Jump to content
  • Sign Up
Sign in to follow this  
ComradeMaster

Intel Thread

Recommended Posts

 

Good News:  Heat does surprising well, about the same as 9th Gen so that's significant considering the clock/thread boosts.  i5, i7, and i9 all have Hyperthreading, can manually disable Hyperthreading on any individual Core.  New Motherboard promises significant upgrades for future Gens, but that leads us to....

Bad News:  Need a new motherboard , still doesn't beat AMD on heavy multi-threaded apps (but how many people need all that crap anyway?).  Probably not worth upgrading if you're already sporting a solid 9th Gen chip, save your money, especially if all you do is game and browse.  Still uses 14nm process, which, in a nutshell, basically means you better have an extremely high watt power supply if you plan on doing massive overclocking.

Will wait for 11th Gen before I upgrade, should be some real solid improvements by that time.  It's unlikely AMD will produce something that can top Intel's gaming dominance.

Edited by ComradeMaster

'He who seeks to defend everything, defends nothing."

King Frederick the Great of Prussia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the claim of "Intel's gaming dominance" since Zen 2. In the real world if you're pairing a CPU with a high end GPU going for 1440p or 4K then Intel or AMD doesn't really matter. The gaming benchmark charts, that use 1080p, have the most difference in games like DOTA 2 and CS:GO, only relevant to competitive gamers. If you're thinking about building a pc for gaming, you care about perf/$, you're thinking about a target resolution and frame rate, the choice is almost always AMD now as well, just buy a better GPU. There's very little circumstances where Intel makes sense for PC gaming. The amount of games that aren't well multi-threaded going into the future is shrinking.

Intel's engineering on thermals is great and price segmentation on cores is way better, it's also so very very late. If they had done this 2 generations ago, they'd have been competitive. It's disappointing how little they care about desktop CPUs.

Edited by AwesomeOcelot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AwesomeOcelot said:

I don't understand the claim of "Intel's gaming dominance" since Zen 2.

Every single benchmark shows that Intel leads in gaming, but Ryzen leads in everything else.  Sure, if you're a 60fps 4k gamer I suppose it doesn't mean too much but for people who like high refresh rates and smoothness -competitive or not-, it's significant, especially how next Gen Gpu's appear to be powerful enough to severely bottleneck CPU's.

Amateurs talk about graphics settings whilst experts talk about resolution "sweet spots" and refresh rates (monitor specifications).  I play in 165hz 1440p on a 27" monitor with 109 pixels per inch (which is near perfect for 1440p and basically meaningless on 4k) so Intel + Nvidia are my best options for wanting to clear 165 fps on decent graphics settings.


'He who seeks to defend everything, defends nothing."

King Frederick the Great of Prussia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you ignore price performance Intel leads in gaming, if you don't then most segments Ryzen leads, that was my point. I would welcome that to change with next gen GPUs, but I don't believe the recent rumours or their source.

165hz and above is still an extremely rare segment, espectially at 1440p and above. I agree that if you target 165hz or above on 1440p or above, then Intel is the only option. I just think the competitive gamer market that games at 1080p 300fps, and the enthusiast 1440p 165hz, are not "gaming", so saying Intel leads in gaming when they're behind for most of the "sweet spots" is misleading.

Which CPU do you recommend for 4K 60-90hz? Ryzen 3

Which CPU do you recommend for 1440p 90-120hz? Ryzen 3

Which CPU do you recommend for casual gaming 1080p  90-144hz? Ryzen 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intel's gaming dominance is mostly just a statistic. The biggest difference comes in very niche use cases (e.g. you are a MLG CS:GO player so you play on medium settings at 1080p on a 240 Hz monitor because the difference between running at 180 FPS snd running at 192 FPS will make the difference between you nailing that headshot with the AWP [no scope, naturally] or missing it). In more common gaming scenarios (i.e. gaming at high resolution, bells and whistles turned on at modest to moderately high framerate) the CPU makes very little difference since the GPU is the bottleneck. Intel is still ahead in those scenarios, but the difference is essentially negligible.

The "10th gen" Intel chips are a decent value if you are building a system right now. They hold the gaming lead and have closed the gap somewhat in many other applications. AMD still holds the price/performance lead in most areas, but these Intel chips for the most part hold their own against Ryzen 3xxx. If the supposed 15% IPC increase in Zen 3 Ryzen 4xxx chips turns out to be true

17c.png

then AMD will widen that gap Intel just closed significantly, but that obviously remains to be seen, plus that's 3-5 months away, so it does nothing for someone building right now.

Anyway, pretty good chips ftom Intel overall. Nothing revolutionary, but they're hanging in there better than I expected with the ancient Core architecture.

Edited by Keyrock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The number of people who spend 2000+USD on a rig to play Tomb Raider at 1080p low quality is not overly large.

46 minutes ago, Keyrock said:

Anyway, pretty good chips ftom Intel overall. Nothing revolutionary, but they're hanging in there better than I expected with the ancient Core architecture.

Way more realistic offerings from Intel, certainly, and they seem to have finally acknowledged that Zen changed the game in desktop semi permanently. A lot of the senseless segmentation like gating HT has gone, not before time. End of the day though it's basically the same thing Intel has offered since 2016 (well 2017, for the 10 core 7900k) with a price drop, marginally better clocks and a lot more juice required. They will probably also have the same supply issues they currently have outside the US.

Should also be noted, Linus got unusually low temps/ wattage for his 10900k, others got considerably higher wattage.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The number of people who spend 2000+USD on a rig to play Tomb Raider at 1080p low quality is not overly large.

I don't get the point in posting that chart, whoever would do that is insane. These CPU benchmarks don't make any real world sense.

For the other chart, sure, for the people who have a 2080 Ti and want to play DOTA at ultra 1440p choose a 10700K over a 3700X. It's just funny that someone would take the time to cherry pick the one benchmark with a large difference from a page. Older games that aren't as multi-threaded aren't going to run as well on Ryzen. For most people though, buying a 3600X and a better GPU is going to make a lot more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bah!  And they say we Yankees have no sense of humor. ...

This one's a little more in depth ;)


'He who seeks to defend everything, defends nothing."

King Frederick the Great of Prussia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is even if you're an egamer who wants max fps in csgo or whatever- which is a realistic usage scenario- unless you're also in the money no object bracket your best purchase option is probably the 10300k (?, the rebadged 7700k anyway) because its single core performance will be about the same, it will cost so much less, and can work effectively with a cheap cooler which takes a further $100 off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen to Steve's conclusion. If you want the absolute highest FPS in games get this CPU. Also he struggled to see scaling in many gaming benchmarks. You can force scaling, by lowering the resolution and settings. You're never going to be using those settings. Ask yourself if a 10600K makes more real world sense, and check out that review and how well that stacks up against AMD. In certain circumstances yes, but in most others a 3600 for ~$90 less and spending more money on a GPU makes more sense.

Edited by AwesomeOcelot
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...