1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Zen2. Is Intel now the gamers choice & price/perf king?

Discussion in 'CPUs' started by beany_bot, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:47 AM.

  1. chroniclard

    Capodecina

    Joined: Apr 23, 2014

    Posts: 11,404

    Location: Hertfordshire

    Not sure anyone is really going to be too fussed if they get 205 FPS vs 220 FPS.

    Still too early for this thread without more statistics/comparisons. :)
     
  2. Rossi~

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 5, 2010

    Posts: 18,383

    This is a terrible thread. Zen2 isn't even out yet, why would anyone choose one over the other before actually knowing what one of them really is, how it really performs or how much it costs.
     
  3. lee32uk

    Underboss

    Joined: Nov 9, 2005

    Posts: 9,420

    Location: manchester,uk

    The Asus X570 Prime is garbage but the Z390 version is good :confused: Not sure how you come to that conclusion. Try running an overclocked 9900K on the Prime Z390-A and see how your VRM temps are ;)
     
  4. easyrider

    Caporegime

    Joined: Dec 24, 2005

    Posts: 38,138

    Location: Autonomy

    What a silly thread.

    I had a 9900k sold it...for what I paid...Got a refund on the Asus Hero costing £260

    Then bought a MSI Gaming Carbon for £109

    I'll be dropping in a 3900x...I'll have 9900k performance...4 more cores for less money....
     
  5. Drollic

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 24, 2013

    Posts: 3,164

    Location: East Midlands

    I don't know why it's even worth arguing when with amd you're getting a drop in upgrade path as well as pcie4 for hardly anything extra. In 2020, 2021 it's highly likely you could drop in an even faster 12/24 with the best ddr4 memory before ddr5 and regardless of this and pcie5, you'll be good for years to come. This is of course all on the basis of the things we know so far.
     
  6. billysielu

    Capodecina

    Joined: Aug 9, 2009

    Posts: 11,028

    Location: Oxfordshire

    Why does there always have to be a clear winner. Them being basically equal is fine.
     
  7. jigger

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 28, 2007

    Posts: 10,801

    From a bang for buck point I don't get the argument. I'd argue a Ryzen 1600/1700 and X470/B-450 is the way to go.
     
  8. RavenXXX2

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 6, 2007

    Posts: 17,113

    Location: North West

    Mad to buy a 3800X at £400, I would pay the extra 100 and get the 12 core or go for the 3700x and overclock.
     
  9. ~>Dg<~

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jun 1, 2006

    Posts: 31,106

    Location: Notts

    and in games be slower. for the life time of the new amd processor.

    it actually dumbfounds me that people have swallowed the amd hook. the benchmark slide for eg posted earlier. they used a 2080 gtx why ? because the framerates are closer to intel with that still slower than a 9900k ingames overall but close enough . add in a 2080ti then you see the gap grow with intel cpus. you will see this in benchmarks soon. you are basically paying for more cores. if you use those extra cores of 12+ its amazing for you. if you dont use more than 8 then you buying a slower product. makes no sense. pricing needs to change. i think it will once the hype dies down a little and the true benchmarks are out.

    the funny thing is gaming elite benchmark slide even shows that the £400 8 core amd new cpu is slower in games than a current 9700k 8 core cpu which costs as little as £350 :p .
     
  10. subbytna

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 22, 2008

    Posts: 8,616

    Location: Belfast

    Where's Gavin at when we need an Intel post :p
     
  11. DragonQ

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 13, 2009

    Posts: 6,181

    Uuuuuh, anyone who doesn't have a RTX 2080 Ti doesn't care mate.
     
  12. ~>Dg<~

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jun 1, 2006

    Posts: 31,106

    Location: Notts

    the point is the intel cpu is cheaper and quicker in games at said resolution. having a 2080 ti is irrelevant. the only reason i mentioned it is because amd didnt show the benchmarks with that card in because it shows the gap is bigger. moving the goal posts.
     
  13. gavinh87

    Mobster

    Joined: Jan 29, 2015

    Posts: 4,739

    Location: West Midlands

    Except when in 2 years time the xx70 card is as fast as a 2080ti.....
    Got to love AMD marketing, 1st gen ryzen was all about 4k/1440p now it's all about 1080p.
    And we, myself including swallowed it all up.
     
  14. DragonQ

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 13, 2009

    Posts: 6,181

    I absolutely agree that their comparison was a bit odd - comparing a £350 i7-9700K to a £380 R7 3800X with the latter losing slightly in gaming (but far ahead in creation workloads). However, there are no goal posts, you're literally creating and planting them yourself. OK, maybe fifty people on the planet care about a few extra FPS while playing at 1080p with a 2080 Ti. No-one else does, so why keep bringing it up?

    You mean in 5+ years presumably. GPUs haven't become more affordable (for a given performance band) for, what, 3 years now?

    Again, the twenty people with 1080p 240 Hz monitors who cannot do without those last 10 FPS appreciate you both posting in this type of thread (again).
     
  15. jigger

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 28, 2007

    Posts: 10,801

    Nope. Generally Intel is slower and more expensive.
     
  16. ~>Dg<~

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jun 1, 2006

    Posts: 31,106

    Location: Notts

    im not moving the goalposts. the benchmark they shown was for gaming. its a gaming benchmark that people have ranted on here for months with no knowledge that new amd cpus were as fast as a 9900k. AMDs own benchmark shows they cant even match a 9700k at games. which is the benchmark we talking about. im talking about actual proof shown by AMD that they cant match a cheaper intel cpu in gaming.

    yet again you are bringing a 2080ti into the mix. i only suggested why amd didnt show the benchmarks with a 2080 ti . not to go get one or if its even worth it. how is that hard to understand ? AMD have moved the goal posts so they look better to get more people to buy a slower product. even show they have a slower product with their own benchmark shown by there leader on stage in front of millions. how can anyone even deny that its slower and dearer .

    if we look at the two cpus in the benchmark the only real problem is amds pricing. as i have said now for a while. i said months ago at gaming amd wont be better or faster. the pricing needs to change make em cheaper then they will be great value for GAMING .
     
  17. RavenXXX2

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 6, 2007

    Posts: 17,113

    Location: North West

    Pricing is cheaper than the security risk Intel and they perform better at lower power. RIP Intel.
     
  18. Orange Nexus

    Gangster

    Joined: Sep 21, 2018

    Posts: 212

    Oh noes, dont pair the 9700K to 1080P. Gonna bottleneck.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCsQeFqnZWY

    Also, it runs out of cores in Battlefield.
     
  19. 4K8KW10

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 2, 2017

    Posts: 5,549

    Explain how an 9900K is slower and more expensive than a 2700X?

    With 97% market share, definitely..
     
  20. RavenXXX2

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 6, 2007

    Posts: 17,113

    Location: North West

    97% lol, stop pulling figures out your ***