Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Aug 14, 2019.
@Angushades I literally just said to stop and you keep going.
What the e-peen demands, the e-peen gets. Products like this are designed to appeal to people's egos and make them feel more important - it's similar to people boasting about overclocks and benchmark scores (they're waving their e-peen around).
I do not mind paying half the price for a 3600x for gaming in 4K compared to 9900K,even if the 9900K was 5 FPS faster at 4K,so what I still paid less than half the price for the same experience.
I say buy whatever is best for you or like some in this thread buy both but I do not get all the fanatic fan boy stuff over a couple FPS in some games.
So, you've got a 165Hz monitor at 1440p, yet your 1080 Ti is not capable of hitting 165Hz in most recent games unless you massively turn down all your in game settings. Effectively, you could have saved that money you spent on a 9900K (plus expensive cooler to chill it at 5.2GHz) and put it towards a more powerful GPU and have better overall performance since the 1440P numbers for Ryzen 3000 are within spitting distance of a 9900K with a 2080 Ti. Performance delta would be even less with a 1080 Ti.
So I'm confused. Are you saving up to get a more powerful GPU so you can utilize the full potential of the rest of you setup down the road? Or did you just over-buy on your CPU for bragging rights? I'll admit, the 9900K is the best thing going right now for games, but it seems like you could have had better overall performance if you put the money for it and the CPU cooler needed to chill it at 5.2GHz somewhere else. What do I know though. I'm just a pleb with a 3700X
half of this is bullshit. I can smell some fanboizm tbh.
That warning earlier was for everyone. Don't post crap like this.
How much money are you willing to bet?
Everything I listed are known issues from the first week of release.
I saved the NVMe Benchmarks as favorite so its easy: https://www.purepc.pl/pamieci_masow..._test_ssd_na_platformach_intel_i_amd?page=0,4
Sure, if you need 199 fps instead of 190 in FHD with a 2080Ti (absolutely possible! ), you should go for a 9900KS.
And the average difference is 5% (=basically nothing), not that absurdness you see in PUBG.
And on 1440P, you get less than 3% difference:
Whoa careful there mate, that might be a bit too much logic for some folks on these forums.
OC VS OC
You are showing 9900k nerfed with slow memory and mostly GPU bound scenarios. In gpubound scenarios, you can use a 6 year old cpu and get the same result if you want
You can get the result you want when bebcmarking
It's going to be a heck of a CPU no doubt. Wonder how much they are going to price them at. I was hoping to see Intel prices come down a bit more with the Ryzen 3000 launch, but they are holding steady.
If 3800x and 3900x had BEAT 9900k (in latency sensitive programs; read high fps gaming) AND prized cheaper than 9900k, then 9900k had to lower it's prize. That did not happen.
In "Cinebenchgaming" 3800x and 3900x is very good for it's prize.
Cool, man. I like Intel too. You don't need to convince me. Makes sense that Intel can keep their top dog 9900K price at what they want. People will pay for it to have the best overall gaming performance in all scenarios. Heck, I've got one and like it very much. Might even pick up this new KS if the price is decent. I think your Cinebenchgaming line is a little short-sighted though. New Ryzen is pretty great for 1440p and up. I think Intel will see that and some pricing adjustments might be made in that segment. Just glad we've got some great choices from both sides. Cheers mate.
Personally, I can't really see the point of bragging about 180+ fps in Tomb Raider; it not exactly a competitive, fast paced first-person shooter like BF or CS. And let's face it - most people aren't buying 2080ti video cards - and with anything less, the FPS gaps reduce further...
In all other titles where Intel holds the tiniest of leads - it's hardly enough to show any difference with a 120Hz or 144Hz monitor. If you blink you'll miss it!
Frame-rates across the board are so close as to not matter - although when I was much younger, I sought bragging rights amongst my peers (we all did) - so I don't expect it to stop now.
So here's my bragging right... I can't wait for the new Threadripper Zen2 CPUs. I hope they're super-binned chiplets that best all AM4 chips. I know they'll be more expensive than the 9900KS! But that's OK, it's Threadripper and money is no object.
Lots of great options available now, buy what you like - you can't really go wrong.
Yes choice is good , you can easyly choose your next upgrade path depending on your typical usage scenario . Plenty of good cpu's to pick from . I personally don't game much anymore and the security is of high importance to me so if Intel don't fix the existing issues with the next new gen. I will jump the ship too. If I was only using my pc for gaming and needed to upgrade the 9900ks would be my choice .
If you take off fanboy hats, he's got some valid concerns. The WHEA stuff I feel is overblown and I don't think anyone is corrupting or damaging their drives. Idle voltages were mostly fixed with the latest chipset driver and you don't see idle pegged at 1.45+ volts when just chilling in the desktop, but you will still see one core boosting to high voltages when it doesn't really seem to be needed. Does this hurt the longevity of the chip? No idea. AMD says it's normal and I'm not too worried about it. The max boost concern I feel is completely reasonable to question. I've never seen a core boost to 4.4GHz on my 3700x. Best I usually get is just slightly over 4.3 with the latest bios. I'd like to see them release an update that has lesser restrictions on all the variables that limit max boost so at least 1 or 2 cores can consistently slam against that 4.4 wall. I don't know if that would be dangerous for the chip though. The original bios at release had better max boost. Something still needs to be worked out here.
I really like Ryzen 3000 and think they're great chips, but I think AMD should have rated the boost lower for transparency purposes, or delayed the release until they figured everything out. They're stating the max boost is achievable under "ideal conditions" now after some backlash. If you ship a cooler with it, I think it should be able hit those frequencies consistently with that cooler. Bottom line is that higher boost ratings sell more chips and I think they overstated to not lose potential business. Possibly hitting max boost for a split second under light load is not meaningful when you can't take advantage of it when you want to during gaming/work related tasks. Does that mean the performance sucks? Absolutely not. Maybe things will improve with more bios updates, but that's my take so far.
They're good chips for the money. If you game at 1440p and above I say go Ryzen 3000 without hesitation. If you game at 1080p high refresh, Intel still wins. My rig performs very well and I saved some money and threw it towards a better GPU. Build smart and know what you're getting is my point. Performance is generally there with a few caveats. I'm not willing to let AMD slide on a couple of points and I think people should drop their brand preference to make an informed decision. This post will be hated and scrutinized by the AMD faithful. I know that, but it's as honest as I can be.
hardware bit errors that is getting masked instead of fixed is not "overblown"
I still don't get it, why would they lower the boost clock on paper? That's the theoretical maximum speed, 4.4, and even you said you got 4.3+, so where they could limit it? 4.35 on paper?
I got that that guy may had or have some real thinks on that, but srsly, I SAID MOST OF THEM ARE BULLSHIT *and/or fixed*
Hey, am I too late for the AMD/Intel fight? My car wouldn't start so i had to get an Uber...
My 3600 on balanced profile (slider on perf) hovers abound 40xxish, with slider on the left it usually jumps between 36xx to 42xx clocks.
Since some sites saw no overall perf bump, when running tests with pbo and other "oc" options turned on (vs turned off), so there is either still some work to do for bios/drivers, or (what i suspect) those chips are binned pretty much to a level where they do not have a lot more headroom (aside from cooling).
But i couldnt be happier even at stock level (ram @3600cl18).
Not even talking about getting only a 6C/6T from intel, compared to what i paid for the 3600.
any i7 or i9 would have been multiple times more, only to gain zero for gaming (vsync 75hz), and most of the time equal for other stuff i do on the pc.
As long as I don't have an unlimited budget for things like this, i dont mind a 1-10% drop in performance, if i get it at half or 2/3 of the price of the next faster brand.
Going intel would have meant not getting 2 new nvme drives (capacity/speed),
and being able to image my os drive in under 30s is definitely something i dont want to give up for "10fps" more.
Intel is now similar to super sport cars like lambos.
Sure they outperform almost everything, but even the cheapest model will cost +200K.
Or buy a corvette/porsche and have almost the same experience for half (e.g., money left for gas