Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Aug 14, 2019.
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
The only problem is that +90% on this planet dont game at high fps and/or dont have the money for a i9 setup, meaning its irrelevant for the mass market.
I can hit 100 min fps @1440p with ingame settings maxed out and 2x txaa@50% scale on siege, which isnt really known for a proper coded game/using more resources than others with same IQ (textures etc).
That on a 3600 stock, on balanced power profile.
Not sure why you would need to reduce settings to go above 100 with a more powerful cpu..
I was mostly pointing to the fact that if you're going to call people plebs, you should have the best of everything. My system has a pleb 3700X, but it will still post higher fps than yours with my GPU. 9900K doesn't automatically turn any rig into a high FPS machine on it's own.
Removed for ignorance........By myself!
9900KS is not an interesting release at all. Just more expensive 9900K. Now all this shouting about high refresh rate gaming. I don't know but 1800x seems to server just fine in games like counter strike and overwatch only games that would require high frames in my current library. Both go nicely over 200.
9900K is faster no doubt. Barely in some cases and what not. Ryzen 3000 doesn't really oc that well while Intel does. But then again it seems when ever intel goes to 10nm they are losing that clock advantage.
AMD had stupidly high clocks with their FX series but those cpus were shite in every other aspect.
But swinging around epeens is like the best I guess.
I would love to see ultimate epic battlefield simulator run as a benchmark for these CPU's.
Using that game and seeing it destroy 12 threads like it is nothing is insane. Along with actually witnessing a true CPU bottleneck while only some of the GPU's get used.
UEBS check it out....
Damn, I'm rocking essentially the same setup minus the 9900KS 5.0GHZ... An 8700K NOT OC and only 1800 points away... This isn't impressive at all hopefully Ice Lake will bring some better improvements or at least another ++...
You got 18,601 physics, benchmark had 26,350.
Sorry I was comparing the over all score... The physics is a fairly large gap, but considering I'm not OC was also my point and since the overall score is so close in 99% games I wouldnt see a GIANT jump in fps... My mistake for not clarifying what I was comparing. Here is an example of an 8700K OC with physics 23,210...