• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Intel Says AMD Did a Great Job (with Ryzen 3000), But Intel CPUs are Still Better

Joined
May 31, 2016
Messages
1,187 (0.96/day)
System Name Bro2
Processor Ryzen 2700X
Motherboard MSI X470 Gaming Carbon
Cooling Corsair h115i pro rgb
Memory G.Skill Flare X 3200 CL14
Video Card(s) RX Vega 64 Red Devil
Storage M.2 Samsung Evo 970 250MB/ Samsung 860 Evo 1TB
Display(s) LG 27UD69 UHD
Case Fractal Design G
Audio Device(s) realtec 5.1
Power Supply Corsair AXi 760W
Mouse Logitech G402
Keyboard Logitech slim
Software Windows 10 64 bit
If you truly believe 'now we have 8c thanks to AMD', then yes, get yourself examined. 8 core CPUs were there far earlier than Zen. There simply wasn't a market within the mainstream segment to launch them despite AMD trying to. For HEDT, there wére - up there you do have nicely threaded workloads and applications. Part of the reason FX-processors sucked so hard was because on MSDT, there were simply no good workloads for it. And for HEDT, Intel 6 cores would already run circles around them. AMD only receives kudos for bringing the price down on higher core counts. Because they compete again across the whole product stack.

For a decade we were stuck at 4c8t. And yet, games did not scale beyond 1 or 2 threads anyway. Found the reason behind that yet? Because that is proof that the movement to higher core counts for gaming is extremely late to the party, we've had quads for ages now and games are only recently truly catching up to that - and still many haven't.

Convenient / no market... aren't they the same? Its not convenient to make parts you don't sell.

You can be all up in arms about what I've said but its not strange and 'making my point', its an observation on what you think happened the last decade, and I think you're wearing the wrong glasses looking back. We need the hardware before we get the software that will fully use it, and then we also need 'the performance', after all if nobody asks for 200 FPS gaming, it won't be built. And the better threading of games on the CPU coincides NOT with Zen, but with the console releases.

The result of better threading then, is that we're no longer tied to single core processing power and thát in turn enables high refresh/FPS gaming. 4K is not even a player in the story here, you can run that on a potato CPU, what does it even do in a Zen topic one might ask... Its no secret that a CPU will do fine as long as its not the part bottlenecking you. There is no 'pursuit' to be had for CPUs to enable 4K gaming.

So, back to my final line in last post: let's not overinflate what happened here with Zen's release, because that is the gist of your story. As if AMD 'enabled' something for gamers. They didn't, and the higher core counts were coming regardless. They gave us back healthy competition and that's all it is.
Oh boy. I guess busses don't go where you live do they. Take that avatar off it is offensive.
Here's a interesting benchmark that doesn't have optimizations that favor one company over the other. I wouldn't of expected the Ryzen 5 3600 ahead of the Core i9-9900K though.






Puget Systems gets the same scoring with Neatbench 5.



Did a quick run on my desktop.

View attachment 130227
That is nice. I need to try this on my Ryzen and see what I will get.

I thin you should have clarified that 4k is "immediate" future
I think this is the way to go. 4K looks just amazing :)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
56 (0.03/day)
Of course AMD's ecosystem is not up to par compared to Intel...who have had over 80% marketshare for the last 15 yrs. It won't take very long to catch up though...that Ryzen money fixes all sorts of short-comings.
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Messages
305 (0.28/day)
System Name Sillicon Nightmares
Processor Intel i5 4690K (4.7GHZ 1.372vcore, 4.0GHZ 1.192vring, VCCIN 1.84v)
Motherboard Asrock Fatal1ty Z97X Killer BIOS P2.40
Cooling DEEPCOOL Gamer Storm CAPTAIN 360
Memory 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaws V 2400mhz 10-14-13-32 2T, vDIMM 1.775v
Video Card(s) ASUS GTX 1060 Strix 6GB OC, Core: 2190mhz, Vcore: 1.075v, Mem: 4909mhz (Sillicon Lottery Jackpot)
Storage Samsung 840 EVO 1TB SSD, WD Blue 1TB
Display(s) BenQ XL2430 1080p 144HZ + (2) Samsung SyncMaster 913v 1280x1024 75HZ + A Shitty TV For Movies
Case Deepcool Genome ROG Edition
Audio Device(s) Bunta Sniff Speakers From The Tip Edition
Power Supply Corsair CX430M + CableMod Cables
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Shitty Dell Office Keyboard
Software Windows 7 Ultimate 64 Bit
Benchmark Scores 12 101 Firestrike (3rd for my hardware)
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Messages
326 (0.13/day)
Processor AMD Ryzen 1700x
Motherboard asus ROG Strix B-350I Gaming
Cooling cooler master masterliquid 240
Memory Gskill Aegis 2x 8GB DDR4
Video Card(s) GTX 1060 (3Gb)
Storage Samsung 960 evo 256 Gb Seagate 2To sandisk ultra plus 256GB; Toshiba 2TB
Display(s) LG 25UM58
Case Ncase M1
Audio Device(s) sennheiser HD58X
Power Supply Corsair SF 600w
Mouse Corsair scimitar pro
Keyboard Corsair k55 RGB
Software win 10 pro
oh yeah coz ln2 guys are benching photoshop
You don't even know what is puget system do you ? those guys aren't overclockers, there are system builder for professional (content creation, science). They don't do overclocking at all, because they do rather ship a stock but stable system, instead of trying to get more % with an oc that may or may not be stable.
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Messages
305 (0.28/day)
System Name Sillicon Nightmares
Processor Intel i5 4690K (4.7GHZ 1.372vcore, 4.0GHZ 1.192vring, VCCIN 1.84v)
Motherboard Asrock Fatal1ty Z97X Killer BIOS P2.40
Cooling DEEPCOOL Gamer Storm CAPTAIN 360
Memory 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaws V 2400mhz 10-14-13-32 2T, vDIMM 1.775v
Video Card(s) ASUS GTX 1060 Strix 6GB OC, Core: 2190mhz, Vcore: 1.075v, Mem: 4909mhz (Sillicon Lottery Jackpot)
Storage Samsung 840 EVO 1TB SSD, WD Blue 1TB
Display(s) BenQ XL2430 1080p 144HZ + (2) Samsung SyncMaster 913v 1280x1024 75HZ + A Shitty TV For Movies
Case Deepcool Genome ROG Edition
Audio Device(s) Bunta Sniff Speakers From The Tip Edition
Power Supply Corsair CX430M + CableMod Cables
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Shitty Dell Office Keyboard
Software Windows 7 Ultimate 64 Bit
Benchmark Scores 12 101 Firestrike (3rd for my hardware)
You don't even know what is puget system do you ? those guys aren't overclockers, there are system builder for professional (content creation, science). They don't do overclocking at all, because they do rather ship a stock but stable system, instead of trying to get more % with an oc that may or may not be stable.
lmao ur an idiot, i specifically said benchathon, i dont care what puget does in the slightest, if they were doing xoc benching my point would be proven even harder

also the 3800x is pathetic compared to the 9900k in ur supplied bench a year late and still not as fast*, vega and 1080ti all over again
*1 point in a test that i dont care about, 1 point vs 10 more fps ill take the fps and live with 1 point less at STOCK thanks, OC for OC a 5ghz 8 core skylake trashes any oc ryzen 3000 can muster
 
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Messages
326 (0.13/day)
Processor AMD Ryzen 1700x
Motherboard asus ROG Strix B-350I Gaming
Cooling cooler master masterliquid 240
Memory Gskill Aegis 2x 8GB DDR4
Video Card(s) GTX 1060 (3Gb)
Storage Samsung 960 evo 256 Gb Seagate 2To sandisk ultra plus 256GB; Toshiba 2TB
Display(s) LG 25UM58
Case Ncase M1
Audio Device(s) sennheiser HD58X
Power Supply Corsair SF 600w
Mouse Corsair scimitar pro
Keyboard Corsair k55 RGB
Software win 10 pro
lmao ur an idiot, i specifically said benchathon, i dont care what puget does in the slightest, if they were doing xoc benching my point would be proven even harder

also the 3800x is pathetic compared to the 9900k in ur supplied bench a year late and still not as fast*, vega and 1080ti all over again
*1 point in a test that i dont care about, 1 point vs 10 more fps ill take the fps and live with 1 point less at STOCK thanks, OC for OC a 5ghz 8 core skylake trashes any oc ryzen 3000 can muster
I just told you that puget doesnt do world record benchmark or any overclocking at all, those results are from stock speed, meaning that there is no overclocking, they didn't mees with the speed in the bios, nor in ryzen master. Thoses results are from references clocks.
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Messages
305 (0.28/day)
System Name Sillicon Nightmares
Processor Intel i5 4690K (4.7GHZ 1.372vcore, 4.0GHZ 1.192vring, VCCIN 1.84v)
Motherboard Asrock Fatal1ty Z97X Killer BIOS P2.40
Cooling DEEPCOOL Gamer Storm CAPTAIN 360
Memory 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaws V 2400mhz 10-14-13-32 2T, vDIMM 1.775v
Video Card(s) ASUS GTX 1060 Strix 6GB OC, Core: 2190mhz, Vcore: 1.075v, Mem: 4909mhz (Sillicon Lottery Jackpot)
Storage Samsung 840 EVO 1TB SSD, WD Blue 1TB
Display(s) BenQ XL2430 1080p 144HZ + (2) Samsung SyncMaster 913v 1280x1024 75HZ + A Shitty TV For Movies
Case Deepcool Genome ROG Edition
Audio Device(s) Bunta Sniff Speakers From The Tip Edition
Power Supply Corsair CX430M + CableMod Cables
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Shitty Dell Office Keyboard
Software Windows 7 Ultimate 64 Bit
Benchmark Scores 12 101 Firestrike (3rd for my hardware)
I just told you that puget doesnt do world record benchmark or any overclocking at all, those results are from stock speed, meaning that there is no overclocking, they didn't mees with the speed in the bios, nor in ryzen master. Thoses results are from references clocks.
and intel barely loses while having the headroom to push all threads up another soild few hundred mhz, the ryzen stands to loose a few mhz on an all core oc, skylake still wins

Your understanding needs improvement. Either your understanding of the benchmarks is lacking or your understanding of the definition of the word "pathetic" is lacking.
1 point more, 1 node smaller, 1 year late and the same price, pathetic
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
7,441 (3.23/day)
1 point more, 1 node smaller, 1 year late and the same price, pathetic
Ah, I see! It's a lack of understanding context. So let's examine;
9900k
$495

3800X
$399

Yup, that's the exact same price....

Now let's compare benchmarks shall we? Since TPU has yet to review the 3800X(unless I missed it) we'll go with the 3700X review, just to be fair;
Wow! The 9900k beat it by 3%!!! Gee wiz, the 9900k is sooo kicking the 3700X in the nads....

Sarcasm aside, the only thing "pathetic" is your inability to do math and understanding of reality. The 3700X easily matches the 9900k in every metric but one, overclocking. It's nearly $150 less expensive and performs within 3% of said 9900k. Given that the 3800X is faster than the 3700X, it doesn't take a genius to conclude that the 3800X is very likely bang on with the 9900k for nearly $100 less. Yup, I'll take your brand of "pathetic" all day, every day thank you very much.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
2,857 (2.18/day)
Processor Ryzen 5 3600
Motherboard MSI B450 Tomahawk ATX
Cooling Scythe Kotetsu with AM4 bracket
Memory PNY Anarchy-X XLR8 Red DDR4 3200 MHz C15-17-17-17-35
Video Card(s) MSI GeForce RTX 2060 GAMING Z 6G
Storage Samsung 970 EVO NVMe M.2 500 GB, SanDisk Ultra II 480 GB
Display(s) Samsung SyncMaster C27H711 OC refresh rate 110Hz
Case Phantek Eclipse P400S (PH-EC416PS)
Audio Device(s) EVGA NU Audio
Power Supply EVGA 850 BQ
Mouse SteelSeries Rival 310
Keyboard Logitech G G413 Silver
Software Windows 10 Professional 64-bit v1903
I chalk it up to being immature if he is 19. The immature responses to criticism suggest, yes.
 
Joined
May 31, 2016
Messages
1,187 (0.96/day)
System Name Bro2
Processor Ryzen 2700X
Motherboard MSI X470 Gaming Carbon
Cooling Corsair h115i pro rgb
Memory G.Skill Flare X 3200 CL14
Video Card(s) RX Vega 64 Red Devil
Storage M.2 Samsung Evo 970 250MB/ Samsung 860 Evo 1TB
Display(s) LG 27UD69 UHD
Case Fractal Design G
Audio Device(s) realtec 5.1
Power Supply Corsair AXi 760W
Mouse Logitech G402
Keyboard Logitech slim
Software Windows 10 64 bit
I chalk it up to being immature if he is 19. The immature responses to criticism suggest, yes.
True that. I still don't get people. Where do they get this stuff from? It's not possible to be so damn blind. The 9900K is "the one" for some people. I simply just can't believe it :)
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Messages
305 (0.28/day)
System Name Sillicon Nightmares
Processor Intel i5 4690K (4.7GHZ 1.372vcore, 4.0GHZ 1.192vring, VCCIN 1.84v)
Motherboard Asrock Fatal1ty Z97X Killer BIOS P2.40
Cooling DEEPCOOL Gamer Storm CAPTAIN 360
Memory 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaws V 2400mhz 10-14-13-32 2T, vDIMM 1.775v
Video Card(s) ASUS GTX 1060 Strix 6GB OC, Core: 2190mhz, Vcore: 1.075v, Mem: 4909mhz (Sillicon Lottery Jackpot)
Storage Samsung 840 EVO 1TB SSD, WD Blue 1TB
Display(s) BenQ XL2430 1080p 144HZ + (2) Samsung SyncMaster 913v 1280x1024 75HZ + A Shitty TV For Movies
Case Deepcool Genome ROG Edition
Audio Device(s) Bunta Sniff Speakers From The Tip Edition
Power Supply Corsair CX430M + CableMod Cables
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Shitty Dell Office Keyboard
Software Windows 7 Ultimate 64 Bit
Benchmark Scores 12 101 Firestrike (3rd for my hardware)
Ah, I see! It's a lack of understanding context. So let's examine;
9900k
$495

3800X
$399

Yup, that's the exact same price....

Now let's compare benchmarks shall we? Since TPU has yet to review the 3800X(unless I missed it) we'll go with the 3700X review, just to be fair;
Wow! The 9900k beat it by 3%!!! Gee wiz, the 9900k is sooo kicking the 3700X in the nads....

Sarcasm aside, the only thing "pathetic" is your inability to do math and understanding of reality. The 3700X easily matches the 9900k in every metric but one, overclocking. It's nearly $150 less expensive and performs within 3% of said 9900k. Given that the 3800X is faster than the 3700X, it doesn't take a genius to conclude that the 3800X is very likely bang on with the 9900k for nearly $100 less. Yup, I'll take your brand of "pathetic" all day, every day thank you very much.
i stand corrected on pricing but i still dont see any of the ryzen chips being worth it, if intel brought out a quad core with twice the ipc of skylake i would by that over any ryzen ever, i dont care for core counts, because most programs would gain more from 1ghz extra clocks than 2 more cores

i stand corrected on pricing but i still dont see any of the ryzen chips being worth it, if intel brought out a quad core with twice the ipc of skylake i would by that over any ryzen ever, i dont care for core counts, because most programs would gain more from 1ghz extra clocks than 2 more cores
lmao u just sold me on intel %110, oc potential is ALL that i care about, i buy a chip for the most the sillicon can happily do not the most that a company says it "should" do
 
Joined
May 31, 2016
Messages
1,187 (0.96/day)
System Name Bro2
Processor Ryzen 2700X
Motherboard MSI X470 Gaming Carbon
Cooling Corsair h115i pro rgb
Memory G.Skill Flare X 3200 CL14
Video Card(s) RX Vega 64 Red Devil
Storage M.2 Samsung Evo 970 250MB/ Samsung 860 Evo 1TB
Display(s) LG 27UD69 UHD
Case Fractal Design G
Audio Device(s) realtec 5.1
Power Supply Corsair AXi 760W
Mouse Logitech G402
Keyboard Logitech slim
Software Windows 10 64 bit
i stand corrected on pricing but i still dont see any of the ryzen chips being worth it, if intel brought out a quad core with twice the ipc of skylake i would by that over any ryzen ever, i dont care for core counts, because most programs would gain more from 1ghz extra clocks than 2 more cores


lmao u just sold me on intel %110, oc potential is ALL that i care about, i buy a chip for the most the sillicon can happily do not the most that a company says it "should" do
If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts. How would Intel accomplish that? Twice the IPC of skylake? Actually, most applications now use more than 2 cores I think around 4 now or even more. Knowing the current state of CPU industry and how the frequency of processors is crumbling now and it will get worse, the cores, in a CPU, are the only way to guarantee performance boost.

Sure you have to OC it. If you want the CPU to keep up with the rest of the pack.
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Messages
305 (0.28/day)
System Name Sillicon Nightmares
Processor Intel i5 4690K (4.7GHZ 1.372vcore, 4.0GHZ 1.192vring, VCCIN 1.84v)
Motherboard Asrock Fatal1ty Z97X Killer BIOS P2.40
Cooling DEEPCOOL Gamer Storm CAPTAIN 360
Memory 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaws V 2400mhz 10-14-13-32 2T, vDIMM 1.775v
Video Card(s) ASUS GTX 1060 Strix 6GB OC, Core: 2190mhz, Vcore: 1.075v, Mem: 4909mhz (Sillicon Lottery Jackpot)
Storage Samsung 840 EVO 1TB SSD, WD Blue 1TB
Display(s) BenQ XL2430 1080p 144HZ + (2) Samsung SyncMaster 913v 1280x1024 75HZ + A Shitty TV For Movies
Case Deepcool Genome ROG Edition
Audio Device(s) Bunta Sniff Speakers From The Tip Edition
Power Supply Corsair CX430M + CableMod Cables
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Shitty Dell Office Keyboard
Software Windows 7 Ultimate 64 Bit
Benchmark Scores 12 101 Firestrike (3rd for my hardware)
If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts. How would Intel accomplish that? Twice the IPC of skylake? Actually, most applications now use more than 2 cores I think around 4 now or even more. Knowing the current state of CPU industry and how the frequency of processors is crumbling now and it will get worse, the cores, in a CPU, are the only way to guarantee performance boost.

Sure you have to OC it. If you want the CPU to keep up with the rest of the pack.
4 or more lmao like i said id take the quad core, cores DO NOT scale infinitely at all, winning the MT war means having the most powerful individual cores to make up mt perf, making your core 2% faster scales to all of the cores, %2 per core on a 16 core means + 32% overall
 
Joined
May 31, 2016
Messages
1,187 (0.96/day)
System Name Bro2
Processor Ryzen 2700X
Motherboard MSI X470 Gaming Carbon
Cooling Corsair h115i pro rgb
Memory G.Skill Flare X 3200 CL14
Video Card(s) RX Vega 64 Red Devil
Storage M.2 Samsung Evo 970 250MB/ Samsung 860 Evo 1TB
Display(s) LG 27UD69 UHD
Case Fractal Design G
Audio Device(s) realtec 5.1
Power Supply Corsair AXi 760W
Mouse Logitech G402
Keyboard Logitech slim
Software Windows 10 64 bit
4 or more lmao like i said id take the quad core, cores DO NOT scale infinitely at all, winning the MT war means having the most powerful individual cores to make up mt perf, making your core 2% faster scales to all of the cores, %2 per core on a 16 core means + 32% overall
Sure but what's the point if your previous statement was
i dont care for core counts, because most programs would gain more from 1ghz extra clocks than 2 more cores
Make up your mind.
and no it would not be 32% because application may scale only for 6 cores. That depends on the application. The problem with your 1ghz more is that the 5Ghz is basically maximum for silicon. Each node shrink will not give any improvement in frequency but it will degrade the frequency. You won't be able to hit 5Ghz. The only way to increase performance is with the IPC increase which is tough to accomplish. Core number is easier (AMD done it) but the downside is utilization of the cores by an application.
 
Top