Intel CPUs are Still Better - Says Intel

Don't you need a pretty expensive board to handle the 9900K OC? I've heard that great VRMs is the key here.

 

Well intel IS faster in gaming and that is all fine by me. The thing is...what about power draw and heat? I see many comments here saying oh i overclocked to 5.1Ghz!!! Well yeah that is cool and all but frankly i want a cool and quiet PC and at 5.1ghz there ain't no cool or quiet at all unless you get some beefy cooling that costs extra cash on top.

I was intel until it started getting too expensive and a must overclock to get the full performance. Went with a R5 3600X (Yeah i could have skipped the X but the price was awsome when i got it) And right now it boosts nicely to 4.5Ghz WITHOUT me having to fiddle with overclocking,voltage and all that stuff. It just simply works and stays cool,quiet and doesn't draw power like a powerhungry dictator .

It does well enough for my 1440p gaming with my 2080 RTX card and it is nice on my multitasking and decompressing/compressing for the price. (Got it for 319$ i think it was) The CPU war is good for us as customers because in the end if AMD gets more and more marketshare Intel will need to reinvent itself and for once maybe us customers can profit from it by not having a 100% monopoly company charging whatever they want (Like Nvidia still can)

 

Not really. I think you are confusing with X299, which some early boards had hot VRMs due to poor mobo manufacturing heatsinks.

 

*low latency for high fps

 

The great value of a new ryzen processor is undeniable.

Big bang for your buck.

 

Intel is right, whats not right about it ?

 

all amd needs to do is match them for clocks and intel is done.

 

it all depends on your real usage, I decided to run mine at 5.1ghz (1.36v) is it 100% stable ? no but for gaming ? yes and not hot because if you check live gaming datalogging like on those two really useful youtube channels :
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCVhtNzcTr0jWhOCZ_71Y4Q
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCncuMsyOBwyiTv-6rc8mq0Q
you will see that the cpu is barely used in games so you keep the clockspeed advantage but without the heat generation from running stress tests/benchmarking
most of the time mine @5.1Ghz is around 50-70°C with AIO Corsair H150i pro (fans running at near silent 1000rpm for most games) honestly if I have noise it's from the gpu because while games using a high-end cpu @98% don't really exist, you can easily max your gpu usage with maxed settings, using reshade/enb and other post-processing or high res texture mods
when I play my modded skyrim I'm basically running furmark gpu benchmark for hours (90-98% gpu usage @Max clock nonstop) for that I have to crank up all the fans

 

With the Noctua 15S, I can keep my 9900k 5.1ghz all-core 1.3v at 80-85 degrees when rendering HEVC. Games don't get that high often.

 

As others have said, Intel IS still faster in gaming - although Zen 2 closes the gap, it still isn't there yet (mostly due to clock speeds). This situation will change once the process matures, similar to how Intel's 10nm process is right now (unable to run at high clocks).

Intel isn't lying here - it's just mostly irrelevant. Only a small handful of gamers game at low resolution with a high-end rig, where the differences in gaming really come out. The vast majority game with a GPU cap, and will continue to do so well into the future. I'm currently rocking a dual 2.5K and 4K monitor setup and wouldn't dream of going back to 1080p - I saw that I was wasting my GPU at such a resolution and upgraded my monitors to make full use of my hardware. To invest in high-end hardware, only to game at low resolution, seems like a massive waste of money and potential (I feel it would work against my PCMR creds ).

Personally, I'm more interested in the additional cores that Zen 2 brings. This is the primary reason why I switched to AMD (after being a lifelong Intel loyalist) and I'm happy to see AMD isn't sitting back on their laurels. Upgrading from a 8-core CPU to a 16-core one would provide a massive jump in computing performance, which is my primary consideration for a CPU (the higher IPC is a nice bonus).

 

True, but the argument works both ways. The vast majority of people don't need more than 4c/8t, and AMD keeps throwing out more cores as though everyone runs Cinebench every day. Both Intel and AMD are touting products that nobody but enthusiasts care about, and ironically, they're only preaching to their own fanbases. As of right now, Intel's greatest mistake is stubbornly maintaining their currently overblown price point. A 6% performance increase in games is not worth all of the performance losses in other tasks, or the higher price tag, and it's getting a little embarrassing if Intel seriously thinks otherwise.

As for the vulnerabilities, Intel is pretty quick to get them patched, and most of the vulnerabilities are all related to the same fundamental problem. In other words, it's not like their CPUs are riddled with security holes, it's more like a few holes that just keep getting bigger. However, it does really irritate me that Intel barely budges their price points despite the noticeable performance losses.

I agree with most of this. I still find the 8700K to be the best CPU for gamers. Too bad it isn't made anymore, and there was no real replacement. Sure, it wasn't cheap, but it didn't have a laughably high price tag either. However, I definitely disagree about the 9900K. That is a terrible value no matter what your priorities are, even if you ignore AMD. I'd rather spend a little extra and get a 7900X, which has more PCIe lanes, is known to be a great overclocker, more memory channels, and ECC RAM support. Either CPU is heavily overpriced so it doesn't make sense to gripe about the higher motherboard cost. All that being said, the 7900X isn't exactly a great value either, but at least you're not being so blatantly ripped off.
Anyway - I sort-of agree there are currently no current-gen CPUs that would be the best for gaming. There's nothing that gives you the best performance for a decent price. But... I really don't understand why people care so much about a few FPS here and there when you're already in the hundreds. Sure, the 3600(X) doesn't give you the best performance, but does it really matter? Who are you trying to impress? Who are you kidding if you say you can see the difference between 110FPS vs 118FPS? I'd say it's a smart choice. But, I do agree that you're better off waiting for next-gen parts (from either brand) if you want the best all-around option.

Of course they're right, but that's like saying the Dodge Challenger Demon is the fastest RWD production car in the world because it can go from 0-60 in a straight line faster than anything else, while ignoring the fact that it'll be heavily outperformed by less powerful vehicles on a track. Dodge technically isn't wrong, but it's very misleading, and frankly a bit dumb to use that as the selling point.

 

Is this out of box performance or Intel specified settings?

 

Intel is indeed faster in gaming and better overclocker.
You have to decide if it's faster enough for your usage to pay the price.

 

For gaming they are. Although personally i would not buy a 8 threads cpu in 2019 unless it was a cheap core i3 for a web browsing and getting mails machine. With the next gen consoles rumored to have 16 threads cpu by 2020 i would definitely not invest in a 8 threads cpu today. Right now the only cpu by intel i would be comfortable buying is the 9900k and it is indeed a fantastic cpu.

 

As "proud" owner of 9900K. i can say that it nice for little fireworks.. of generic Z370 VRM - which are running at 120C after 10 minutes of high load.. at a bit out of specs intel special 165 W in load not overclocked.
That is not flag ship, its leaky ship, i had 8700K before it was fine.

 

Welp. I'm a current owner (can't say proud due to the following) of an 8700k CPU. This CPU sucks whenever I'm using an Android Emulator (memu) - for Kings Raid game (auto farming), while playing a PC game (Shadow Warrior 2) at the same time, as well as using CPU mining in Nicehash. - And it's begging for its knees already XD

If only Ryzen 3000 has been released back at that time, I would have bought the 3900X one.

Seriously. Multitasking + Gaming usage scenario exist.

Also, let's be real how many folks will waste time to OC their CPU before they get the real performance? I like the current practice of AMD as it's really a set and forget CPU - it OC's itself when needed.

 

It's very close to being that but not quite there. I personally would like to see AMD ditch the X models and have one CPU per core count, with a healthy base clock (so like 3.5GHz across all models) and then an unlimited boost clock, where it will literally OC itself as high as the thermals, VRM, and PSU will let it. This would add so much convenience to both the average consumer and enthusiasts. For enthusiasts, all you have to do is spend extra money on better quality parts and a better cooler. You can make the PC as quiet as you want, and it will adapt to whatever your fan profile or ambient temperature you have. For consumers, you basically just pick whichever product has the amount of cores suitable for your workload, and use the base clock as basically your worst-case scenario performance. If there happens to be a CPU where all cores are working but the silicon quality isn't that great for extra high clocks, it can be binned for a laptop CPU, where it isn't expected to clock high anyway.

So really, rather than change the multiplier, the only thing the user would really want to tweak is the total wattage. Obviously, you don't want to go beyond what your mobo or PSU can handle. Best of all, whatever clock speeds you achieve, you know are stable. A lot of people brag about how high they can OC, but it isn't going to last longer than a couple hours. Whatever clock speeds you get on a self-overclocking CPU are legit.

 

I agree Mr. Schmidtbag. I think self-overclocking would be a very interesting way to go. It would also likely make product differentiation difficult and that would be an issue for marketing departments.

 

Once more @schmidtbag is speaking the language of gods.
Pardon the meme approach, but wanted a more joyful reply, my late replies were a bit stiff and grumpy. But for a good reason.

 

LOL. I run 9900K (amazing CPU btw) at 4.7Ghz across all cores (150-160W load depending on workload) on a nice Z390 motherboard and I have never seen any motherboard sensor hotter than 50C. So you are mad at Intel because you cheaped out on mobo and perhaps case with no airflow?