My 8600k is crying right now...
Because it's a 6 core cpu and new consoles are 8 core\16 threads (i know that jaguar are 8 cores too but ryzen is a modern cpu with decent power this time)Why? 10900k has the same IPC as your cpu, just with more cores and higher default clock.
Because it's a 6 core cpu and new consoles are 8 core\16 threads (i know that jaguar are 8 cores too but ryzen is a modern cpu with decent power this time)
And we all know that console are the base for 99% of games today...
I fear some suffering for 6 core cpu next gen...
It's not overcloked unfortunately...If it's overclocked it should be enough for first wave of games. Next gen consoles will reserve some threads to os and multithreading in games is still years behind cpus in many cases, there are still games using only 4 threads in 2019 (despite consoles having 8 for last 6 years).
It's not overcloked unfortunately...
I can only hope you are right, i don't wanna change cpu after 2 fucking years
Rumoured* O Great Bearer of Facts.Planned to launch late next year, but late next year is a long time from now and no one wanting to build a PC soon is going to wait till the end of next year to do so.
Exactly. Not liking those marketing lies.Uh its 4,8ghz on all cores mate. 1 core isn't much interesting in this day of age.
Exactly. Not liking those marketing lies.
5.3 ghz turbo overclock! On 1 core.
I mean it will be Intel catching up to AMD
Hilarious response to this conversation chain. Can't possibly give any ground.AMD is still chasing Intel 14nm CPU gaming performance.
intel only really wins when it comes to playing at 1080p or high refresh rates. if you're playing at 1440/2160p at 60hz then the difference is negligible.AMD is still chasing Intel 14nm CPU gaming performance.
AMD is still chasing Intel 14nm CPU gaming performance.
They already are even.
You def will, sucks man better save up for that upgradeBecause it's a 6 core cpu and new consoles are 8 core\16 threads (i know that jaguar are 8 cores too but ryzen is a modern cpu with decent power this time)
And we all know that console are the base for 99% of games today...
I fear some suffering for 6 core cpu next gen...
Intel CPUs are much better positioned in 2020 with 10th Gen than they were after zen2 launch. AMD is no longer competing against HT-less CPUs.
30% from HT in Cine-bench is bigger than the rumored 17% from zen3. And it still remains to be seen if AMD can beat Intel in gaming...
zen3 also isn't launching any time soon.
More like Intel is chasing after AMD for performance gains. Tell me, how is Intel’s 10nm process going again?AMD is still chasing Intel 14nm CPU gaming performance.
Pedantry on my part, but don't add to those figures The shared L3 will already be contributing to these rumoured IPC gains.all the cores will be on one CCX, sharing one L3 pool. Add the supposed 15-17% IPC
Yeah, I changed it to 7+% as AMD has stated they want to exceed the average 7% IPC gain when going to a new CPU architecture.Pedantry on my part, but don't add to those figures The shared L3 will already be contributing to these rumoured IPC gains.
Since AMD focuses on cores, why doesn't Intel try and aim for an even higher clockspeed?
Give us a 10Ghz CPU.
How come GHz haven't increased much the last decade or whatever (the first 4+GHz consumer model was the 4 core AMD FX-4170 @ 4.2GHz in 2012 but others were boosted or oced prior)? I get efficiency increased in other ways, with more cores, parallel processing, etc., but why not the GHz?
That's true, I'll give you that. Although the lead is quite thin. Also, good thing computers aren't used only for gaming.AMD is still chasing Intel 14nm CPU gaming performance.
This "intel wins amd in gaming" is kind of retarded.
That's true, I'll give you that. Although the lead is quite thin.
The lead isn't as big as it once was but it's a meaningful gap in a number of instances, and when faster GPUs release the gap will widen a bit more than it is now.
My 8600k is crying right now...
It's a fact whether you like it or not.
The only people excited for Zen2 gaming performance are people who are easily mislead, people stuck in an expensive AM4 upgrade path from Zen1 who now can get close to 2017 Intel gaming performance, or maybe people just getting into PC gaming who are on a tight budget and only have $190 for a 3600, which has close to the same raw gaming performance as the 3900x.
The lead isn't as big as it once was but it's a meaningful gap in a number of instances, and when faster GPUs release the gap will widen a bit more than it is now.
This "intel wins amd in gaming" is kind of retarded.
When results are +-5% or something similar, it doesnt matter at all for majority of people.
And not many play with some stupid 240hz setups or even 144hz.
Games are more GPU bound anyway.
Gamers should think about the price of the setup and other things, not just few fps here and there.
It just makes PC gamers look like crybaby idiots if/when they care about few fps drops or anything like that.
They arent gamers, they are benchmarkers then.
If 30 fps games would be unplayable, nobody would buy consoles. And then crybaby pc master race rages 120 vs 144hz
It's a fact whether you like it or not.
The only people excited for Zen2 gaming performance are people who are easily mislead, people stuck in an expensive AM4 upgrade path from Zen1 who now can get close to 2017 Intel gaming performance, or maybe people just getting into PC gaming who are on a tight budget and only have $190 for a 3600, which has close to the same raw gaming performance as the 3900x.
Sorry, but Zen2 being slower in gaming compared to Intel 14nm is an indisputable fact.
Hopefully Zen3 at 7+ will be on par with Intel 14nm.
Yeah, I was confused as everyone else with his weird "expensive AM4 upgrade". That B450 motherboard you used for Zen 1 can be used for Zen 2 and Zen 3. The real expensive motherboard upgrade is when you have to upgrade to Zen 4.Expensive AM4 upgrade? Even a 3900x upgrade is cheaper than a 9900k, and people who go AMD dont need to upgrade their entire setup every couple of years if they want the latest CPU.
If you want the new i9 10900k you like so much you need to buy a entire nw system for it, while people on AMD just upgrade their CPU and nothing else if they have a decent AM4 mobo.
Expensive AM4 upgrade? Even a 3900x upgrade is cheaper than a 9900k
people who go AMD dont need to upgrade their entire setup every couple of years if they want the latest CPU.
IPC they are even. Intel has the higher clockspeeds.
Thanks fo the link. The difference is negible.If someone bought an 8-Core first Gen Ryzen and upgraded to 3900x they would have taken a $230-$370 loss on their first gen CPU and added another $500 to that.
$730-$870 total cost of the upgrade in only a few years. And you'd still have worse than 9900K gaming performance.
Upgrade again and you'll probably have sunk over a thousand dollars in CPU alone.
Terrible value, CPUs depreciate in value too fast these days.
People who bought 8700K, 9700K, 9900K don't need to buy a new CPU every couple of years because they already have a top tier gaming CPU.
People stuck on AM4 may never reach 9900K levels of gaming performance.
Even when you set 9900K vs 3900X at 4 GHz all core, which is a severe under-clock for Intel, Intel is still ahead in gaming.
Thanks fo the link. The difference is negible.
You're a weird chap, one post you accused AMD users/enthusiasts of being foolish or broke and then the next post you elude to gaming at 1080p...
And if someone upgrades to a 9900K, they have to buy a brand new motherboard on top of the CPU. Add the loss on the CPU that person would be upgrading from and the loss on the motherboard, now we have the complete picture.If someone bought an 8-Core first Gen Ryzen and upgraded to 3900x they would have taken a $230-$370 loss on their first gen CPU and added another $500 to that.
$730-$870 total cost of the upgrade in only a few years. And you'd still have worse than 9900K gaming performance.
Upgrade again and you'll probably have sunk over a thousand dollars in CPU alone.
Terrible value, CPUs depreciate in value too fast these days.
If someone bought an 8-Core first Gen Ryzen and upgraded to 3900x they would have taken a $230-$370 loss on their first gen CPU and added another $500 to that.
$730-$870 total cost of the upgrade in only a few years. And you'd still have worse than 9900K gaming performance.
Upgrade again and you'll probably have sunk over a thousand dollars in CPU alone.
Terrible value, CPUs depreciate in value too fast these days.
People who bought 8700K, 9700K, 9900K don't need to buy a new CPU every couple of years because they already have a top tier gaming CPU.
People stuck on AM4 may never reach 9900K levels of gaming performance.
Even when you set 9900K vs 3900X at 4 GHz all core, which is a severe under-clock for Intel, Intel is still ahead in gaming.
And if someone upgrades to a 9900K
Though i agree with you that anyone with these CPUs probably dont need to upgrade in a very long time.
But judging by benchmarks anyone who bought a first gen 6-8 core ryzen dont "NEED" to upgrade as well, they can still play today and future games just fine. By the time they do need to upgrade current Ryzen CPUs will be really cheap while Intel barely reduces the price on older processors.
Besides, if you want to game and stream, which many people do these days, game and have a few apps open.....There is no better option than AMD......AMD already has the lead in IPC and it's about a 3-5% lead for Intel overall, mostly at 1080p though, the only reason AMD has not outright overtaken Intel in every single game is because of the drawbacks with the CCX, that will be solved with Zen 3 very soon....This "intel wins amd in gaming" is kind of retarded.
When results are +-5% or something similar, it doesnt matter at all for majority of people.
And not many play with some stupid 240hz setups or even 144hz.
Games are more GPU bound anyway.
Gamers should think about the price of the setup and other things, not just few fps here and there.
It just makes PC gamers look like crybaby idiots if/when they care about few fps drops or anything like that.
They arent gamers, they are benchmarkers then.
If 30 fps games would be unplayable, nobody would buy consoles. And then crybaby pc master race rages 120 vs 144hz
I never accused or alluded to any of that, you people keep misinterpreting simple words.
It's close only when your purposefully gimp Intel to run at Zen2 like clocks.
Anyone who bought 9900K won't need to upgrade for gaming for a very long time.
Glad you understood that point.
Sure they can run games just fine. I'm an enthusiast that cares about the best gaming hardware though. Almost 2017 gaming performance is not the least bit exciting which is why Zen2 was a massive disappointment to me personally.
And before anyone with limited cognition twists my words yet again, I never said Zen2 were bad CPUs, its gaming performance (which is what I care about) just isn't exciting and doesn't match Intel.
Because it would burn your house down.Since AMD focuses on cores, why doesn't Intel try and aim for an even higher clockspeed?
Give us a 10Ghz CPU.
intel only really wins when it comes to playing at 1080p or high refresh rates. if you're playing at 1440/2160p at 60hz then the difference is negligible.
i say this as someone who owns a 9900K. it's a great CPU but there is no denying AMD are kicking intel's ass and i'm so happy even if i don't own an AMD cpu.
if it weren't for AMD we'd probably still be on 4 cores. it was only when Ryzen appeared did we get 6 and 8 core cpus. they also tried to make HT exclusive to i9 but have back tracked on that.
most people are gonna bottleneck their GPU unless they're doing a ton of rendering/post processing anyway. the average person doesn't need this.
Besides, if you want to game and stream, which many people do these days, game and have a few apps open.....There is no better option than AMD......AMD already has the lead in IPC and it's about a 3-5% lead for Intel overall, mostly at 1080p though, the only reason AMD has not outright overtaken Intel in every single game is because of the drawbacks with the CCX, that will be solved with Zen 3 very soon....
Intel $500 (+ cooler) 8/16 CPU is just roughly 5-10% better than AMD $320 ar 1080p depending on the game, and at 1440p the difference is negligible.
So while i agree that Intel is the best in performance, the advantage is very small, and not worth it imo. I would rather buy a 3900x for more future proof or a better GPU.