[SOLVED] Intel vs AMD for 4K Gaming in 2020, i7-9700K vs Ryzen 7 3700x or i5-9600K vs i5-8400, nVidia vs Radeon and Much More!

[Zadkhiel]

Cheers all !

2019 is almost over and I AM GOING CRAZY reading forums, reviews and watching videos and benchmarks for MONTHS NOW !

I need A SOLID CPU AND MOTHERBOARD FOR GAMING. So I would much appreciate your help.

I'm usually watching movies, tv series or playing games on my 55" Oled TV at 1080p (So im stuck at this resolution until later nex year, when I can afford to buy a new 4K TV and GPU)

I was this close to go for a Ryzen 7 3700x, but then I read hundreds of forums of desperate people that have so many problems with either the BIOS of the motherboards, the CPU, the software, windows, or even random issues like crashing, freezing, resetting, boot failure and so on . . .

I mean, there are so many problems with AMD even in 2020 that I cant believe . . .

I have been a Intel owner for at least 13 years or more and I NEVER HAD ISSUES LIKE AMD !

No, I'm not a fanboy but I value stability and compatibility the most !

Oh, intending to go 4K in 2020 also so future proofing would be nice, specially cause I intend to keep the CPU for 3 to 5 years.

Budget: I could stretch for the top CPU's, but giving the fact that I basically don't do any work and I mostly game on the PC, would be nice to allocate some money in a good GPU for 4K future proof !

MY BUILD WILL BE:

ASUS MOTHERBOARD (Most likely ) ??

32GB OF RAM G.SKILL 3600Mhz

GTX 1060 6GB ( I'm stuck with for now, but will UPGRADE TO A 2080 SUPER, somewhere in 2020 after the prices drop down)

PLEASE HELP ME DECIDE BETWEEN:

Intel I7 9700k vs Ryzen 7 3700x
or
Intel i59600k vs i5 8400

P.S - I now have a i7 7700 (NON K) with 16 GB RAM and a GTX 1060 6GB

IS IT WORTH UPGRADING ( The CPU+Motherboard+RAM) FOR 4K AND FUTURE PROOFING ? Or should I buy a GTX 2070 or 2080 SUPER and stick with my current config?

Thank you kindly !

 

[Zadkhiel]

Why wait for this? It's just going to be another 14nm++++++ iterative release with maybe a slight clock speed bump being the only thing that differentiates it from the current 9th gen i9s. The only somewhat interesting aspects of the 10 series that I'm aware of are rumors of the addition of hyperthreading to more (all?) of their CPUs, and a new 10 core CPU. Neither of which apply if you're looking at a 8C/16T CPU.

Yes, I have seen the 10 core rumors as well, seems interesting to see if that will be the case or not . . .

 

[Zadkhiel]

What exactly were the cons for AMD that made you go with Intel?

Lower IPC, COMPATIBILITY AND STABILITY ISSUES, Lower boost clock, LOTS OF BIOS and MEMORY ISSUES, CPU SOFTWARE ISSUES, HIGH VOLTAGE ON CPU(1.40 or more, but i think it was corrected with a BIOS update) PINS ON THE CPU and so on... I'll try and make a full list of PROS and CONS as soon as I have the time

Oh and the fact that i7 9700K is better for gaming than the R7 3700x

 

[NightHawkRMX]

Lower IPC

IPC is very dependent on workload. Ryzen 3xxx CPUs actually have a greater IPC value for most workloads, infact.

Gaming is basically the only exception.

COMPATIBILITY AND STABILITY ISSUES

Care to elaborate? Ryzen has more backwards and forwards socket compatibility than intel. I don't know of any stability issues.

CPU SOFTWARE ISSUES

Elaborate?

Lower boost clock

Boost clocks are mostly accurate if you have W10 in balanced mode and have the latest bios. If you want to argue about 50mhz if you use stock cooler, you are more than welcome to act foolish.

Look in the Ryzen boost clocks thread, you see some Intel chips never seeing rated boost either.

Boost clocks depend on a lot of factors. You may not see rated boost on Intel or AMD for a variety of reasons.

HIGH VOLTAGE ON CPU(1.40 or more, but i think it was corrected with a BIOS update)

Not an issue. AMD Ryzen 3xxx CPUs have a different architecture than Ryzen 1/2xxx or Intel, so what would be concidered high voltage on Intel or previous Ryzen CPUs. is not high on Ryzen 3xxx. Despite running at a higher voltage, these Ryzen CPUs are usually drawing less power than Intel...

LOTS OF BIOS and MEMORY ISSUES

What? There hasnt been any major memory issues since Ryzen 1xxx 3 years ago. Ryzen 3rd gens IMC is not the same as older chips.
BIOS issues really arent major. You can run into issues with older BIOS versions on older boards being incompatable with new CPUs, but the same problem exists on Intel.

Try to run an I3 9100f on a H310 motherboard without ensuring the BIOS is updated? Might not work.

Oh and the fact that i7 9700K is better for gaming than the R7 3700x

Hey look, a valid point. The only one in this entire Intel shill speech.

 

[Zizo007]

Cheers all !

I was this close to buy the Ryzen 7 3700x and then it hit me !!!

RYZEN PROCESSORS HAVE PINS ON THEIR BACK !!! OMFG ??? :O

I AM SO UPSET ON AMD !!! INTEL DOESN'T USE PINS SINCE YEARS AND YEARS AGO !!! WTF AMD ??? WHY ARE YOU SO FRICKING OLD AND UNEVOLVED ?

AMD went back in time, like 10 years . . . I mean really? And yeah, you can say that " I'm picky " . but frankly, I had a few problems with processors that had pins in the past, one of which, I lost a lot of money, because I bought it with bent pins, returned it and didn't get my full refund ( this is way back, when return policy did not exist ) . . .

SO I JUST CAN'T TAKE IT WITH AMD ANYMORE, SO MANY ISSUES AND THINGS THAT I DON'T LIKE, PLUS THEY ARE WAAAAY TO OLD FOR THIS ERA !!!

So I have decided to wait until end of February, beginning of March, when, I will be able to buy the whole set: CPU+MB+RAM+GPU !!!

Also, I want to wait for the CES, plus, in April, new INTEL i7 10 series with 8 cores and 16 threads will be released.

I will post soon, a list with pros and cons for AMD vs INTEL, which, in my opinion, is crucial for purchasing from these two brands

Which is easier? Fixing pins on the CPU or the motherboard??

I bent pins on my 1800X and it was pretty easy to fix. I bent pins on my 4770K Asus motherboard and I tried for days fixing it and I couldn't so I threw it away. Motherboard pins have to be in a precise bent shape to work whereas CPU pins have just to be straight. Motherboard pins need to be specifically bent for a precise pressure on the CPU. Its close to impossible to fix motherboard pins.

LMFAO Having pins on the CPU is an ADVANTAGE for AMD versus Intel.

And AMD is equal to Intel in gaming unless you are talking about inferior resolutions with inferior graphics on which nobody plays. AMD is a lot faster in all other tasks.

I had ZERO issues running my 16Gb 3400Mhz C16 RAM with my 1st Gen Ryzen 1800X.
Intel does not benefit from high frequency RAM so supporting high frequency RAM is pointless on Intel. Plus new Ryzens 3rd Gen can run memory frequency past 4000Mhz while still benefiting from it.

Turbo works the same on both Intel and AMD, you just need the right cooling and Intel needs more cooling to run at advertised boost speed.

With current prices, there is 0 reasons to not choose AMD right now unless you are an Intel fanboi.

5Ghz RAM on Ryzen 3900X:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLja1q-M4SU

 

[joeblowsmynose]

No trolling, just had several negative experience with them. BUT THAT IS NOT THE ONLY REASON HERE.

I just fell AMD has too many issues for my taste. End of story. That doesn't mean I do not appreciate the answers and the advice u guys give me. For what it's worth, it made me decide that AMD is not for me . . .At least not now . . .

"for my taste" implies you have personally tasted AMD recently ... It doesn't appear that this is the case here at all.

 

[joeblowsmynose]

IPC is very dependent on workload. Ryzen 3xxx CPUs actually have a greater IPC value for most workloads, infact.

Gaming is basically the only exception.

Care to elaborate? Ryzen has more backwards and forwards socket compatibility than intel. I don't know of any stability issues.

Elaborate?

Boost clocks are mostly accurate if you have W10 in balanced mode and have the latest bios. If you want to argue about 50mhz if you use stock cooler, you are more than welcome to act foolish.

Look in the Ryzen boost clocks thread, you see some Intel chips never seeing rated boost either.

Boost clocks depend on a lot of factors. You may not see rated boost on Intel or AMD for a variety of reasons.

Not an issue. AMD Ryzen 3xxx CPUs have a different architecture than Ryzen 1/2xxx or Intel, so what would be concidered high voltage on Intel or previous Ryzen CPUs. is not high on Ryzen 3xxx. Despite running at a higher voltage, these Ryzen CPUs are usually drawing less power than Intel...

What? There hasnt been any major memory issues since Ryzen 1xxx 3 years ago. Ryzen 3rd gens IMC is not the same as older chips.
BIOS issues really arent major. You can run into issues with older BIOS versions on older boards being incompatable with new CPUs, but the same problem exists on Intel.

Try to run an I3 9100f on a H310 motherboard without ensuring the BIOS is updated? Might not work.


Hey look, a valid point. The only one in this entire Intel shill speech.

Half his "reasons" are irrelevant or plain lies that get spread around Intel fanbois ...

Ryzen 12% higher IPC in Cinebench, 6% higher IPC in wPrime - "lower IPC" is a lie fanbois tell even when they've been proven otherwise. Its almost always higher whether single threaded or multi-threaded, and "gaming" doesn't tell much about IPC at all -- too many other variables involved. Speaking of gaming ...

Gaming: 4% difference with tuned memory at 1080P with a 2080ti - "Better at gaming" is a technicality ... almost all people with a 2080ti aren't even gaming at 1080p ...

But I guess the test review I linked above doesn't exist and must be a fabrication because Ryzen has so many memory problems that you can't tune and OC memory.

"High voltage" is not a thing ... is it consuming more power than Intel? No, Intel is less power efficient. Maybe that means its harder to cool? No, core for core, Intel is more difficult to keep cool. The smaller the node, often a higher voltage is needed to ensure the signal stays consistent enough ... amps generally go down with smaller nodes, not volts. But this is smartspeak ... so way out of place here I suppose.

"Lower boost clock" Again this isn't a thing, except a fanboy's "my number is higher than yours!" Performance is what matters ... I guess Ice Lake is the worst thing Intel has ever made -- ever see how low the boost clock is on those? That's all I need to see ... garbage ... right?


What a waste of well meaning and good intentioned, honest people's time and contribution. Not because he didn't go with AMD (most of us could care less), but because he basically called us all liars by concluding against everything that was pointed out to him with reason and logic.

If the OP would have said "I've listened to all the argument, and I still want to go with Intel" then that would not be trolling and everyone would be happy to hear it.

But he didn't ... he drudged up all the fanboi lies and concluded that despite all the good data and info he's received, he needed to choose Intel because "here's all the bad things I heard from other Intel fanbois, despite what any of your real life experiences and education say" - instead of the words of people who have been tirelessly giving their anecdotes on their real life experiences, posting links to reviews, articles, facts, etc.

Sorry, this whole thread was just an exercise in trolling ...

Pins on the CPU ... really? When you need to grasp at straws to find reasons to justify the inner fanboi ...

OP don't bother with your pros and cons list. We already know them all, hence why you came to us to ask our advice, and hence why we made the recommendations we did.

Just say ... "I've decided to go with Intel anyway, even though the consensus of experts here recommended against it. I've never used AMD before so I have no personal experience to say one way or another, but I just feel like I want Intel instead" -- no one can argue with that - just leave your "reasoning" based on what you've "heard", out of it.

 

[RodroX]

I had lots of AMD cpus over the years, K6, Duron, Athlon , Athlon 64, Athlon II X2, Phenom II 810 and now Ryzen 5 3600, each of them was the best CPU I could get at the time and I remember I was really happy on any of them. Not a single problem with those.

So please stop saying you have tasted AMD unless you really have "REAL" experience.

Also if you really like and need to buy something go and get it now. Stop waiting for the next best thing that "may" come out. And please get and Intel cpu, don't spend your money and time on AMD, is not worth it.

 

[joeblowsmynose]

...
I had ZERO issues running my 16Gb 3400Mhz C16 RAM with my 1st Gen Ryzen 1800X.
...

I have 16gb of 3200mhz C15 (better than XMP profile timings) on my 1st gen R7 1700 -- RAM that wasn't even officially supported and have had zero issues running the CPU at 3.9ghz (900mhz OC), 1.375v, 24/7 for over 2.5 years now ...

Zen2 can run as fast of ram as is made -- infinity fabric speed can now just be divided if you want to run 5000mhz RAM; without using the divider (1:1), 3800mhz is doable.


But why are we still talking about reality here?

 

[Bobbysix]

That's what I am planning to do, wait unti thel 10th gen comes out ! And yeah, I will buy a 120Hz 65" 4K Oled next year as well, so hi refresh rate is nice as well, but I dont play FPS. I am more into story driven games like The Witcher 3, Diablo 3( 4 is already in production) or horror games like Visage, Resident Evil and so on . . .

So a high refresh rate would not help me too much for these type of games

That’s what I thought until I actually played Witcher 3 at 165 Hz. Going back to 60 Hz feels like the game is stuttering when you look around.

 

[rigg42]

I don't think everyone needs to be so quick to dismiss the OP's concerns about AM4. I'm am one of if not the biggest AM4 enthusiasts that lurk's these forums. I've built 20+ AM4 systems in the last year. I've owned over 30 AM4 motherboards, over a dozen 1st gen ryzens, eight 2nd gen ryzens, and six 3rd gen Ryzen CPU's at one time or another. I've spent countless hours testing, tuning, and building systems on this platform. Countless more hours reading and researching everything there is to know about them. I've assisted many with troubleshooting issues on these systems.

I've never had any memory issues with first and second gen Ryzen systems with a properly working memory kit. I've never had one of these systems not post and run its rated XMP. The overwhelming majority were built with 3200 cl16 kits with no thought to memory QVL's at all. I had no trouble running a trident z b-die kit at 3600 cl16 xmp on an Asus B450 ITX board with 2 different 1600's and 2 different 2600x's. All I needed to do was tweak the SOC voltage on each CPU. I run memtest86 on every system I build before selling it on so this was all verified to be stable. That doesn't mean this is definitive that you won't have memory issues but it does seem to indicate that the BIOS' have matured in this regard with older CPU's.

I have experienced multiple memory compatibility issues with third gen Ryzen on early 3000 compatible bios'. This was on multiple 300 and 400 series motherboards. These issues didn't have any rhyme or reason to them either. A certain CPU and memory combo wouldn't even post on one motherboard but worked perfectly fine in another. I was able to easily work around these early issues and have had zero memory related issues recently with the 3000 CPU's and older gen motherboards. Newer AGESA verions for the older boards seem to have resolved most of these types of issues. As far as I can tell issues like this are few and far between on x570. The x570 in my personal build has been flawless since day one. Any AM4 motherboard with a current bios should easily run a 3000 CPU with a decent memory kit 3600 mhz with tightened timings.

The boost issue was also legitimate and AMD acknowledged and fixed it. While I never experienced it personally, I believe the issues with certain motherboards locking to 1.4v at all times were also legitimate. There also seem to be some weird temperature or temp sensor issues that have popped up here and there that I also believe to be legit. I obviously can't test every motherboard, bios version, CPU, and memory kit but I still feel confident in saying that the issues I've experienced have all pretty much been resolved with the recent AGESA versions. Not all older motherboards have a BIOS with the newest AGESA versions available though.

I don't really see compatibility issues as all that big of a deal personally. Amazon, Micro Center, and other online retailers usually make it ridiculously easy to return things if you do run into any compatibility issues. Annoying if it happens perhaps but not the end of the world. Considering AMD have managed to keep CPU compatibility across 3 different generations I'd say they've done a decent job sorting this compatibility stuff out.

So while there have been some legit teething issues there has also been a lot of "sky is falling" nonsense by incompetent system builders that think CPU's operating exactly how they are supposed to are not.

I also don't fault the OP for having some concern about the pins. I build more systems in a month than most people build in their life and I've had AM4 CPU's yank out of sockets when removing coolers. I'm usually extremely careful, and know the proper procedures for doing it, but sometimes thermal paste sticks to a CPU like glue. I bent pins on a 3600x because of this and couldn't get them bent back despite my best efforts. I was fortunate to be able to return it.

Pin's can get damaged if you put them on the socket or the CPU. The CPU isn't always the more expensive component although it probably nearly always is. That doesn't mean bending pins on a $300 motherboard sucks any less

The IPC argument is a bit off base IMO. To be fair this is an extremely complicated thing to quantify since it's completely application dependent.

The better "gaming CPU" argument is also kind of tired. The advantage is mostly non existent in any practical sense. You have to purposely put the burden on the CPU by running a GPU at a silly resolution for its price tier or nerf quality settings with a lower tier GPU to see more than a 5-10% advantage over a large suite of current games. This looks nice on graph but is kind of irrelevant to most consumers. Intel's gaming advantage looks neat when you run low res benchmarks on a $1200 GPU 99% of consumers would never even consider buying. The money you save on platform cost and cooling by going AMD can be rolled into a better GPU so the argument doesn't really hold much water IMO.

As for Intel.....

I've also built and tuned multiple 8th and 9th gen Intel systems. They come with their own set of concerns and merits. They are not currently price competitive IMO. That being said if waiting for the next release then it might be a significantly different playing field. It's hard to say anything concrete at this time. The rumors about the SKU's seem legit. 10c20t i9, 8c16t i7, 6c12t i5, and 4c8t i3 could be interesting. It's going to come down to how they price them and if AMD responds with price cuts.

What we do know is that they are 14nm and the platform/cooling cost is still probably going to suck. To beat AMD core for core thread for thread they need to run up clock speeds. To do this the power efficiency goes out the window and requires an expensive motherboard and cooling solution. The only way to avoid this is to enforce the TDP limits on the CPU which results in it performing significantly worse than a comparable AMD CPU. By nature of using a 6 generation old process node, the abysmal power efficiency rears it's ugly head when you need premium cooling and power delivery to get competitive performance.

Where they might get away with it is the i5 SKU's. The 8700/8700k at stock speeds with TDP limits unenforced will sustain 4.3 ghz all core. Those CPU's are cool-able with a 120mm tower cooler with a slight undervolt. With a soldered TIM and slightly more mature silicon this could potentially be fine with a mediocre motherboard and the aforementioned modest cooling solution. If the 10600(k) can achieve this kind of performance at a competitive price it might be a compelling option for some gamers. Even than an 8700(k) run in this fashion isn't really better than 3rd gen Ryzen. It's pretty dang close to a 3600x so I wouldn't hold my breath.

The new SKU's might look great on benchmark charts but will probably continue to have mediocre value when platform cost is considered. Not to mention Ryzen 4000 should be out 3rd quarter. Based on what they've done previously I'd expect price cuts on 3rd gen Ryzen immediately when these CPU's are released.

 

[Zadkhiel]

That’s what I thought until I actually played Witcher 3 at 165 Hz. Going back to 60 Hz feels like the game is stuttering when you look around.

I wouldn't know the difference because I have always played at 60Hz . . .So . . .

Plus, imagine what beast of a GPU, u must own to play lets say at 4K@120Hz

If I remember correctly, the best GPU now (RTX 2080 Ti), can barely reach 60 to 80 FPS at 4K on Ultra Settings, so it will take a while, until we can get 120-165 FPS on such a high resolution . . .

 

[Zadkhiel]

I don't think everyone needs to be so quick to dismiss the OP's concerns about AM4. I'm am one of if not the biggest AM4 enthusiasts that lurk's these forums. I've built 20+ AM4 systems in the last year. I've owned over 30 AM4 motherboards, over a dozen 1st gen ryzens, eight 2nd gen ryzens, and six 3rd gen Ryzen CPU's at one time or another. I've spent countless hours testing, tuning, and building systems on this platform. Countless more hours reading and researching everything there is to know about them. I've assisted many with troubleshooting issues on these systems.

I've never had any memory issues with first and second gen Ryzen systems with a properly working memory kit. I've never had one of these systems not post and run its rated XMP. The overwhelming majority were built with 3200 cl16 kits with no thought to memory QVL's at all. I had no trouble running a trident z b-die kit at 3600 cl16 xmp on an Asus B450 ITX board with 2 different 1600's and 2 different 2600x's. All I needed to do was tweak the SOC voltage on each CPU. I run memtest86 on every system I build before selling it on so this was all verified to be stable. That doesn't mean this is definitive that you won't have memory issues but it does seem to indicate that the BIOS' have matured in this regard with older CPU's.

I have experienced multiple memory compatibility issues with third gen Ryzen on early 3000 compatible bios'. This was on multiple 300 and 400 series motherboards. These issues didn't have any rhyme or reason to them either. A certain CPU and memory combo wouldn't even post on one motherboard but worked perfectly fine in another. I was able to easily work around these early issues and have had zero memory related issues recently with the 3000 CPU's and older gen motherboards. Newer AGESA verions for the older boards seem to have resolved most of these types of issues. As far as I can tell issues like this are few and far between on x570. The x570 in my personal build has been flawless since day one. Any AM4 motherboard with a current bios should easily run a 3000 CPU with a decent memory kit 3600 mhz with tightened timings.

The boost issue was also legitimate and AMD acknowledged and fixed it. While I never experienced it personally, I believe the issues with certain motherboards locking to 1.4v at all times were also legitimate. There also seem to be some weird temperature or temp sensor issues that have popped up here and there that I also believe to be legit. I obviously can't test every motherboard, bios version, CPU, and memory kit but I still feel confident in saying that the issues I've experienced have all pretty much been resolved with the recent AGESA versions. Not all older motherboards have a BIOS with the newest AGESA versions available though.

I don't really see compatibility issues as all that big of a deal personally. Amazon, Micro Center, and other online retailers usually make it ridiculously easy to return things if you do run into any compatibility issues. Annoying if it happens perhaps but not the end of the world. Considering AMD have managed to keep CPU compatibility across 3 different generations I'd say they've done a decent job sorting this compatibility stuff out.

So while there have been some legit teething issues there has also been a lot of "sky is falling" nonsense by incompetent system builders that think CPU's operating exactly how they are supposed to are not.

I also don't fault the OP for having some concern about the pins. I build more systems in a month than most people build in their life and I've had AM4 CPU's yank out of sockets when removing coolers. I'm usually extremely careful, and know the proper procedures for doing it, but sometimes thermal paste sticks to a CPU like glue. I bent pins on a 3600x because of this and couldn't get them bent back despite my best efforts. I was fortunate to be able to return it.

Pin's can get damaged if you put them on the socket or the CPU. The CPU isn't always the more expensive component although it probably nearly always is. That doesn't mean bending pins on a $300 motherboard sucks any less

The IPC argument is a bit off base IMO. To be fair this is an extremely complicated thing to quantify since it's completely application dependent.

The better "gaming CPU" argument is also kind of tired. The advantage is mostly non existent in any practical sense. You have to purposely put the burden on the CPU by running a GPU at a silly resolution for its price tier or nerf quality settings with a lower tier GPU to see more than a 5-10% advantage over a large suite of current games. This looks nice on graph but is kind of irrelevant to most consumers. Intel's gaming advantage looks neat when you run low res benchmarks on a $1200 GPU 99% of consumers would never even consider buying. The money you save on platform cost and cooling by going AMD can be rolled into a better GPU so the argument doesn't really hold much water IMO.

As for Intel.....

I've also built and tuned multiple 8th and 9th gen Intel systems. They come with their own set of concerns and merits. They are not currently price competitive IMO. That being said if waiting for the next release then it might be a significantly different playing field. It's hard to say anything concrete at this time. The rumors about the SKU's seem legit. 10c20t i9, 8c16t i7, 6c12t i5, and 4c8t i3 could be interesting. It's going to come down to how they price them and if AMD responds with price cuts.

What we do know is that they are 14nm and the platform/cooling cost is still probably going to suck. To beat AMD core for core thread for thread they need to run up clock speeds. To do this the power efficiency goes out the window and requires an expensive motherboard and cooling solution. The only way to avoid this is to enforce the TDP limits on the CPU which results in it performing significantly worse than a comparable AMD CPU. By nature of using a 6 generation old process node, the abysmal power efficiency rears it's ugly head when you need premium cooling and power delivery to get competitive performance.

Where they might get away with it is the i5 SKU's. The 8700/8700k at stock speeds with TDP limits unenforced will sustain 4.3 ghz all core. Those CPU's are cool-able with a 120mm tower cooler with a slight undervolt. With a soldered TIM and slightly more mature silicon this could potentially be fine with a mediocre motherboard and the aforementioned modest cooling solution. If the 10600(k) can achieve this kind of performance at a competitive price it might be a compelling option for some gamers. Even than an 8700(k) run in this fashion isn't really better than 3rd gen Ryzen. It's pretty dang close to a 3600x so I wouldn't hold my breath.

The new SKU's might look great on benchmark charts but will probably continue to have mediocre value when platform cost is considered. Not to mention Ryzen 4000 should be out 3rd quarter. Based on what they've done previously I'd expect price cuts on 3rd gen Ryzen immediately when these CPU's are released.

REALLY GREAT, ACCURATE INFO !!! FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO SAID I WAS TROLLING, OR THAT I AM A INTEL FANBOY, READ THIS !!!

Thanks rigg42 ! Very useful info ! 😀

 

[Zadkhiel]

Half his "reasons" are irrelevant or plain lies that get spread around Intel fanbois ...

Ryzen 12% higher IPC in Cinebench, 6% higher IPC in wPrime - "lower IPC" is a lie fanbois tell even when they've been proven otherwise. Its almost always higher whether single threaded or multi-threaded, and "gaming" doesn't tell much about IPC at all -- too many other variables involved. Speaking of gaming ...

Gaming: 4% difference with tuned memory at 1080P with a 2080ti - "Better at gaming" is a technicality ... almost all people with a 2080ti aren't even gaming at 1080p ...

But I guess the test review I linked above doesn't exist and must be a fabrication because Ryzen has so many memory problems that you can't tune and OC memory.

"High voltage" is not a thing ... is it consuming more power than Intel? No, Intel is less power efficient. Maybe that means its harder to cool? No, core for core, Intel is more difficult to keep cool. The smaller the node, often a higher voltage is needed to ensure the signal stays consistent enough ... amps generally go down with smaller nodes, not volts. But this is smartspeak ... so way out of place here I suppose.

"Lower boost clock" Again this isn't a thing, except a fanboy's "my number is higher than yours!" Performance is what matters ... I guess Ice Lake is the worst thing Intel has ever made -- ever see how low the boost clock is on those? That's all I need to see ... garbage ... right?


What a waste of well meaning and good intentioned, honest people's time and contribution. Not because he didn't go with AMD (most of us could care less), but because he basically called us all liars by concluding against everything that was pointed out to him with reason and logic.

If the OP would have said "I've listened to all the argument, and I still want to go with Intel" then that would not be trolling and everyone would be happy to hear it.

But he didn't ... he drudged up all the fanboi lies and concluded that despite all the good data and info he's received, he needed to choose Intel because "here's all the bad things I heard from other Intel fanbois, despite what any of your real life experiences and education say" - instead of the words of people who have been tirelessly giving their anecdotes on their real life experiences, posting links to reviews, articles, facts, etc.

Sorry, this whole thread was just an exercise in trolling ...

Pins on the CPU ... really? When you need to grasp at straws to find reasons to justify the inner fanboi ...

OP don't bother with your pros and cons list. We already know them all, hence why you came to us to ask our advice, and hence why we made the recommendations we did.

Just say ... "I've decided to go with Intel anyway, even though the consensus of experts here recommended against it. I've never used AMD before so I have no personal experience to say one way or another, but I just feel like I want Intel instead" -- no one can argue with that - just leave your "reasoning" based on what you've "heard", out of it.

@joeblowsmynose - I am not trolling you moron ! Read what rigg42 posted and FACK OFF !

I have said it and will say it again:

I APPRECIATE EVERY GOOD, ON TOPIC ADVICE I GOT FORM EVERYONE HERE !!! THANK YOU ALL !!!

I DO NOT APPRECIATE AGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR LIKE YOURS AND THE NEED TO JUSTIFY MY FINAL CHOICE TO YOU ! SO FACK OFF !

 

[Zadkhiel]

IN THE END I AM GOING TO CLOSE THIS TOPIC, WITH rigg42's answer being the best, BECAUSE I SEE SOME HATERS HERE AND SOME OFF TOPIC STUFF GOING ON !

I TRULY WANT TO THANK EVERYONE FOR HELPING ME WITH GOOD INFO (The ones that understood my struggle) !!!

CHEERS ALL !

 

[rigg42]

Easy bud. I'm no stranger to get heated around here, and understand your frustration about being attacked with the fanboi crap, but all caps rants with F-bombs might get you a time out.

 

[joeblowsmynose]

I am not trolling you moron ! Read what rigg42 posted and **** OFF !

I have said it and will say it again:

I APPRECIATE EVERY GOOD, ON TOPIC ADVICE I GOT FORM EVERYONE HERE !!! THANK YOU ALL !!!

I DO NOT APPRECIATE AGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR LIKE YOURS AND THE NEED TO JUSTIFY MY FINAL CHOICE TO YOU ! SO **** OFF !

Maybe I judged a little too quickly; I just noticed many of your "reasons", had already been clearly debunked in this thread, so it naturally came across as trolling.

As I said (if you read the whole post), you don't need to give us reasons at all, and it would probably be better if you didn't, considering how it was coming across.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to go with Intel "just because" ...


Edit: added a manual swear filter to the post ... I'm surprised there isn't one automatically.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

Personally i find no issues with going Intel 9700k.

My friend has a 9900k and 2080 super. Makes perfect sense for him as he games at 1080p high refresh and he already had a z370 board and an older CPU to update bios.

But my money has gone to AMD and will continue to go there as long as i feel they continue to deliver the better value for my money.

I personally have not had any issues with BIOS or RAM incompatabilities running at straight 3200mhx xmp.

There has been issues with bios issues and ram issues right after a launch, but these get ironed out after a short time.

I feel the money saved is worth the minuscule risk for problems, and quite frankly it has paid off for me. Its not like Intel is immune to problems.

 

[Zadkhiel]

Easy bud. I'm no stranger to get heated around here, and understand your frustration about being attacked with the fanboi crap, but all caps rants with F-bombs might get you a time out.

I was refering to joeblowsmynose !!! He was an ass . . . .

Actually you provided truly good info and I have awarded you with best answer so ! Thank you

I appreciate you, sharing your experiences with us

 

[Zadkhiel]

Maybe I judged a little too quickly; I just noticed many of your "reasons", had already been clearly debunked in this thread, so it naturally came across as trolling.

As I said (if you read the whole post), you don't need to give us reasons at all, and it would probably be better if you didn't, considering how it was coming across.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to go with Intel "just because" ...


Edit: added a manual swear filter to the post ... I'm surprised there isn't one automatically.

I apologize as well then if I was misunderstood, my intention is to debate and find the best solution, for my self and maybe help others with this thread !

I truly thank everyone for stepping forward and trying to help me ! It's also a pleasure to talk tech, when you are a tech freak haha

Cheers !