The costs of Intel gaming vs AMD gaming, who wins? Actually Intel this round, cheaper and faster.

[Melvis]

 

[Rahnak]

on topic- no need for that, a 9400f build with cheap mobo and ram will still be cheaper than any AMD and beat it at 80% of games in pure raw FPS. barely, but still. :/ regardless it doesn't matter, I am glad to see AMD doing well to be honest for nostalgia's sake.

If you're buying a cheaper build, won't the bottleneck be, for the most part, on the GPU though, thus making all these lower end CPUs perform largely the same in gaming? All these reviews pair the cpus with the 2080Ti or some other high end GPU, which is unrealistic at this lower price point.
But the productivity advantage or the ryzens remain. That's the point most of these reviewers make, imo.

 

[MrGRiMv25]

Intel still has a lead in peak FPS but when it comes to the .1% lows it's not that much of a lead, they're still faster but at least AMD has finally got their s*** together and caught up with Intel. AMD has also sort of invigorated the market and forced Intel to whack more cores in to their i3/i5's etc which is good for everybody. As for cost, there's not much between them but it mostly depends on what you buy in terms of CPU, board, RAM etc.

 

[Dante Uchiha]

I have some very real optimism that in the next few years PS3 will be emulated well with the more powerful processors on the horizon, and while the Coffee lake and Zen2 isn't quite it, the Zen 2 is getting us closer to that point.

I think Zen2 's going to come near to full speed. Without any optimization, 3700X is already exceeding the performance of the 8700K @ 5Ghz. Plus, zen2 has some new instructions to explore.

Revisiting AMD's 19.7.1 drivers and the RX 5700 launch

A closer look at AMD's 19.7.1 drivers and an explanation for the RX 5700's sometimes questionable performance.

www.pcgamer.com

driver bugs are not an exclusivity of the red side. I remember that Nvidia has released a driver that left me without playing Mass Effect: Andromeda... So I had to go back to the previous driver without optimization for other games that I like.

 

[Vario]

I think Zen2 's going to come near to full speed. Without any optimization, 3700X is already exceeding the performance of the 8700K @ 5Ghz. Plus, zen2 has some new instructions to explore.



driver bugs are not an exclusivity of the red side. I remember that Nvidia has released a driver that left me without playing Mass Effect: Andromeda... So I had to go back to the previous driver without optimization for other games that I like.

Not to mention its a red herring to talk Radeon, when the topic is about Intel CPU vs AMD CPU.

 

[Manu_PT]

The i7 9700 and 9700k are beastly CPUs for high refresh gaming. In all honestly, when I got mine I even thought it was "too much", because if you dont have the gpu at 100% usage, you will rock 250fps-300fps on almost every game. And that is overkill for most users. That is why it is hard to reccomend the 9700 or 9700k. A lot of people use 144hz monitors and lower and are happy with 90/100fps.

With that being said, I use a 240hz monitor and all I do on my PC these days is either music production (thunderbolt 3 is a bless!) or e-sports titles gaming at crazy high fps and low details/res scale.

Plus the i7 9700 is way better buy than the 9700k, at least here in EU as you can get it for 340€ and it will do 4,8ghz all cores on a Z370 motherboard. Not worth to pay 60€ more and a better motherboard for 200mhz more. Intel knows this and thats why they launch the K models first.

For high refresh gaming I would not consider the AMD chips. I mean even the 140€ 9400F is on par with the Ryzen 3000 in games...

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

The i7 9700 and 9700k are beastly CPUs for high refresh gaming. In all honestly, when I got mine I even thought it was "too much", because if you dont have the gpu at 100% usage, you will rock 250fps-300fps on almost every game. And that is overkill for most users. That is why it is hard to reccomend the 9700 or 9700k. A lot of people use 144hz monitors and lower and are happy with 90/100fps.

With that being said, I use a 240hz monitor and all I do on my PC these days is either music production (thunderbolt 3 is a bless!) or e-sports titles gaming at crazy high fps and low details/res scale.

Plus the i7 9700 is way better buy than the 9700k, at least here in EU as you can get it for 340€ and it will do 4,8ghz all cores on a Z370 motherboard. Not worth to pay 60€ more and a better motherboard for 200mhz more. Intel knows this and thats why they launch the K models first.

For high refresh gaming I would not consider the AMD chips. I mean even the 140€ 9400F is on par with the Ryzen 3000 in games...

So your niche is the same as many then and 95% of users can get a cheap R2600 x470 and a radeon rx570 and enjoy massive savings and high 144hz 1080p for cheap, your calcs squed.

 

[Manu_PT]

Not sure that RX570 is a "high 144hz 1080p" card tbh. Most likely a gtx 1660ti. R5 2600 starts to be difficult to get here in EU, its price went up now in my country and is getting out of stock everywhere (wich is normal). But yeah you are right, the problem is when people do not accept that different users want different experiences and start saying that everyone in this world should only buy AMD and no reasons to buy Intel. That´s where the problem is.

With that being said I think Intel CPUs are overpriced, 9900k is a chip I would never buy for 500€, but imo 9400F (150€) and i7 9700F (or 9700 non K) for 340€ are good bets for people that only game on their PCs. With AMD being king for productivity. It all depends on what each one wants.

Here is an interesting video of a real world gaming situation, showing that Ryzen 3000 isn´t that close to Intel as some reviews might show:

 

[Xzibit]

Here is an interesting video of a real world gaming situation, showing that Ryzen 3000 isn´t that close to Intel as some reviews might show:

Have other people reported the stutter? Hes questioned about it being network related and doesn't address it rather gives this answer.

BFV is a stuttery game anyways. It stutters on my 9900K as well.

In his commentary he mentions Single Player is fine. He even throws shade at other reviewers but it never crosses his mind it could be a network game issue if its doing it on all his setups in that game.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Not sure that RX570 is a "high 144hz 1080p" card tbh. Most likely a gtx 1660ti. R5 2600 starts to be difficult to get here in EU, its price went up now in my country and is getting out of stock everywhere (wich is normal). But yeah you are right, the problem is when people do not accept that different users want different experiences and start saying that everyone in this world should only buy AMD and no reasons to buy Intel. That´s where the problem is.

With that being said I think Intel CPUs are overpriced, 9900k is a chip I would never buy for 500€, but imo 9400F (150€) and i7 9700F (or 9700 non K) for 340€ are good bets for people that only game on their PCs. With AMD being king for productivity. It all depends on what each one wants.

Here is an interesting video of a real world gaming situation, showing that Ryzen 3000 isn´t that close to Intel as some reviews might show:

If you know what your doing and set it up right it helps ,I could make a 9900k look pointless over a fx8350 for example(4k right game).
And I've managed to get stutter on every PC I ever built, I got rid of it too with settings and killing background apps.

 

[HenrySomeone]

For high refresh gaming I would not consider the AMD chips. I mean even the 140€ 9400F is on par with the Ryzen 3000 in games...

Precisely - AMD still sucks really bad for anything above 100fps and a sub 150$/€ 9400f still matches their best, lmao! Honestly, that's just f-ing embarrassing...

 

[Papahyooie]

When your whole argument relies on "gaming per dollar" you can't just arbitrarily put restrictions on AMD with higher priced components lol. The parts you say are the cheapest are not even near the cheapest.

Intel has a slight lead in gaming. Probably always will. But if you want 99% of the perf at a better value, Ryzen is where it's at right now.

 

[Metroid]

Things have changed a lot since ryzen 3xxx were released and because of of hype and reviews people are rushing to buy and because of that supply is non existent at moment, 3700x is being sold for $400 from $329 and 9700k is being sold for $329 from $379, that is what happens when supply hype demand works.

At $200 3600 is the best buy, at $400 i dont see the 3700x as the best buy. I would rather go with the 9700k for $329. 9900k is following that too, already for $449.

3900x is already a folklore figure, only exists in photos in online stores hehe

I think Zen2 's going to come near to full speed. Without any optimization, 3700X is already exceeding the performance of the 8700K @ 5Ghz. Plus, zen2 has some new instructions to explore.

There are many more instructions that amd could have included and they decided not to.

 

[the54thvoid]

There's quite a substantial amount of horse crap in a few posts here. When I moved to a Ryzen 1700x when it came out, used with a 1080ti, there was less stuttering than on my 3930k. That was also on BF4.

Yes, we get it, for purely gaming, Intel still has a small edge. But then, if you're only gaming, go buy a console.

 

[Bones]

There's quite a substantial amount of horse crap in a few posts here. When I moved to a Ryzen 1700x when it came out, used with a 1080ti, there was less stuttering than on my 3930k. That was also on BF4.

Yes, we get it, for purely gaming, Intel still has a small edge. But then, if you're only gaming, go buy a console.

My sentiments exactly.
All the crap posting is screaming Gaming! Gaming! Gaming! as if that was all there is to it.

Too bad it's not and I can hardly take them seriously, it's like "You mean that's all you got" and nothing else to crow about?
That's such a narrow minded point of view.

Intel is losing and is no longer the better value hands down, and even in gaming it's not that much ahead to be worth the price difference between the two. If I"m going to pay twice as much for a chip it had better perform twice as much in return.... For gaming and all else in between.

AMD is the better value now for the money period.

 

[Deleted member 67555]

Yes AMD is finally the better of the 2... Single core is good enough and Multicore is better...
So happy it finally happened.

Still very happy with my slightly better performing Intel stuff tho... Next round probably gonna be AMD.

 

[HenrySomeone]

As long as AMD keep targeting the wrong market, Intel is safe.
The consumer market, the people who require a mid range CPU for every day tasks, playing video games, doing something for hobby are better off with Intel. Right now, you can get a 9400F with a motherboard for sub 200 bucks with warranty. Add a mid range RX580-RTX 2060S to that and you satisfy 99% of the people who have a PC at home. The 9400F is better at single and quad core performance than the most expensive Ryzen from last gen. The new Ryzen? The 3600 starts at 250 dollar in my country. And I can't just blindly throw it in a cheap 50 bucks motherboard with a budget RAM. And that's why AMD's targeting makes no sense. There is no point of making budget products that only excel in multi-threaded applications (which the majority of people do not care about), require more expensive RAM and you need to browse the internet to pick the right components and mess in the BIOS for the optimal performance.

I know everybody on the internet is an "influencer" and "concent creator" now and every 12 year old is dreaming of becoming the next Twitch millionaire, but you really do not need the best CPU to stream in 720p for your 8 viewers or create videos for your 150 subscribers. I don't know what is AMD thinking, I feel like they overestimated the importance of this whole thing and their product line-up makes no sense. The thing is, a company that uses professional programs that take advantage of multi-threading won't care about the 50 bucks price difference/CPU. A company won't mess with the CL timings and overclock in BIOS with each PC to get the most out of it. A company will buy 25-50-100 prebuilt PCs from a big manufacturer like Dell and will use it out of box. For a company, productivity is more important than the relatively small price difference of the PCs. And as for the average guy, AMD still comes with more hussle. The new gen motherboards are extremely expensive. Want a cheaper motherboard from last gen? Yeah, just update the BIOS. Wait, you need a last gen Ryzen CPU in it to do that. Or you can start fishing for motherboards that allow you to update their BIOS through USB. Then again, those motherboards tend to be more expensive. Then the recommended RAM, its way more expensive too.
I feel like the impact of this new gen Ryzen is not half as big as the commenters make it seem.

Very well written, couldn't have put it better myself - for the average user, Intel is STILL the better choice (although admitedly, currenty largely due to the 9400f that fills that entry-mid range, but still) despite all the hype and excitement from the red camp. Also I think AMD themselves probably know they would be better served providing competitive single thread and gaming performance, but they just couldn't, so they went with the only alternative - moar coars!

 

[brian111]

Very well written, couldn't have put it better myself - for the average user, Intel is STILL the better choice (although admitedly, currenty largely due to the 9400f that fills that entry-mid range, but still) despite all the hype and excitement from the red camp. Also I think AMD themselves probably know they would be better served providing competitive single thread and gaming performance, but they just couldn't, so they went with the only alternative - moar coars!

If you haven't notice they increased both gaming performance and number of cores. It isn't an either/or situation.

From all the publicly available sales indications people seem to really like the Ryzen cpus, in some cases significantly over Intel in the DYI market. So the advantages you believe Intel has don't seem to matter significantly when it comes to what people are choosing.

 

[trparky]

What I don't get about some of these comparisons is that they compare it against the Intel Core i7 9700K. Why? The top-end Intel chip is the Core i9 9900K. Sure, the 9900K is an eight-core chip whereas AMD has higher core equipped chips but let's not forget that the Intel 9900K has Hyperthreading where you get sixteen threads to work with. Combine that with higher clock speeds and the higher latencies that are found on AMD Ryzen chips when having to access DRAM and you have Intel winning the battle.



As much as I hate to say this because it makes me feel dirty, Intel is still king of performance and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Don't count Intel out, they now have Jim Keller.

 

[HenrySomeone]

If you haven't notice they increased both gaming performance and number of cores. It isn't an either/or situation.

From all the publicly available sales indications people seem to really like the Ryzen cpus, in some cases significantly over Intel in the DYI market. So the advantages you believe Intel has don't seem to matter significantly when it comes to what people are choosing.

They've only just come somewhat close in gaming with the most recent 3000 series, after 8 and a half years of total and utter Intel dominance (sice 2500K/2600K in Jan 2011) and they are already more expensive, lol (3600 50-60$ over 9400f, only 10-20$ less than the much faster 9600k; 3700X already the same price as the vastly superior 9700k, 3900X much more than 9900k) When the dust settles, I expect they will crash quite hard with pricing as people gobbling them up now are mostly AMD fanboys who have been waiting for months for the supposed "intel killers" and somehow they aren't noticing, that they've underdelivered once again... More rational buyers on the other hand have been able to buy top of the line products for almost two years now (since 8700k launched), quite cheaply in april-may 2018 as well and will soon be able to do so again, it seems. I guess it is good (at least in a way) AMD has so many irrational buyers afterall, since otherwise Intel could really keep the much higher prices (of much better products) indefinitely.

As much as I hate to say this because it makes me feel dirty, Intel is still king of performance and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Don't count Intel out, they now have Jim Keller.

Agreed, at least for general use and gaming, they will need at least one more series to properly catch up just to current CL chips (but most likely 2) and by then Intel will have Ice Lake out and later their 7nm products that will most likely obliterate Ryzens just like Sandy did to Bulldozer.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

It

As long as AMD keep targeting the wrong market, Intel is safe.
The consumer market, the people who require a mid range CPU for every day tasks, playing video games, doing something for hobby are better off with Intel. Right now, you can get a 9400F with a motherboard for sub 200 bucks with warranty. Add a mid range RX580-RTX 2060S to that and you satisfy 99% of the people who have a PC at home. The 9400F is better at single and quad core performance than the most expensive Ryzen from last gen. The new Ryzen? The 3600 starts at 250 dollar in my country. And I can't just blindly throw it in a cheap 50 bucks motherboard with a budget RAM. And that's why AMD's targeting makes no sense. There is no point of making budget products that only excel in multi-threaded applications (which the majority of people do not care about), require more expensive RAM and you need to browse the internet to pick the right components and mess in the BIOS for the optimal performance.

I know everybody on the internet is an "influencer" and "concent creator" now and every 12 year old is dreaming of becoming the next Twitch millionaire, but you really do not need the best CPU to stream in 720p for your 8 viewers or create videos for your 150 subscribers. I don't know what is AMD thinking, I feel like they overestimated the importance of this whole thing and their product line-up makes no sense. The thing is, a company that uses professional programs that take advantage of multi-threading won't care about the 50 bucks price difference/CPU. A company won't mess with the CL timings and overclock in BIOS with each PC to get the most out of it. A company will buy 25-50-100 prebuilt PCs from a big manufacturer like Dell and will use it out of box. For a company, productivity is more important than the relatively small price difference of the PCs. And as for the average guy, AMD still comes with more hussle. The new gen motherboards are extremely expensive. Want a cheaper motherboard from last gen? Yeah, just update the BIOS. Wait, you need a last gen Ryzen CPU in it to do that. Or you can start fishing for motherboards that allow you to update their BIOS through USB. Then again, those motherboards tend to be more expensive. Then the recommended RAM, its way more expensive too.
I feel like the impact of this new gen Ryzen is not half as big as the commenters make it seem.

Following this bullshit hypothesis.
Why wouldn't 90% stilll be happy with a r5 2600 at minimum bucks and less than your I5 9400 you and other shills love.
And that 90% wouldn't need something as powerful as a rx580.
So technically a 2400G alone , No Gpu sees 90% of PC users fine.
Again a gamer on a budget ,at high fps 144+ is not mainstream it's a niche that doesn't fit 95% or more of PC users.

Another worldly vision from a enthusiasts perspective Ie useless non-sense, as is gramarly on mobile apparenty.

 

[Metroid]

What I don't get about some of these comparisons is that they compare it against the Intel Core i7 9700K.

AMD explicit stated 3700x price point = 9700k, 3600x = 9600k, 3900k = 9900k.

 

[brian111]

They've only just come somewhat close in gaming with the most recent 3000 series, after 8 and a half years of total and utter Intel dominance (sice 2500K/2600K in Jan 2011) and they are already more expensive, lol (3600 50-60$ over 9400f only 10-20$ less than much faster 9600k, 3700X already the same price as 9700k, 3900X much more than 9900k) When the dust settles, I expect they will crash quite hard with pricing as people gobbling them up now are mostly AMD fanboys who have been waiting for months for the supposed "intel killers" and somehow they aren't noticing, that they've underdelivered once again...

Nobody is questioning that Intel isn't faster in gaming. The point is that AMD is continuing to improve to where it doesn't seem to matter to as many people (along with it's great productivity performance).
It's fine that you prefer Intel or that you think it's a better choice for the average user. Regardless, the reality is that people continue to buy Ryzen in very good numbers so whatever advantages you feel Intel has it doesn't seem to matter.

Yes, AMD lowers their prices over time generally. Intel doesn't. You seem to be taking this too seriously.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

You don't need to have 100+ fps, the i5 9400F outperforms the r5 2600 in video games in every scenario.
And I don't really mind the r5 2600, it can be a good alternative to the i5. But at best we are talking about alternatives, AMD and Intel providing similar solutions for the same price. Not the endless sensational shit I keep seeing about AMD destroying Intel. I'm tired of drama and clickbait. The new gen Ryzen is a great alternative and that is about it.

Yet for 90%+ of the public buying It means naught.

You said 99% would be satisfied by the 9400.

Fine i dont didsagree on that but I do think coming on here saying we should all buy the 9400 doesn't pan out.

For the 99% it's too powerful a 2400G is fine and much cheaper.

For most in here the 9400 or R53600 just isn't enough.

So where does that leave your comments.

Applicable to about 1-2% and totally balls

 

[trparky]

and by then Intel will have Ice Lake out and later their 7nm products that will most likely obliterate Ryzens just like Sandy did to Bulldozer.

And with Jim Keller there at Intel I have no doubt that Intel will come out with all cylinders firing. If you ask me, AMD had a chance with Ryzen 3000 to really put the knife into Intel's neck. They came close, no doubt, but for some of us, it wasn't enough. Intel will come back with improvements brought about by the likes of Jim Keller. Don't doubt even for a second that Jim hasn't been tweaking the current Intel architecture while planning for the next.