played where you would say it performs badly. Sure my 3600x is faster at gaming but its not enough to care. I think thats pretty much the situation if your not out there for e-peen and just want a good experience you wont be dissapointed with anything recent. As i said the 10900 is still a great cpu and that doesnt change overnight.
<Looks at Xbox Series S from across the room>. I know very well what it is and the benefits.
I'm more concerned with CPU and chipset support. Intel have a history of withholding features artificially for new chipset and CPU releases as a differentiator to distract from still being on 14nm over 6 years later...
It's DG that's the issue. He is the last Bastian for Intel, it used to be gaming, now it's DG
the problem is you look at my posts as bias when there is none. i favour no side. like the guy above who quoted me and just assumed im only on intel.
amd havent took the crown. they cant even ship these super fast cpus. as there isnt any lol. also dont be biased and honestly say which is the easiest cpu to just use every day from the instalation ? intel or amd be honest. then if you apply bias go read this very forums. of recent times. many amd cpus dont like certain memory. pcs not even booting. crashing.heat and other issues. its not a new thing either amd have had this for a good while. they are great new cpus but even if quicker wouldnt you take that 1 fps less in a game lol for a easy every day life ?
the problem is you look at my posts as bias when there is none. i favour no side. like the guy above who quoted me and just assumed im only on intel.
amd havent took the crown. they cant even ship these super fast cpus. as there isnt any lol. also dont be biased and honestly say which is the easiest cpu to just use every day from the instalation ? intel or amd be honest. then if you apply bias go read this very forums. of recent times. many amd cpus dont like certain memory. pcs not even booting. crashing.heat and other issues. its not a new thing either amd have had this for a good while. they are great new cpus but even if quicker wouldnt you take that 1 fps less in a game lol for a easy every day life ?
I have over 100 Intel machines and over 100 AMD (all in production) in my opinion neither have an edge in setup, issues going forward etc. It's just not a thing. It feels like people looking for issues where there are not issues. I just struggle to agree with opinion where there is no basis in fact.
as said take personal opinion out of it. go read some of the threads on here only in the last week for eg. it shows you amd do seem to have there fair share of issues. i would gather all the posts but its just too time consuming.
Its not opinion when it's tried and tested, if I hadn't deployed 100 Zen machines last month then sure it is opinion... My experience - 100 of each brand 0 issues on either. That's experience not conjecture. What you are looking at is the vocal minority. How many people are going to make a thread "this works great" - Or are they just going to enjoy their machine?
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 1,338
- Location
- Eltham
Do you really need to make up lies to try and make one sound better than the other? Numerous bios issues! Memory tweaks! The box had red on it! gasp!
you got those two points wrong.
- 10900K is miles below Zen3 on single core performance. like 10-15% lower than any of the zen 3 cpus
- on gamings, even the 5600X is better than 10900K. let alone 5800x 5900x.
Tbh it all comes down to your workload and resolution.
If you do a lot of multi tasking applications then Zen3 is the way to go if you can find one.
If you game at 1080p and want more fps then Zen3 is the way to go if you can find one.
If you only game AND game at higher resolutions than 1080p then a faster gpu is more relevant than a faster processor so grab whatever processor you can get your hands on whether it be intel or amd.
If you game and do multi tasking workloads then Zen3 again is the way to go.
10-15% isn't really that much if you're talking raw performance and looking at numbers unless you really need 700fps at 1080p on csgo
If you do a lot of multi tasking applications then Zen3 is the way to go if you can find one.
If you game at 1080p and want more fps then Zen3 is the way to go if you can find one.
If you only game AND game at higher resolutions than 1080p then a faster gpu is more relevant than a faster processor so grab whatever processor you can get your hands on whether it be intel or amd.
If you game and do multi tasking workloads then Zen3 again is the way to go.
10-15% isn't really that much if you're talking raw performance and looking at numbers unless you really need 700fps at 1080p on csgo
Please see my response to this above to Vince.
go look at actual big games not amd games used by biased benchmark people. 5600x isnt anywhere close. only in amd games.
as said go read last two pages of the cpu forum on here. scroll down. then look for amd issues. its not made up. its written by forum members having issues. memory choice is a MASSIVE thing with AMD cpus. has been for years. not just performance wise but to even start up or work. i dont see how people can even say that with a straight face and make out memory isnt a big deal with amd cpus. you know it is. yet people will still deny this.
And now the thread devolves into Intel vs Amd again.
Op has a decent gaming cpu, yes it was a ripoff at £600, but that has more to do with retailers and Intel pricing, I personally would have gone for the 10900kf for £150 less.
The frame differences between the 2 brands now is imperceptible, unless you're running monitoring software to show you the fps.
For a gaming only rig OP could have spent less on CPu and put extra into gpu but since he has a 3080 the only way it gets better is with a 6800xt/6900xt/3090 and they are impossible to get/cost way more.
Buyers remorse is something that you get with pc building, sometimes it stings more than other times, ie buying a 2080ti 3 months before 3000 series launch, but you've got the hardware, and the rig, enjoy it for yourself and your needs.
You didn't buy or build it for anyone else
Op has a decent gaming cpu, yes it was a ripoff at £600, but that has more to do with retailers and Intel pricing, I personally would have gone for the 10900kf for £150 less.
The frame differences between the 2 brands now is imperceptible, unless you're running monitoring software to show you the fps.
For a gaming only rig OP could have spent less on CPu and put extra into gpu but since he has a 3080 the only way it gets better is with a 6800xt/6900xt/3090 and they are impossible to get/cost way more.
Buyers remorse is something that you get with pc building, sometimes it stings more than other times, ie buying a 2080ti 3 months before 3000 series launch, but you've got the hardware, and the rig, enjoy it for yourself and your needs.
You didn't buy or build it for anyone else