Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
|
Basically the only reason you'd go Intel is if you want a ~5% increase in single thread gaming performance on some games at 1080P and that is only because they have a clock advantage or optimization advantage... you'd have ignore that Intel is $50-75 more expensive with almost the same gaming performance but is far worse for both multi-threaded performance (3900X 45% better than the 9900k in multithreaded benchmarks), power efficiency, and both multi-thread and single threaded IPC performance. If you start enabling ODS, gaming group chats applications, or live streaming at all your gaming performance advantage on Intel will just crater compared to an AMD system.
Intel's performance is relying entirely very highly binned and highly clocked parts to get their i9 chips to perform slightly better and they are already maxing out their performance in gaming using their single core turbo. Since AMD performs better in single thread IPC and is on a smaller process than the i9 series processors, it will probably perform better in gaming after overclocking and get to a higher speed than i9. We'll see as the reviews trickle in but some initial results have the AMD chips clocking at 5.1Ghz overclock from a base clock of 3.9Ghz... That's a huge improvement!
Another review from Extremetech
Quote:
In the spring of 2005, AMD launched its dual-core Opteron and Athlon 64 X2 processor lines and kicked off what would later be known as its own golden age — an era when it strongly challenged Intel across desktops, servers, and workstations. In the 14 years between then and now, Advanced Micro Devices has never even come close to an equivalent moment.
Not until now.
When Intel launched the Core i9-9900K, we noted that both it and the 2700X were excellent products, but that AMD had a death grip on the performance-per-dollar category. That’s no longer the case. Dollar-for-dollar, the Core i9-9900K is annihilated in multi-threaded applications by the Ryzen 9 3900X and slightly exceeded in overall non-gaming performance by the $329 Ryzen 7 3700X.
Intel has no easy short-term answer here. There are rumors of a 10-core desktop on the horizon, but 14nm TDPs at high clock and core count are not friendly to anyone. AMD already has a 16-core desktop chip coming in September, and while it may not scale as well as its Threadripper equivalent due to limited memory bandwidth, it’ll scale well enough. Like the concept of a fleet in being, the existence of that 16-core CPU is tangible proof that AMD has gas in the tank and products it can introduce to drive performance higher.
Zen 2 is a tremendous victory for AMD. It may not be an absolute victory — Intel maintains a narrow lead in 1080p gaming, and the 9700K makes an argument for itself on those grounds, if you’re obsessed with squeezing out every last frame of performance — but if you were to look back at test results in 2005, you’d find that AMD didn’t win literally every single one of them back then, either.
We’d like to see if AMD can bring idle power on the Ryzen 7 family down at all, and the CPU’s relatively high single-thread power consumption is a little puzzling, but the Ryzen 7 3700X and 3900X’s execution efficiency is, in a word, excellent. AMD has more than delivered on the improvements that it promised.
|
https://www.extremetech.com/computin...ed-storm-ryzen
Linus Tech Tips is pointing out the AMD performance being slightly behind Intel in gaming could just come down to CPU scheduler issues since when he locked games to one core AMD actually performed consistently better. Once those issues are fixed the Ryzen 3000s will very likely outperformed Intel consistently, even in 1080p gaming.
Intel will have to cut prices deeply if they want to stay competitive while they figure out their node transition mess... which is unlikely to happen for another year or two by their own roadmaps. Oh wait they won't be able to do that because of their node transition problems and yield issues. They already have supply problems. All of this is not even accounting for Intel's massive security problems with speculative execution.
Hardware Unboxed reviews of the 3700X and 3900X
We've only been talking about high end parts for now. Early reviews are coming in of the mid range 3600 parts as well and there is absolutely zero reason to buy Intel at all in that price point, even for gaming.... AMD is 15% faster at only 66% of the price when compared to the i5-9600k.