OcUK Staff
Joke thread again as always with none retail product!!!
-
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.
Zen2. Is Intel now the gamers choice & price/perf king?
- Thread starter beany_bot
- Start date
I forgot what you might actually mean with the lolz
Well, let me explain it for you in a very simple language, using the pie chart. The bigger part which is in blue colour is the Intel's x86 market share. The tiny part that is decorated in orange is the AMD's x86 market share.
See:
Source:
https://www.extremetech.com/computi...-share-in-desktop-and-laptop-slips-in-servers
Why? that's not what I was pointing out. Explain how Intel are faster and cheaper than AMD.
Soldato
I forgot what you might actually mean with the lolz
Well, let me explain it for you in a very simple language, using the pie chart. The bigger part which is in blue colour is the Intel's x86 market share. The tiny part that is decorated in orange is the AMD's x86 market share.
See:
Source:
https://www.extremetech.com/computi...-share-in-desktop-and-laptop-slips-in-servers
The figures you've highlighted is for server usage, look at the desktop share which is showing at 17.1%
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.
Dude, I don't game at 1080p, I dont have a 2080ti and I play games and video edit. The 3900x is the sweet spot cpu for gaming and workloads, fact for the same price as a 9900k I get a great gaming experience and 12/24 goodness for less money than 9900k and z390
I haven't fallen for the hype...the 9900k is a great cpu...PERIOD...but you know what...? I'm glad I have an upgrade incoming from a 8/16 chip...as that was boring the pants off me
Even for less money which is a bonus....
What hook is that exactly, all i see is a CPU on par with Intel's, simply with extra cores and an upgradability that Intel has scoffed at for 10 years.
That's good enough for me, and ill wait for perf numbers when the 1903 update is involved as well. Why do people have to be so dumbfoundedly defensive over silicon.
That's good enough for me, and ill wait for perf numbers when the 1903 update is involved as well. Why do people have to be so dumbfoundedly defensive over silicon.
As an enthusiast I like to try brand new tech as it comes available. The 3900X will allow me to try pcie4 and a spicy new 5GB/s boot drive, plus I have some nice g.skill 3200mhz cl14 samsung b die RAM currently paired with my 8700K to go along with it (although I'm not sure if the new Ryzens will be so picky with RAM?).
Withholding any major judgement until benchmarks start to come out, it seems like the new chips will offer broadly similar price/performance to current top-end intel. Lets face it, at the top end of the scale people are not quibbling over £50 here and there. My PC is worth £4k....
Withholding any major judgement until benchmarks start to come out, it seems like the new chips will offer broadly similar price/performance to current top-end intel. Lets face it, at the top end of the scale people are not quibbling over £50 here and there. My PC is worth £4k....
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 5,849
Lol is 4k8kW10 off his rocker?? hes in a Zen 2 desktop thread yelling about intels 97% Server marketshare?? hahah wtf...
Anyhow im laughing at these benchmarks people are getting all bothered over, all of them are over 100fps with most over 200fps... Adaptive Sync people... who gives a monkeys left nut if your only at 150fps on AMD and Intels on 190fps and your both on 144mhz monitors with Adaptive sync... its IRRELEVANT!
Max FPS no longer really matters, minimums and averages are much better indications of overall experience when playing games, if your CPU hits 10fps as often as it hits 1000fps that does not make for a very nice experience, if its hitting 50fps more often than its hitting 90fps that is a lot better experience, some people here seem unable to fathom this. And its even better when its coupled with adaptive sync....
Bottom line as long as CPU + GPU keep within my Adaptive Sync range That is ALL i care about, ALL, nothing more, any more FPS than im capped as is USELESS and WASTED for me.
Anyhow im laughing at these benchmarks people are getting all bothered over, all of them are over 100fps with most over 200fps... Adaptive Sync people... who gives a monkeys left nut if your only at 150fps on AMD and Intels on 190fps and your both on 144mhz monitors with Adaptive sync... its IRRELEVANT!
Max FPS no longer really matters, minimums and averages are much better indications of overall experience when playing games, if your CPU hits 10fps as often as it hits 1000fps that does not make for a very nice experience, if its hitting 50fps more often than its hitting 90fps that is a lot better experience, some people here seem unable to fathom this. And its even better when its coupled with adaptive sync....
Bottom line as long as CPU + GPU keep within my Adaptive Sync range That is ALL i care about, ALL, nothing more, any more FPS than im capped as is USELESS and WASTED for me.
It's not a joke thread. It's a discussion thread with a bit of devils advocate thrown in.
I've been pricing a 3800x system (And I bought your RAM for it)... And my pricing has me sitting at more than a 9900K build would cost. Assuming the 3800x and 9900k are similar perf. my question stands is Intel the price / performance king now?
Perhaps he is thinking ahead to when we all play (stream) games on server hardware.
Soldato
Correct the AMD CPU is £50 less assuming you can pick one up for £450 in regards to 9900k.
Incorrect, we have no idea what RAM is best for Zen 2 at all but from what has been stated you can easily pick up some decent RAM for Zen 2 around the £75 mark also making this a non-point.
You could just go for an X470 if you want the same performance since it has the same specs since we are ignoring PCIE 4.0 and anything with that. Meaning that also comes in around £190 for the same board currently. Thus also making it a non-issue in this case.
So at the end of that we are still at £50 cheaper for the new Zen2 setup if you want a like for like build.
Could you go for the X570 board, of course if you really need PCIE 4.0 to go with a new M.2 drive but are we sure the £150-£190 X570 boards are going to be any worse for any reason than the Asus model you picked for instance.
I mean since VRM better, more PCB layers, with PCIE 4.0 maybe the performance we are really getting will be similar anyways and thus for gaming you don't need a top end board. Does the naming convention dictate the level of the board or purely the performance, technically the B570 range of boards are the equals to Intels current lineup since they would have the same features from all accounts but be for "this generation" rather than being for previous gen.
Also it appears the reason for the B series being later to me would be that it is basically the X470 boards rebranded in terms of performance/spec so they are offloading all those boards before bringing out something to replace them with at the lower price bracket.
That is just my view from what I can see going on. When Intel get onto 4.0 as well then I can see two options, the Intel mobos go up into the same price brackets, meaning that AMD still king and by much more again or the mobo prices drop as processes and costs settle and AMD mobos drop their price to compete with Intel on the same level.
Early adopters of 4.0 are taking the cost of the R&D, manufacturing changes etc.
Edit:
And if you want to talk about price/performance for gaming you are looking at the 3200Mhz kits @ £75 if want to manually set the RAM or take a little risk / or 3600Mhz @ £120 if you want plug and play, a B570 or X470 board around the £120-£150 mark and the 3800X for £400.
That would net you a good balanced high end system that is still £45-£120 cheaper. You have never had to have the high end motherboard as gamer, not sure why that would change now tbh. I mean a Giga X470 Aorus Ultra is what £120 or MSI X470 Gaming Pro is £105.
That wont affect your gaming performance that we are looking at.
Last edited:
Hot new kit cost more than old kit, normal, with Ryzen you don't need to splash out though, you can still buy and old board with no penalty, if you are that cost concious gen 4 is not for you anyway, you'd still have parity with the intel setup more or less.
RAM wise we don't know what works but sounds like anything will so cost will be same for Intel or AMD.
I'm personally still running gen 1 and have seen no need to upgrade to 2xxx or 3xxx for games or anything else, perhaps I am just not l33t enough. Reviews might change my mind if there is something I can tinker with and I am feeling flush.
Now if we are talking next gen GPU, I am all ears, that's where gaming performance always comes from, unless you are a 1080p saddo stuck in the 90s.
Last edited:
RX 5700 XT supports PCIe 4.0 and in order to get the card's maximum performance, you must go with X570.
X570 boards will be faster across the range than X470.
Don't spread lies and deceit just like AMD.
Soldato
Sorry what you posted is irrelevant and rubbish. Yeah the new AMD cards that almost nobody wants or is worried about and thus will likely still be on either older AMD 56/64/VII or Nvidia 9series and up cards instead okay.
And you have no evidence about the X570 vs X470 in gaming performance but since gaming performance between the B450 and X470 boards is minimal to non-existent then I see no reason to believe otherwise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALaGT0AGIY0
Honestly the rubbish you have come out with the last few posts I have seen I don't think I will be bothering with responding further as you are completely deluded in almost all your statements and spouting irrelevant information that nobody cares about.
Soldato
The RX5700 XT isn't going to saturate pcie 3.0 though nevermind pcie 4.0 so not sure that your point is valid.
Last edited:
I very much doubt any graphics card apart from maybe a dual chip Vega would need PCI-E 4.0 to see a performance improvement.
I'm sure AMD are the price to performance kings for gaming. And PCI-4.0 won't be needed for gaming. 100% sure.
Associate
1+
I agree fully amd is the bang for buck king, intel is the performance king which means exactly that so if price is no factor then it is the must have processor for gaming etc,
Will have to see what ryzen 3xxx series gives us.
Dan.
Even an RTX 2080 Ti wouldn't be bottlenecked much by PCIe 2.0, PCIe 4.0 is certainly not necessary for GPUs right now. You're just making stuff up.