Nobody can read the future. But based on the 2017 data available, the 8700k was around 30-40% faster than AMD offerings, and yet people still recommended the 1600s because they were cheaper and “still were just as good at realistic resolutions”. Obviously, those who chose Intel chips made the right choice, as the 1600 two years later can’t even manage a 5700, which is a mid-range GPU.
The maturity doesn’t matter. In absolute terms, it was slower then, and is even slower now. I’ve enjoyed 3 years of excellent performance. 1600 users have not.
Uh, I never mentioned liquid nitrogen OC. I’m talking about longevity of a CPU. General purpose 8700k users with a 5ghz overclock got a lot of use out of them, and to this day, they are still on top. So what if 4000 series is 10-20% faster? I would sincerely hope they would be, given that means they had 3 generations and 3 years to finally beat an old product. I am not going to upgrade over a 10-20% performance upgrade, though. That’s just silly, although people have upgraded for a whole lot less (ahem 2nd gen Ryzen). But to each their own.
I’m perfectly willing to accept that current Ryzen chips are fine for their price/performance. They all have a place. I’m also hopeful (and mostly confident) that the 4000 series will kick some serious butt.
You, however, seem unable to accept that Intel chips are powerful AF and have been for quite some time, at least not without some underhanded quip about how expensive they are, how hot they are, etc. etc.
Fact is, they were great in 2017 and are still great today. Accept it. Just like I’ve accepted Intel has crappy security issues that hurt performance, and how they screwed everyone over with 9th generation. Your blind fanboyism ruins your ability to have objectivity.
Because at the time they were a whole lot cheaper vs the 8700k for one and at the time a average of 20 fps or so in comparison
Until the 3000 series came out and eBay was flooded, luckily an upgrade path was available to them including on b350 boards, can’t say the same for the upcoming 4000 series but at least b550 is here
You mean you didn’t bat an eye when the zen 2 chips was throwing hands even with the 9000 Intel chips now? Zen 3 is likely to have a jump in performance again and if the XTs chips are already throwing hands with the 10900k… Well…
Motherboard changes every two generations and no one bats an eye
Yet x370 lasted for 3 generations and it’s a big deal?
Giving shade against something like Vega or fx 9590 but the 10900k pulling insane watts isn’t?
There’s been fanboyism even before I got here with Intel especially those past 2 years, no one is innocent
I wonder when Intel is getting their performance crown back, because they’ve literally fell behind in everything but gaming. Kind of realized it yesterday while listening to a podcast
They’re releasing a new architecture on 14nm for the 11th gen lineup. Definitely looking forward to reviews and deep dives.
I distinctly remember (perhaps not here) bringing up 720p results during my 8700k vs. 1600 debates, and got shot down every time by AMD fanboys because "nobody plays at 720p. It’s odd how when you do a GPU unlimited test, the faster CPU does better. Weird.
This is fine for AMD stocks, since people bought a bunch of upgrades. For me, it has meant nothing since I didn’t have to (and still don’t) upgrade from my old tech.
I made several posts here praising AMD Zen 2 and have been recommending them over Intel 9th generation chips since launch. Next question please.
Again, needing another new motherboard meant nothing in practice. I DON’T NEED TO UPGRADE since my 2017 CPU still is pretty much on top of the stack.
The difference between the 9590 and the 10900k is that the 10900k actually puts out performance. The 9590 did not. As far as Vega goes, I have had a Vega 64 and my wife still uses it. Great GPU for what I paid for it. It DOES use a lot of power though. And the difference between a Vega 64 and an RTX 2060 Super is a lot bigger than the difference between a Ryzen 5 3600 and an 8700k.
Touche. I am not without bias, nobody is. But I’m not gonna go down in flames white knighting Intel or AMD. I have both of their components, and I feel it has helped me make good informed decisions.
Intel messed up because of complacency. This isn’t really big news.
Additionally, the 9th generation was a complete disaster, and I felt they scammed their customers with the 9700k by taking away SMT only to give it to the i9 just to make a more expensive product segment.
This really harmed their reputation. Even though they fixed the 9th generation with the 10th generation, it is still too little, too late. Even though you and I can argue about performance this performance that, people only see cores cores cores and Intel basically done goofed with this, and it’s costing them in the consumer market.
I mean, objectively, let’s look at the real hard hitters in terms of overall performance and whatever award for “best of” over the past 5 years or so:
RX 570. This GPU pretty much has been the KING of budget gamers since it came out, and to this day still does pretty damn well. AMD wins this one.
nVidia GTX 1080 ti. Still running STRONG. If you got this badboy at launch, at $699, you have definitely got your money out of it.
i7-8700k. It’s basically the i7-2600. It’s lasted 3 years, not even taking many if at all losses to AMD in gaming, and I foresee no issue with it lasting another 3 or more.
Ryzen 3 2200g. Entry level cheap CPU that has competent graphics. Say no more.
Ryzen 5 3600. The new budget king of everything. I can’t fault it. At all. It’s basically a $166 8700k-lite, it’s really a no-brainer.
Honorable mentions: Ryzen 7 1700/2700 newegg sales. You could pick these up for $160. Definitely good deals.
Pretty much everything else has been either lackluster, filler, or too niche to matter much (this includes high core count CPUs).
You’ll note I only included one Intel CPU and one nVidia GPU. The rest is all AMD. For good reason. But let’s give credit to where credit’s due.
Now will he say the same thing when benchmarks test with higher speed ram and the scores of the 3900xt go higher or will he just pretend “it didn’t happen”
Xbox Series X and ps5 developments say hi
Higher core counts is going to matter once game devs utilize optimizing on consoles with 8 cores 16 threads
May not happen this year but maybe next year or two
The moment the i9 existed on the x299 chipset you would have known they were going to ruin the consumer market
6/12 will last for the foreseeable future. Getting an 8/16 will help with wider usage (multitasking, etc) but it would be expecting too much for game developers to leverage all of these resources when they know most multi-platform users won’t be able to show up to the game.
Outside of exclusives, they will deliberately code their games to the lowest common denominator.
I got to agree with them bro, by the time we need that much horsepower it should be available for most people at mid range prices.
It’s why you don’t really see me recommend the Ryzen 7 3700x or Ryzen 7 3800x based on core counts. I might recommend them for streaming and pcie 4.0 though. You either go Ryzen 5 3600 and wait for the 4000 series or go with Ryzen 9 3900x/3950x and make it last.
Also Ryzen 5 won’t go 12 cores any time soon, 8 cores is possible though.
Problem with this is that by the time 3900x’s threads “matter” it won’t be fast enough “to last”.
Buy what you need now and within the next couple years, give yourself some room for one or two GPU upgrades, and then reassess everything when the time comes.
Buying a CPU with intent to upgrade to another CPU soon is some rent-to-own type of futility.
It might last because the Ryzen 9’s also come with double the L3 cache. That’s why I am a big fan of the Ryzen 9 cpu’s. You get double the cores + cache for about twice the price (in regards to the ryzen 9 3900x at least).
Don’t get me wrong – I like the R9’s a ton and wish I had a reason for moar corez because I’d switch in a heartbeat. For people who need that amount of threading, what AMD has done at the high end is game-changing.
I just find the whole purpose for this thread to be absolutely hilarious and pathetic at the same time.
You also doubted zen 2 performance last year around this time too and then suddenly pretended that didn’t happen as well when they were trading blows with 9th Gen
Doubt you actually wanted to swap however especially after years of taunting others “should had gotten Intel lul” to other users who needed help with troubleshooting during 1st Gen launch
