I'm sure plenty of people play esports titles at 1440p.
Bulldozer had awful SC performance, the new Intel stuff almost matches zen 3.
So what are the pros using? AMD CPU + GPU since ampere sucks for 1080p gaming?
Last edited:
-
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.
Why is Ryzen 5000 so dang fast at eSports?
- Thread starter Grim5
- Start date
Bulldozer had awful SC performance, the new Intel stuff almost matches zen 3.
So what are the pros using? AMD CPU + GPU since ampere sucks for 1080p gaming?
So let me get this straight...
When Intel held the eSports crown, it was an unparalleled beast and despite Ryzen getting close and offering better price/performance it was an irrelevant joke.
Now AMD hold the eSports crown, Intel is still the superior option because of its price/performance and Ryzen is overpriced non-option, despite absolute lead.
Some people on this thread really need to get back in the sea...
When Intel held the eSports crown, it was an unparalleled beast and despite Ryzen getting close and offering better price/performance it was an irrelevant joke.
Now AMD hold the eSports crown, Intel is still the superior option because of its price/performance and Ryzen is overpriced non-option, despite absolute lead.
Some people on this thread really need to get back in the sea...
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Jul 2016
- Posts
- 196
- Location
- Mansfield
Would be nice if people were unbiased. Used to be AMD price/performance and Intel outright performance, now it's the other way round. It would be very nice if AMD were still the value kings with the outright performance, but hey ho
Would be glorious. Alas, people as an entity are stupid.
Let's face it AMD has become greedy Intel as soon as they took the performance lead by jacking up the prices while Intel being behind has actually brought some VFM to the gaming space. These companies are just out to make as much money as they can and whoever has the lead will try to extract top dollar.
This time last year I would have recommended Zen 2, now I will recommend Intel. If AMD release a £180 5600 then I will recommend AMD again. My only bias is for the consumer.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Jul 2016
- Posts
- 196
- Location
- Mansfield
Which is what should happen, but certain people have been saying... buy intel because they're cheaper and almost the same performance, but when it was the other way round... buy intel because you have to pay for that extra little performance. Double standards
Really?
So where are your posts saying "after you take into consideration you need to pay for a cooler for the 11600K, the 5600X is only about 50 notes more expensive, but that extra money also buys into a full platform that has significant longevity compared to Intel, as well as overall performance leadership, however marginal". Help me out, because I can't find where you posted that consumer-centric advice.
What I do see is you, amongst others, using the exact same argument for Intel's current offering that was so often poo-pooed when made for Ryzen. THAT is the hypocrisy I was alluding to.
Yeah and people on the AMD side were saying last year buy AMD because it's cheaper while they now say buy AMD because it's better the fanboyism is strong for both teams in the PC space.
I wouldn't recommend either of those CPUs over a 11400F.
If you need more than 6 cores right now then AMD is the better option but for gaming buying the budget offering every 3 years will almost always beat sticking to an older platform and upgrading to a higher core count CPU of the same generation.
Last edited:
This isn't some kind of "holier than thou" stance, but there is a difference you've missed: nobody in the "AMD camp" is saying don't buy Intel. If you want the best, buy Ryzen 5000. If you want some kind of longevity, buy Ryzen 5000. If you want a solid gaming system that's value for money, buy Intel. I've not once seen anybody in the "Intel camp" say the same about Ryzen these past years.
Tru dat.
Are you implying that you have to be in one camp or the other ? I'm not in either. I have a really nice Ryzen 3600x that powers my media pc and its a pretty awesome sff setup. If I was building a high gaming pc today I'd buy ryzen.
My experience with both people in the 'AMD camp' or the 'Intel Camp' is generally that both spout a lot of nonsense and are devoid of critical thought.......
These things are literally components and aren't going to change your life in any meaningful way.
Not at all
Thank god for that
Depends on what you want from it, like the Ryzen 3600 was always a capable CPU, i had one, the 11400F is a great budget option, but like the Ryzen 3600 before it it is not the best gaming CPU, for people who wanted that i always recommended the 9900K. now its the 5800X.
I think you're right to recommend the 11400F to most people, i would do the same, i did the same with the Ryzen 3600, but let us not pretend its something its not.
We can argue all day about resolution. But I think if you're spending £700 or more on a GPU (MSRP) you don't want to be buying a CPU that might leave some of that £700+ GPU's performance untapped, you're going to want the fastest CPU you can get, to do otherwise is being dishonest to the people you're advising, tell them about cheaper alternatives yes, but give them the full picture.
That's my opinion.
That's my opinion.
The thing is you need a really high end GPU like a 3080 / 6800XT and then play at 1080p to gain the advantage which even then is only around 12% by going with something like a 5800X.
The majority of people buying those cards will game at either 1440p or 4K where the difference between the £400 5800X and £150 11400F will be virtually nothing the same applies for those gaming on lower end cards at 1080p.
If you're not bothered about the cash or do more than just game then the 5800X is an exellent CPU and you won't be disappointed with the performance but if you just game even with a high end GPU then that level of performance can be had almost 1/3 of the price which is great for the consumer and especially for those building a PC on a budget that could mean the difference between a 3060 or a 6800 or a 3060ti and 3080 assuming you can find one!.
I think it's actually the opposite and the misconception is that if you buy a high end GPU you need a high end CPU when infact you often don't unless you're playing at low res or graphics settings which is often not the case.
Last edited:
Yes, and not to drag him into this but @darket didn't buy that 10900K for his 3080 because he plays games at 1080P, i don't know he might? He bought that CPU to give his 3080 the best chance it could have.
No one knows how games in a year or two will be doing with the CPU, or if Nvidia bring out something faster late this year which might make a lesser CPU choke even at 1440P.
Too many people bought 4 core CPU's,. even 6 core 6 thread 5Ghz CPU's thinking "this is all i need", only to find at some point later that BFV and some other games were rendered an unplayable stuttering mess because the CPU couldn't cope, there is a tonne of this on Youtube.
Give people a full picture so they can make a properly informed decision.
And its not you, if you're thinking that, i'm making a general point, some mainstream reviewers are the worst for it, people like Hardware Unboxed recently, while well meaning is trying to drive prices down they are deliberately manipulating some results to make it look like there is little difference between a Ryzen 3600 and a 9900K or a 10400 and a 5600X, they are doing this in their best value CPU's videos by using slower GPU's to compress everything down to the same level and then concluding "Look see the 3600 is only 6% slower than the 9900K" it isn't, it really isn't, the 9900K is and always was a much faster CPU's than that.
And here is the latest example of those shenanigans.
Same game, same benchmark, only difference, the GPU they used, GN used a 3080, HUB a 6700XT. What they are actually doing when they pull stunts like this is force people to buy a cheaper CPU to begin with and then get a much more expensive faster CPU eventually anyway because it turns out not to be as good as a video like this suggests, they spent the money twice and ended up with the more expensive CPU anyway. Much less than helpful don't you agree?
When I got my 3080 back in September "very lucky" I didn't rush out to upgrade my 3600 to a 10900k, but around Xmas I did decide to treat myself with a 5800X and while there was an improvement in a few games most had exactly the same fps as I got with the 3600 and the ones that didn't were already over 144hz on my 1440P monitor so in reality I gained very little in gaming performance. I was still happy though as I fell into the "didn't care about money category" but had I upgraded thinking I would see a large uplift I would have been quite disappointed especially if money was tighter.Yes, and not to drag him into this but @darket didn't buy that 10900K for his 3080 because he plays games at 1080P, i don't know he might? He bought that CPU to give his 3080 the best chance it could have.
No one knows how games in a year or two will be doing with the CPU, or if Nvidia bring out something faster late this year which might make a lesser CPU choke even at 1440P.
Too many people bought 4 core CPU's,. even 6 core 6 thread 5Ghz CPU's thinking "this is all i need", only to find at some point later that BFV and some other games were rendered an unplayable stuttering mess because the CPU couldn't cope, there is a tonne of this on Youtube.
Give people a full picture so they can make a properly informed decision.
And its not you, if you're thinking that, i'm making a general point, some mainstream reviewers are the worst for it, people like Hardware Unboxed recently, while well meaning is trying to drive prices down they are deliberately manipulating some results to make it look like there is little difference between a Ryzen 3600 and a 9900K or a 10400 and a 5600X, they are doing this in their best value CPU's videos by using slower GPU's to compress everything down to the same level and then concluding "Look see the 3600 is only 6% slower than the 9900K" it isn't, it really isn't, the 9900K is and always was a much faster CPU's than that.
And here is the latest example of those shenanigans.
Same game, same benchmark, only difference, the GPU they used, GN used a 3080, HUB a 6700XT. What they are actually doing when they pull stunts like this is force people to buy a cheaper CPU to begin with and then get a much more expensive faster CPU eventually anyway because it turns out not to be as good as a video like this suggests, they spent the money twice and ended up with the more expensive CPU anyway. Much less than helpful don't you agree?
