Going forward, that will change though.
I think the weak Jaguar cores of the current gen were really a blessing in disguise for multi-core engines in general and AMD in particular. The single-threaded performance is so piss-poor that studios must utilize many cores to get any reasonable results.
That's just not how games work.Sad to see games still using extra CPU cores so poorly.
Value matters when you can spend $329 on a cheaper CPU and put the $150 towards a better video card. If the choices are get a 9900K and a 2070S or get a 3700X and get a 2080S. The 3700X/2080S demolishes.BUT MY VALUE. Are we master race or not? When's price come into it?
Winnings winnings lads, it doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile
But does it matter in reality?Yeah it's sad that certain fanboys can't handle the facts without name calling and derailing the topic...
Things could change in 2020, but in 2019 the OP firmly stands, full stop.
I love great hardware, but PCMR is a parody. Making better performance more affordable would be something to praise if you're going with the PC vs consoles schtick.BUT MY VALUE. Are we master race or not? When's price come into it?
Winnings winnings lads, it doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile
Yeah, I found it really fascinating that the Naughty Dog engine (they are Sony's gaming R&D department too) was essentially single-core during the PS3 era, despite all the possibilities for parallelism. Perhaps Cell was just so hard to work with. The GDC talk on porting TLoU to PS4 is an interesting watch if you're into the subject matter at all.Games were only tepidly multicore on PC for the 7th gen as they still had one main worker thread with a few side jobs, audio even took a good portion of a core on 360.
still not better in gaming but almost close to intel
what a shitty standard to have as AMD
just wreck intel so they make better stuff.
this is not the way amd.
you fucked up your gpu's and again cpu's
Value matters when you can spend $329 on a cheaper CPU and put the $150 towards a better video card. If the choices are get a 9900K and a 2070S or get a 3700X and get a 2080S. The 3700X/2080S demolishes.
Even if they disable SMT (very unlikely) devs will be forced to use more than 8 threads on PC to double (or triple) the framerate of 30fps console gamesI hope the 9th gen sees another big improvement to multicore use on PC, given that it should have 16 threads (if they don't disable SMT, which I hope and think they should leave as an option at least, as game engines have largely taken care of SMT jitter already and it's "free" aggregate performance).
GN approves. 9900K is recommended for gaming PCs over the fastest competing gaming CPU.
Honestly I was waiting for this 3rd gen ryzen but now I don't know what to buy anymore, essentially I;m buying my new cpu only to play games, I don't use the pc for productivity, plus upon review the I7 9700k seems to be the best buyer for gamers (and also got a big overclocking margin), especially because I play @1080p and I.ve seen differences in order of even 20fps per second between the I7 9700k/9900k and Ryzen 3700k/3900k. Plus my concern is if my actual ddr4 module will be compatible with the AMD's cpus, what do you suggest?
if I buy a I7-9700k I miss the pciE 4.0 but I don't have either a PCI gen 4 M.2 ssd and pci EX 4 GPU, if I buy AMD I need to do changes to my custom waterloop cpu block, with an intel cpu only need to swap the cpu, plus I play @1080p and intel seems to give the best performance, I don' use my PC for nothing but play games and watch movies or browsing, for that my current I7 7700k is more than enough, what do you think guys?
You would still need a brand new everything if you were an Intel fan... have we had any definitive benchmarks from a trustworthy source (I was out in the woods today)... I mean if 10% is an average, it would mean that by example if you were to try around 30 titles in most titles they are equal or the "looser" wins by a small margin, then one of two that for some reason Intel has wide gains.Not bad for a 2015 microarchitecture still on 14nm.
have we had any definitive benchmarks from a trustworthy source (I was out in the woods today)... I mean if 10% is an average, it would mean that by example if you were to try around 30 titles in most titles they are equal or the "looser" wins by a small margin, then one of two that for some reason Intel has wide gains.
Or is this about the 1% low? or the plain average?
I'll go look at a few reviews and we shall see what the verdict is, but thanks you spend twice as much for a possible gain of 10% (in one game or across 50?)
Joking aside I am curious to see what happens after more tests come out. AMD always seems to be a bit slower when compared to Intel via gaming tests but that is not to say things won't change. Bang for your buck AMD has brought a lot to the table for people that were priced out of the market because top of the line Intel CPU plus top of the line GPU always was a scary number that made ones bank account cry.
There were rumors of an Intel 15% price cut for Ryzen 3000 launch. Every reviewer is straight up saying Intel needs to cut prices too. Intel obviously wasn't going to show their hand until Ryzen 3000 has actually launched, now it has so probably Intel will announce their price cuts this week and then we'll see how the value proposition stacks up. Intel doesn't really want a price war with AMD and everyone knows it, so I think any cuts Intel does will be conservative. 15% seems reasonable to me.
Not*Everyone* should be pleased by AMD's recent success -- even Intel fans -- because it essentially means we're all going to get better performance per dollar going forward regardless of which brand you go with.
Intel is not known for price cuts, but an unprecedented 15% cut was announced.
That's what "99 percentile" is:...when the minimum dips to 59fps and stutters?...
Sad to see games still using extra CPU cores so poorly.
Honestly I purchased a I9 9900k Z390 combo, I've been waiting this 3rd gen ryzen proc to see if it was worth, but since gaming is all what I do I9 seems the best choice as long as my RAM and all the rest is perfectly compatible with an intel upgrade, unfortunately my current CPU do not detect the GPU and this is the only reason why I am upgrading otherwise I could have waited. Circumstances given I9 is the best choice (less headaches for the building part too, whilst with a Ryzen I should mount the compatible support for AMD on the cpu block) is 80quid less expensive than the 3900x x570 combo, and performancewise if I am happy with my i7 7700k even more I will with the i9, and also there is much more overclocking margin, I've never been so willing to buy an AMD cpu for the first time but gaming performance really disappointed me and pricewise intel combo is cheaper. On the other hand the i9 won't bottleneck the future upgrade to ampere gpuPCIe 4 isn't worth it right now IMO, increased platform cost, no benefit for gaming, more expensive SSDs and chipset fan required on most boards.
I'd say hold onto the 7700K as long as you can if you are still happy with your current gaming performance. Overclock if you haven't done so already. Once overclocked you'll most likely be ahead of Ryzen 3000 gaming performance.
There is also a chance Intel could make some deals on the 9700K/9900K so you could wait a bit to see if that pans out, if you were looking at upgrading soon...
Yup, I like these guys, GN especially.Yes, I only post trustworthy sources, you'll not see me posting videos from fanboys on YouTube making false claims like I've seen on this forum numerous times before...
GN for example found some games being ~30% faster with 9900K, text review not up yet but timestamped the part where he discusses gaming performance and in some places it's not even close, Intel has a huge lead in instances.
Tho when you outpace the other while sweating to death, while the other guy came an inch from you but barely broke a sweat (those AMd CPUs use less power and generate less heat)... you may ask yourself what the next run will be like?Winnings winnings lads, it doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile