Is going amd like shooting yourself in the foot?

[rappermcflapper]

So i am building a PC for 600-700 and i feel like going amd will be like buying a terrible knock off version of windows that won't work as effieciently as the actual windows. Intel is powerful but amd has cheaper prices and not as powerful CPUs.

 

[kaasman7090]

More powerfull it is true but AMD has better price for the performance.

I am using the 2600x and the 2070 and it performs really well.

 

[feelinfroggy777]

A few years ago, you would have been right. Going with an FX AMD CPU would be a bad choice in many use cases.

But current Ryzen CPUs from AMD are within 10% of performance from Intel in gaming, and for workstation task AMD CPUs exceed in many ways. Most people wont ever notice a difference in performance between 5-10%, but in some of those situations the cost is from 50-100% more. People will notice the difference in price.

Below is a review of the 9900k, in gaming it scored 8% faster than the 2700x. The cost of a 9900k + a CPU cooler will be more than double the price of a 2700x and the stock cooler. Twice as much for an 8% performance bump.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i9_9900K/13.html

In the end, both Intel and AMD make great CPUs. It is like comparing a Ferrari and a Lamborghini. Both are fantastic and neither are second class.

 

[rappermcflapper]

So building an AMD computer is pretty good?

 

[ohiou_grad_2006]

I've been building them for years. They are just a smaller company. But performance on my ryzen 1700x is good as well.

 

[Corwin65]

My 2 cents: Before committing to your build, post what you anticipate buying and someone here will look at it and give their 2 cents.

 

[TerryLaze]

A few years ago, you would have been right. Going with an FX AMD CPU would be a bad choice in many use cases.

But current Ryzen CPUs from AMD are within 10% of performance from Intel in gaming, and for workstation task AMD CPUs exceed in many ways. Most people wont ever notice a difference in performance between 5-10%, but in some of those situations the cost is from 50-100% more. People will notice the difference in price.

Below is a review of the 9900k, in gaming it scored 8% faster than the 2700x. The cost of a 9900k + a CPU cooler will be more than double the price of a 2700x and the stock cooler. Twice as much for an 8% performance bump.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i9_9900K/13.html

In the end, both Intel and AMD make great CPUs. It is like comparing a Ferrari and a Lamborghini. Both are fantastic and neither are second class.

And the 2700x scored only 2.8% faster than the quad core intel i3-8350k....The stock 8350k mind you...that has another 25% o/c headroom...

 

[ohiou_grad_2006]

That may be true, but you can have that little i3. I'll gladly take my 1700x(what's currently in my system). So you may play a few games faster, at a rate that maybe I can't percieve, like if you get 120fps and I get 90fps on some titles. In anything multithreaded or multitasking that i3 is going to get run over like a deer in front of a semi. Plus I think games are starting to get programmed for more multithreaded performance. Plus the 1700x/2700x can overclock too.

 

[TerryLaze]

That may be true, but you can have that little i3. I'll gladly take my 1700x(what's currently in my system). So you may play a few games faster, at a rate that maybe I can't percieve, like if you get 120fps and I get 90fps on some titles. In anything multithreaded or multitasking that i3 is going to get run over like a deer in front of a semi. Plus I think games are starting to get programmed for more multithreaded performance. Plus the 1700x/2700x can overclock too.

I was responding to someone who said
"Below is a review of the 9900k, in gaming it scored 8% faster than the 2700x. The cost of a 9900k + a CPU cooler will be more than double the price of a 2700x and the stock cooler."
Well, using only 4 cores of that 9900k without HTT and at 4Ghz will equal ( -3% ) the 2700x so basically his argument is invalid.
The 9900k costs twice but much less then halve of it already matches the 2700x in gaming.

But to what you said, all the games on that page are new and heavily multithreaded,look at AC: origins that is actually multitreaded to the degree of almost being broken,the i3 still pulls off 82FPS and is only ~7FPS slower then your 1700x ...and never forget 25% o/c headroom...
Here is the source,AC origins uses 90% + of 12 threads so even if all games are going to be using more cores the quad will still be doing very well in comparison.
Assassin's Creed Origins Benchmark youtube link
https://i.imgur.com/13VnOYp.jpg

In far cry 5 the i3 is actually faster then even the 2700x and that's not really a game that anybody would call not multithreaded...

You are hanging on to things you have been hearing and believing for years now but they are just not true...

 

[feelinfroggy777]

A few years ago, you would have been right. Going with an FX AMD CPU would be a bad choice in many use cases.

But current Ryzen CPUs from AMD are within 10% of performance from Intel in gaming, and for workstation task AMD CPUs exceed in many ways. Most people wont ever notice a difference in performance between 5-10%, but in some of those situations the cost is from 50-100% more. People will notice the difference in price.

Below is a review of the 9900k, in gaming it scored 8% faster than the 2700x. The cost of a 9900k + a CPU cooler will be more than double the price of a 2700x and the stock cooler. Twice as much for an 8% performance bump.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i9_9900K/13.html

In the end, both Intel and AMD make great CPUs. It is like comparing a Ferrari and a Lamborghini. Both are fantastic and neither are second class.

And the 2700x scored only 2.8% faster than the quad core intel i3-8350k....The stock 8350k mind you...that has another 25% o/c headroom...

So your saying that an overclocked 8350k will get an average of 25% better fps in games over the 2700x? Prove it, I will wait.

 

[feelinfroggy777]

That may be true, but you can have that little i3. I'll gladly take my 1700x(what's currently in my system). So you may play a few games faster, at a rate that maybe I can't percieve, like if you get 120fps and I get 90fps on some titles. In anything multithreaded or multitasking that i3 is going to get run over like a deer in front of a semi. Plus I think games are starting to get programmed for more multithreaded performance. Plus the 1700x/2700x can overclock too.

I was responding to someone who said
"Below is a review of the 9900k, in gaming it scored 8% faster than the 2700x. The cost of a 9900k + a CPU cooler will be more than double the price of a 2700x and the stock cooler."
Well, using only 4 cores of that 9900k without HTT and at 4Ghz will equal ( -3% ) the 2700x so basically his argument is invalid.
The 9900k costs twice but much less then halve of it already matches the 2700x in gaming.

But to what you said, all the games on that page are new and heavily multithreaded,look at AC: origins that is actually multitreaded to the degree of almost being broken,the i3 still pulls off 82FPS and is only ~7FPS slower then your 1700x ...and never forget 25% o/c headroom...
Here is the source,AC origins uses 90% + of 12 threads so even if all games are going to be using more cores the quad will still be doing very well in comparison.
Assassin's Creed Origins Benchmark youtube link
https://i.imgur.com/13VnOYp.jpg

In far cry 5 the i3 is actually faster then even the 2700x and that's not really a game that anybody would call not multithreaded...

You are hanging on to things you have been hearing and believing for years now but they are just not true...

What are you talking about? If you use only 4 threads of a 9900k, you still have to pay the full price.

 

[ohiou_grad_2006]

And then on some newer games like battlefield 5 you have quad core i5 owners with even gtx 1070s having issues. I seem to recall similar things with battlefield 1.

If more titles start following this trend, which is a possibility, again, you can keep your i3. I'll probably stick with the 1700x and upgrade at the ryzen 4000 series in a couple of years.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/BattlefieldV/comments/9xrmy9/serious_cpu_bottleneck/