How many years will it always take AMD CPU to beat Intel in gaming? (Who is the real Sub-Par Product here?)

[valeman2012]

How many years will it always take AMD CPU to beat Intel in gaming?

I saw how long it may take AMD Ryzen to beat Intel i7 8700K ....Will this continue?

 

[Karadjgne]

Intel lucked out, AMD gambled and lost. Not due to any inferiority in design but because game devs simply decided it was easier to continue writing code for low core counts, not multi-core that AMD offered. That has since changed and devs are finally upto the wall as they can't cram any more data into a single thread and still get performance. So now multi core is the way to go, years too late for AMD, but even Intel is goin in that direction. The quad core that was Intel staple is now obsolete, 6 or more are becoming necessary for best performance. If the devs had decided for multi core 6 years ago then the FX would have fared much better.

 

[TerryLaze]

Intel lucked out, AMD gambled and lost. Not due to any inferiority in design but because game devs simply decided it was easier to continue writing code for low core counts, not multi-core that AMD offered. That has since changed and devs are finally upto the wall as they can't cram any more data into a single thread and still get performance. So now multi core is the way to go, years too late for AMD, but even Intel is goin in that direction. The quad core that was Intel staple is now obsolete, 6 or more are becoming necessary for best performance. If the devs had decided for multi core 6 years ago then the FX would have fared much better.

No matter how threaded a game is and how many more threads one CPU can run, if the per thread speed is lower you will run the game slower.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucJqHUpc2RU

The i7-7700k is still pretty much the fastest gaming chip out there, if you don't need to run other stuff on the side it's the perfect choice still.
But people are stupid enough to fall for the whole it's the era of multitasking shtick so they go and buy much more threads then they need.
https://www.hardware.fr/articles/965-3/performances-jeux-3d.html

 

[ohiou_grad_2006]

Things change. AMD made a bad decision to go with what was probably a server cpu and tried to use it for consumer use. Thankfully they were able to recover, or imagine the prices we'd be paying Intel.

It kind of would be in Intel's interest to have AMD around so they aren't scrutinized as a monopoly.

 

[Karadjgne]

That only really applies to places with anti-trust regulations like the States, many others don't have monopoly laws, and Intel would be fine as long as they could prove they weren't to blame if amd folded or put the brakes on cpu manufacturing.

 

[drivinfast247]

The above post shows an i5 8600k vs a 1600x. This isn't a fair comparison given the 8600k is almost double after you factor in a cooling solution. The better comparison would be against a 2600x, which is still cheaper.

I guess if you're a kid playing games @ 1080p low settings and have superhuman eyes and reaction time and need absurd FPS(beyond what any monitor can display) then Intel is the choice. Once you move up to adult resolutions and graphic quality the framerate gap closes.

 

[TerryLaze]

The above post shows an i5 8600k vs a 1600x. This isn't a fair comparison given the 8600k is almost double after you factor in a cooling solution. The better comparison would be against a 2600x, which is still cheaper.

It's a response to this comment showing that multicore coding is not the issue ryzen is having(or FX 6 years ago) ,even when the game is using all the cores of the 1600 it's still slower...so yes of course it also has to be much cheaper,why on earth would anybody pay more to get less FPS?
"Intel lucked out, AMD gambled and lost. Not due to any inferiority in design but because game devs simply decided it was easier to continue writing code for low core counts, not multi-core that AMD offered. That has since changed and devs are finally upto the wall as they can't cram any more data into a single thread and still get performance. So now multi core is the way to go, years too late for AMD, but even Intel is goin in that direction. The quad core that was Intel staple is now obsolete, 6 or more are becoming necessary for best performance. If the devs had decided for multi core 6 years ago then the FX would have fared much better."

I guess if you're a kid playing games @ 1080p low settings and have superhuman eyes and reaction time and need absurd FPS(beyond what any monitor can display) then Intel is the choice. Once you move up to adult resolutions and graphic quality the framerate gap closes.

Oh yeah I guess 80-90FPS are too much for people these days...
Funny how when ryzen came out everybody was all about how nobody only games anymore and how they all run a lot of stuff in the background.
Now it's back to "oh you don't need all that performance intel is giving you" ...

 

[kanewolf]

This thread has stayed reasonably civil. And it will have to stay civil or it will be closed. I don't think anybody is changing anybody's preference with this thread.

Since NONE of us has a crystal ball to tell us what the next Intel or AMD move will be, there is NO WAY to answer the question posed by the OP. I do think it is a narrow point of view to say that gaming is the only market that matters for CPUs. And even then only on the highest end of the spectrum. There are plenty of threads on this board with people using FX processors (unfortunately even buying new FX processors) or i5-600 series CPUs. They couldn't care a bit about if the i7-9xxx beats a 2700X because there is NO WAY they can afford any of it. But by being able to afford an Athlon 200GE or maybe a Ryzen 2200G they might be able to move into the 21st century. There is a range of prices and markets that both AMD and Intel have to attempt to service. They each have areas where they are better.

 

[ohiou_grad_2006]

The other thing I will say, I believe with the die shrink to 7nm, Intel's lead in single core ipc will be even less.

Regardless what camp you fall into, this entire debate helps you since you aren't paying 1000 for an i5 or something. So it's nice that this gets to stay an affordable hobby. That's what I like about gaming on PC. You can have a low end setup that you can build on, all the way to a high end system that runs 4k on the largest screen and sound system you can buy.

 

[vMax]

The other thing I will say, I believe with the die shrink to 7nm, Intel's lead in single core ipc will be even less.

Regardless what camp you fall into, this entire debate helps you since you aren't paying 1000 for an i5 or something. So it's nice that this gets to stay an affordable hobby. That's what I like about gaming on PC. You can have a low end setup that you can build on, all the way to a high end system that runs 4k on the largest screen and sound system you can buy.

It be great to know which i5 costs a $1000?...I mean at least lets get the facts right..it's not difficult...plenty of prices to check online....

 

[kanewolf]

It be great to know which i5 costs a $1000?...I mean at least lets get the facts right..

He said "AREN'T paying $1000 for an i5" ... meaning competition has lowered prices. He does have those "facts straight". That is also they type of response that will get this thread closed...

 

[vMax]

It be great to know which i5 costs a $1000?...I mean at least lets get the facts right..

He said "AREN'T paying $1000 for an i5" ... meaning competition has lowered prices. He does have those "facts straight". That is also they type of response that will get this thread closed...

The point is simple, exaggerating to the extreme on either end is just pointless....and just to re-iterate, we have never even got half way to paying a $1000 for an i5 and as to competition, Intel's prices still have not changed, in fact they have gone up!!! and people are still paying the prices..Good on AMD for bringin in a great set CPU's...fingers crossed Intel will lower there prices but at least try not to exaggerate as ultimately we are talking about businesses that have been trading for many, many years successfully in both AMD and Intel..

 

[ohiou_grad_2006]

My point is though, even though their prices have gone up, imagine if they had no competition at all. That's my point. And if AMD were the only company same thing applies. If you are a monopoly, you charge whatever you feel like. Them having a decent competitor keeps them at least semi honest.

 

[valeman2012]

Intel lucked out, AMD gambled and lost. Not due to any inferiority in design but because game devs simply decided it was easier to continue writing code for low core counts, not multi-core that AMD offered. That has since changed and devs are finally upto the wall as they can't cram any more data into a single thread and still get performance. So now multi core is the way to go, years too late for AMD, but even Intel is goin in that direction. The quad core that was Intel staple is now obsolete, 6 or more are becoming necessary for best performance. If the devs had decided for multi core 6 years ago then the FX would have fared much better.

No matter how threaded a game is and how many more threads one CPU can run, if the per thread speed is lower you will run the game slower.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucJqHUpc2RU

The i7-7700k is still pretty much the fastest gaming chip out there, if you don't need to run other stuff on the side it's the perfect choice still.
But people are stupid enough to fall for the whole it's the era of multitasking shtick so they go and buy much more threads then they need.
https://www.hardware.fr/articles/965-3/performances-jeux-3d.html

The other thing I will say, I believe with the die shrink to 7nm, Intel's lead in single core ipc will be even less.

Regardless what camp you fall into, this entire debate helps you since you aren't paying 1000 for an i5 or something. So it's nice that this gets to stay an affordable hobby. That's what I like about gaming on PC. You can have a low end setup that you can build on, all the way to a high end system that runs 4k on the largest screen and sound system you can buy.

It be great to know which i5 costs a $1000?...I mean at least lets get the facts right..it's not difficult...plenty of prices to check online....

It be great to know which i5 costs a $1000?...I mean at least lets get the facts right..

He said "AREN'T paying $1000 for an i5" ... meaning competition has lowered prices. He does have those "facts straight". That is also they type of response that will get this thread closed...

It be great to know which i5 costs a $1000?...I mean at least lets get the facts right..

He said "AREN'T paying $1000 for an i5" ... meaning competition has lowered prices. He does have those "facts straight". That is also they type of response that will get this thread closed...

The point is simple, exaggerating to the extreme on either end is just pointless....and just to re-iterate, we have never even got half way to paying a $1000 for an i5 and as to competition, Intel's prices still have not changed, in fact they have gone up!!! and people are still paying the prices..Good on AMD for bringin in a great set CPU's...fingers crossed Intel will lower there prices but at least try not to exaggerate as ultimately we are talking about businesses that have been trading for many, many years successfully in both AMD and Intel..

My point is though, even though their prices have gone up, imagine if they had no competition at all. That's my point. And if AMD were the only company same thing applies. If you are a monopoly, you charge whatever you feel like. Them having a decent competitor keeps them at least semi honest.

Yup Intel gaming is better, but AMD fanboys keep saying "more cores/more threads / included stock cooler / low value/ no iGPU" means better than Intel..the AMD Fanboys been saying that for awhile now....

So i ask a deep question on what are AMD Fanboys are actually seeing that make them think I"AMD is better than Intel"?

 

[boju]

Wouldn't say anyone here is being a fanboy of either side. It's more to do with people appreciating AMD and what they've done to get back into the game with Ryzen to overcome the FX debacle. Intel have also been down that road with Pentium4.

6~8 cores with multi threading is the sweet spot imo for high frame rates. Both Intel and AMD offer that.

When Fanboy keeps getting flung around it's begging for a flame war. I'd say this thread has had enough.

 

[ohiou_grad_2006]

AMD has become competitive again. They aren't quite as good at gaming as Intel, but in a lot of benchmarks were better at production type of work that requires lots of threads.

That said, Intel is better at gaming at the moment. No question.

However, another thing to look at, is if you want to overclock for example, you don't have to spend extra for a k series cpu, and you don't have to buy a z series board. Those type of things add value for a lot of us.

Not only that, but ryzen 1st generation came out early 2017. The last ryzen should be around 2020 sometime. If all the press is true and motherboard manufacturers give updates, you should be able to take the same board from 2017, and install a new cpu in 2020 and be set another couple of years. Traditionally, it seems AMD has allowed for this except for only a couple of times.

With intel it seems like every time you turn around, they change CPUs, and many times, like every 2 generations or so, you have to swap motherboards as well. Those things get expensive.

For me personally, I know AMD may not be exactly the same performance in gaming, but they are about 90% of where Intel is I'd say. And, for me, I've got other things going on in life besides sitting and gaming every day. The AMD platform for me still provides a great experience, and is more cost effective, but gives 90% of the performance. That's what a lot of us see in AMD, we are shopping for max value for our money. If you can save say 100 dollars between savings on a cpu and motherboard compared to buying Intel, that might be the difference between buying a gtx 1050ti and a 1060 6gb card for example. That's what it boils down to for many of us. Or just being able to have something different

 

[valeman2012]

AMD has become competitive again. They aren't quite as good at gaming as Intel, but in a lot of benchmarks were better at production type of work that requires lots of threads.

That said, Intel is better at gaming at the moment. No question.

However, another thing to look at, is if you want to overclock for example, you don't have to spend extra for a k series cpu, and you don't have to buy a z series board. Those type of things add value for a lot of us.

Not only that, but ryzen 1st generation came out early 2017. The last ryzen should be around 2020 sometime. If all the press is true and motherboard manufacturers give updates, you should be able to take the same board from 2017, and install a new cpu in 2020 and be set another couple of years. Traditionally, it seems AMD has allowed for this except for only a couple of times.

With intel it seems like every time you turn around, they change CPUs, and many times, like every 2 generations or so, you have to swap motherboards as well. Those things get expensive.

For me personally, I know AMD may not be exactly the same performance in gaming, but they are about 90% of where Intel is I'd say. And, for me, I've got other things going on in life besides sitting and gaming every day. The AMD platform for me still provides a great experience, and is more cost effective, but gives 90% of the performance. That's what a lot of us see in AMD, we are shopping for max value for our money. If you can save say 100 dollars between savings on a cpu and motherboard compared to buying Intel, that might be the difference between buying a gtx 1050ti and a 1060 6gb card for example. That's what it boils down to for many of us. Or just being able to have something different

AMD in question yes, ---------- Thanks for answering my question guys this been long review for this quest on eight or 8--------- to Intel Processors 8th Gen or future Intel CPU.
How many years will it always take AMD CPU to beat Intel in gaming? (Who is the real Sub-Par Product here?)


I may change answer ,,..because this need a solid answering

 

[XMEN_2012]

This is never ending fight between Red team and Blue team.

I would say that my system is not strong but It is capable of playing 1080p Ultra settings and 60FPS so I got this in 60% price of what I was getting Intel one. I am not fanboy but for me this system performs much better than most of those I seen on youtube or at my friends.

Do not forget in last quarter or so AMD beat Intel sales by 2:1 and that shows people really believes in their abilities.

 

[ohiou_grad_2006]

No problem. The real answer boils down to they are both great products. Intel is a force, can't deny that. You buy especially one of their more range or upper end CPUs, you are almost certainly going to feel good about your purchase.

But as a budget option, AMD is great. They can't beat Intel for gaming for now, but they've made huge strides the last couple of years, so expect some healthy competition the next few years. And that benefits everyone no matter which one you buy.

 

[valeman2012]

This is never ending fight between Red team and Blue team.

I would say that my system is not strong but It is capable of playing 1080p Ultra settings and 60FPS so I got this in 60% price of what I was getting Intel one. I am not fanboy but for me this system performs much better than most of those I seen on youtube or at my friends.

Do not forget in last quarter or so AMD beat Intel sales by 2:1 and that shows people really believes in their abilities.

No problem. The real answer boils down to they are both great products. Intel is a force, can't deny that. You buy especially one of their more range or upper end CPUs, you are almost certainly going to feel good about your purchase.

But as a budget option, AMD is great. They can't beat Intel for gaming for now, but they've made huge strides the last couple of years, so expect some healthy competition the next few years. And that benefits everyone no matter which one you buy.

There also never such thing AMD is better than Intel in gaming and upgrade-free cost saving

 

[andreascocq]

The good old days. 286, 386, 486, 686, 100MB HDDs, 1MB video cards. Thinking each time i upgrade it was important, but it kept going like as if there was this tail i was chasing never ended.. look back at it now and it was fun and swap meets were the places to go on Sundays 😀

Was all fun but Cyrix and Amd in those days were cheap and didn't perform as good as Intel.

We must be old buggers 😉 ... I remember selling IBM PCs with 8086/88 CPUs clocked at a whopping 4.x MHz (at that M is NOT a typo) ... 16 KBytes RAM ...
Or the old Motorola 68000 chips ...
Oh wait ... I‘m getting lost in nostalgia 😀

 

[boju]

Hey! im not that old ;P

 

[ohiou_grad_2006]

I'll be 38 this month. 386/486 was just before my time.

 

[boju]

Im almost 36 and i was playing prince of persia, duke nukem and dave on the 286. 486 gave us doom (parents as well lol) then came the 686.

We had good times connecting the two up via coax to battle it out in Doom. Desks were side by side so we used a couch cushion to stop those darting eyes =D

 

[valeman2012]

Im almost 36 and i was playing prince of persia, duke nukem and dave on the 286. 486 gave us doom (parents as well lol) then came the 686.

We had good times connecting the two up via coax to battle it out in Doom. Desks were side by side so we used a couch cushion to stop those darting eyes =D

For my Worksation computer i use a Intel i9 7940X 14 Cores 28 Threads which is good and glad Cant get the sub par just have it cost more. i did not go for AMD Threadripper in Super Massive Power Hungry - I am going get a super expensive power bill in such expensive city.

 

[boju]

For my Worksation computer i use a Intel i9 7940X 14 Cores 28 Threads which is good and glad Cant get the sub par just have it cost more. i did not go for AMD Threadripper in Super Massive Power Hungry - I am going get a super expensive power bill in such expensive city.

If you're lucky, you might be able to play those games i mentioned =D