I always was a sucker for pc gaming. I feel stupid for loving pc gaming since forever and throwing so much money at it too but I always liked it
But I heard here on GAF that these Ryzen 2 CPUs were just a wet fart
FTFY
If your are comfortable waiting a long while and have no pressing need to buy, that is a fair choice. I am assuming you'd want a desktop and for it to have more than 4 cores.
AMD isnt slowing down though. By the time intel 10nm is out, AMD has a new cpu as well.
I have a desktop now and it currently has 6C/12T. I’m all about the efficiency in the design. Typically AMD needs more cores and more power to go head to head with Intel.
People will always mention some very specific benchmark pointing how AMD is the shit and Intel is for suckers, but as someone who pays a lot of attention to the emulation scene I can't help but notice the common trend where having an AMD CPU or GPU more often than not equates to ask for troubles.
Intel's 10nm CPUs are out already.
Right!? Every AMD build I've ever made has had some sort of hang time to it when opening programs or simply even booting up. This is something that has even happened on the last 2700 build I did for someone. Where as, every intel build I've done has been butter smooth and snappy as shit. That's with 16GB of RAM and a good SSD in each of the systems. There is just something off with the way AMD processors feel to me and it's noticeable when you build a lot of systems.
Uh, no, they don't?
I'm struggling with decrypting this.
I'm not even talking about AMD here. Intel 10nm can't currently compete with Intel 14nm as a process. Low yields requiring smaller chips there with the only win being the actual chip design getting IPC gains to offset clock loss.
Lower power consumption, yeah, but nope, i9 9900k consumes nearly twice as much as 3900x.
Honestly, I think this may be a thread of AMD die-hards. But the facts are just that. Intel at 14nm is really close to beating AMD at 7nm while being more efficient. AMD is going to be shitting themselves when Intel hits 10nm because their processors will once again dominate. I'm happy for AMD, but I'm putting my money into the longevity that Intel will be providing because it's not going to be an incremental difference like it is now.
pcper.com
You realise that you're comparing against a Zen+ CPU not a 7nm Zen 2 CPU in that link, right? I'm not sure what point this makes other than AMD mixing their range names is confusing? (Which it is)Honestly, I think this may be a thread of AMD die-hards. But the facts are just that. Intel at 14nm is really close to beating AMD at 7nm while being more efficient. AMD is going to be shitting themselves when Intel hits 10nm because their processors will once again dominate. I'm happy for AMD, but I'm putting my money into the longevity that Intel will be providing because it's not going to be an incremental difference like it is now.
Keep in mind, these are mobile CPU's.
Ice Lake Benchmarks: i7-1065G7 vs. Ryzen 7 3700U - PC Perspective
We take a look at the latest Ice Lake benchmarks as we test a new Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 with the i7-1065G7 and a ThinkPad T495 sporting the Ryzen 7 3700U.
This image right here explains my PC building suspicions I mentioned previously in this thread.
Well I'll be damned, you're right, I guess I missed that bit of info. Why would they do that? Well I guess I won't have a point until next year when the 7nm mobile chips arrive.
I don't disagree with you, however, we gotta play fair here. AMD is really in a good position at the moment regardless of what we think/know.
Thanks for not doubling down
Leonidas, right now Intel 14++ also beats Intel 10nm in everything except for IPC and I'd imagine perf/watt. The process has been shipping for years and is very mature now. It is a great node, for all the "14∞/14+++++" shit it gets from people. The criticism is getting thrown at Intel for the massively delayed transition to 10nm which has let competing foundries leapfrog them when they used to command a 2 node lead. I said it before but this comfortable guarantee we used to have, that a lower node will be better in every respect, is dying off.
Leonidas, again....Total system power will be higher on X570 boards because it's a new chipset/motherboard from AMD with features that the 9900k Socket does not support that requires more power...……….Apart from that, IPC on AMD is higher, cores/threads is higher on the 3900X over the 9900k, including cache.......This isn't exactly new information but it seems some people still can't get over the fact that Intel 14++ > TSMC/GloFo/AMD 7/14 hybrid when it comes to efficiency in many cases. In fact I estimate 99% of my usage more efficient on Intel by the following charts copied from a previous thread.
Intel more efficient and powerful in gaming. Intel more efficient in lightly threaded workloads. Intel more efficient at idle.
Intel being more efficient is just a small bonus as AMD has almost caught up with them.
Kinda funny how the fastest and most efficient gaming CPUs and GPUs this year aren't on "7nm".
You do realize that Intel's 10nm is less efficient than their 14nm++, right? You don't get to use a smaller node as some sort of excuse when Intel failed at delivering their smaller node.
Aside from frequency and yields, yes. Those are key parts too alongside IPC & perf/watt. That makes it pretty much a wash there. If it were an overall improvement I can't see why Intel would ship 10nm and 14nm in the same generation on mobile.
I'll concede that, aside from anyone who wants to encode their gameplay videos, all core AVX load would be unlikely. More and more games do use AVX these days too but the level of impact is unclear to me - can't be super heavy.Anand is using AVX which blows up the 9900K. When AVX is not used your statement is false.
And in the case it is true (AVX used) who the hell on a gaming forum is loading up all core's with AVX?
Yeah, but, nope:
Just how full of lies Intel fans are.
www.notebookcheck.net
