I’m pretty confident that 4th gen will be at least in parity (or “close enough” by MY standards) where it won’t matter much which CPU you pick.
That right there is the best thing we can hope for. Because that will leave only one thing as a factor and that’s price. So both companies go to war trying to undercut the other. In which case us consumers smile really big.
Currently though people that only use their computer for gaming or a very small percentage of the population. AMD knows this and it has played into their advantage. It’s why their sales are killing it at the moment.
The harsh fact of the matter is unless AMD produces a Zen3 5.0 capable processor; AMD owners will feel severely bottlenecked with the new graphics cards compared to their competition. The gap between the two will only get much bigger
But then you ask yourself what does ford sell more of, ecoboost/v6 or v8?
As long as it’s “good enough” that’s kind of all that matters to most people
The people that want the absolute best are always going to be in the small percentile. Sadly I’m just one of those people. I’m an even in a smaller percentage than that due to the fact that I’m a pure gamer and that’s all I do in my PC.
People like me are the only people still buying intel, everyone else is pretty much buying AMD for good reason
Hey it seems like i’m answering with two different characters its beecause i keep swapping between desktop and mobile and forget to switch characters, LOL.
safe to assume all the Sal-prefixes are me
This is me, I often have more than 1 game running. Sometimes ill have Photoshop, Clip studio, a few tabs open as well as WoW or maybe Stellaris along with maybe bluestacks. I love the ability to have stuff open while not needing to close programs to free up cores. If I was only gaming like maybe 4-5 years ago then I would have gone intel.
Its bottlednecked at 1080p and sometimes 1440p depending on the game engine. To be honest if your buying these high end hardware and gaming at 1080p still I personally think your priorities a little out of wack. Though as it stands the FPS difference at 1080p is kinda crazy.
Even at 1440p in the leaked benchmark of FarCry a 3080 bottlenecked by a 9900k - no difference between the 3080 and a 2080ti until 4k.
Given 3950x already is slower at Farcry by a fair margin vs 9900k on a 2080ti, the difference could be even more apparent.
Personally, I prefer Intel/Nvidia - but that’s just a matter of preference. As I mentioned, I make my decisions based on my use-case and a personal cost benefit analysis. This doesn’t mean I don’t have subjective preferences, only that I try to make my decisions objectively - in the event of a tie (or it being close), I’ll buy what I prefer.
This time around I ended up with a Ryzen 5 3600 paired with the RTX 2070. Since the only game I play is WoW and my system is primarily a work machine with 3 monitors, it was ideal for me. I also bought one for my son, and he plays modern games but also uses it for school and it will probably last him until grad school if I don’t upgrade it for him before then.
I’m hoping for good things from AMD’s announcements because a competitive marketplace is best for consumers.
Untrue it’s even bottlenecked at 4K with the 3000 series. The gap between the two processors expanded into the 4K area on the 3000 Series. This is according to many testers results including gamernexus when compared to its Intel counterpart. Clock speed is not causing the problem either its core latency issues. AMD needs to scrap Infinity fabric it’s a horrible design for gaming. Either that or they need to release a gaming CPU line
The cold facts of the matter is that if gaming is your only focus on your computer? AMD is not what you want to buy currently Intel is. I really hope AMD revolutionary redesign “Zen4” changes things drastically for them.
If price is a major factor for you you can pick up the i5 10600k for under $300 and it performs almost equally with the i9 10900k in gaming once it’s overclocked. That is just insane
Personally prefered AMD because it generally did alright for the price. I’ve accepted a long time ago that I am not a competitive gamer.
Did I miss where the old You tagged in the new You?
Yes, I think you did…
its well known that the issue with far cry is the engine and how it works the cpu cores. The far cry engine absolutely loves faster IPC.
Not really sure how you are coming to the conclusion when there are no benchmarks? The closest thing we have to testing the 3000 series is using a 2080ti as a placeholder for a 3070. Even with that, and gamer nexus says the 2080ti was at 99% for almost all 1440p (minus far cry) and 4k games making it the bottleneck of the system, on both amd and intel platforms.
Is AMD slower in pure gaming? Yes, I think we can all agree on that however if your not trying to chase 144hz in AAA games and you multitask both platforms are going to give the user the same performance.
I doubt a 3700x or higher as well as any i7 or up will bottleneck a 3080/3090 at 4k. 1440P will depend on the game engine for AMD CPU’s as well as the FPS said user wants to push.
Also wanted to add but not edit my post…
We also have to see how this new console generation will shape how devs work the CPU cores. Since the new consoles are powered by Zen with 8 cores we could see a shift to games running on more cores and less reliant on IPC speeds. We can somewhat already see this is some AAA games but with these new game engines like Unreal engine 5 the difference could be even more.
If this was going to happen it would have happened with the older consoles with 8 slow as dirt cores to try to get as much as possible out of them given their limitations. We didn’t.
Now that they’ll have access to 8 SMT fast cores, they’re gonna be even lazier than ever.
They are not that fast. Digital Foundry ran the 3700x (same based architecture and core/SMT as the playstaiton 5/xbox SoC) at 3.2ghz and it had the same single and multi Cinebench 15 scores as the Ryzen 1500x. Also, the new console SoC will have 1/4 of the L2 cache as the ryzen 3700x so those numbers will only go down. Obviously games will be optimized for the SoC so it’s not an apples to apples comparison but from a pure hardware horsepower perspective, console fanboys are not getting a ryzen 3700x in their console.
In comparison to the 8-core Jaguar CPUs though, was my point.
They’re like Warp 10 in comparison
yes, they were glorified tablet CPUs
Well I was trying to remain vague for a reason because I’m still under an NDA until tomorrow actually. There are benchmarks. There are many of them, they’re just not public information yet so people are talking about their findings but they are not showing their benchmarks as of yet.
Secondly as I’ve already said clock speeds are not amd’s problem core latency issues are their problem in gaming. So until the whole Infinity fabric idea is scrapped or completely redesigned they will not take the gaming Crown from intel unfortunately. You’re going off public information and google searches. I am going off internal testing done within my company and other product testing companies.
As to the bottlenecking yes they are bottlenecked at 4K. Not by a lot if much at all but it’s still there. Even a 2% difference is still a 2% bottleneck. There is definitely a gap between Intel and AMD and yes Zen3 may help close the gap or even eliminate it at 4K however will not get rid of the Gap entirely at all resolutions.
EDIT Ok i did not see the reviews of the 3080 are out, time to look at these and lunch.
Yeah thats the main issue, I can only go off public info to judge the performance of the 3000 series until tomorrow.
Memory latency is a issue with AMD and I do hope they fix it with their next socket series. 4000 is the last AM4 chips we will be getting.
My system is not that far off from a 10900k in terms of mem/cache latency (40ns vs 24ns and 4/9.3/22.2 38.8 speed factor) but yeah its something i knew going with AMD this gen. Im going to a 4000 series 10c chip when they are out mainly for the rumored improved per core overclocking that will come with it.