So, I'm planing to get a Ryzen APU system around July, when, possibly, AMD will launch their Ryzen 3000 series. But I'm still confused with the fact that I see no one comparing a fully oced AMD system (something like a 2200g B350m gtx 1050ti and 2933mhz ram) with a normal, locked Intel rig (I3 8100 H310m gtx 1050ti and 2400mhz ram), as this is what a person with decent knowledge about what will give you more oomph and what won't would get. Anyway, what I am asking for is how much perfomance should I get with a realistic build, instead of getting z370s and x470, as well stupidly fast ram and stock clocks on ryzen.
EDIT: I'm sry for not doing a good explanation on my doubt, what I am trying to say is that generally, not just with apus and 1050TIs (also, sry for the example, it was a bad one), reviewers dont show realistic benchmarks. For instance if I want to compare a 2600 and a 8400, I'd probably buy a b350,or a b450, and a b360, respectively. And while the intel system would definately outperform the AMD one, non oc surely, overclocking cpu, ram and gpu could even possibly flip the cards, and yes, you would still be able to perform a marginal overclock with the gpu on the Intel system, but due to no possible changes in voltage, it wouldnt be as a big oc as on AMD's.
EDIT: I'm sry for not doing a good explanation on my doubt, what I am trying to say is that generally, not just with apus and 1050TIs (also, sry for the example, it was a bad one), reviewers dont show realistic benchmarks. For instance if I want to compare a 2600 and a 8400, I'd probably buy a b350,or a b450, and a b360, respectively. And while the intel system would definately outperform the AMD one, non oc surely, overclocking cpu, ram and gpu could even possibly flip the cards, and yes, you would still be able to perform a marginal overclock with the gpu on the Intel system, but due to no possible changes in voltage, it wouldnt be as a big oc as on AMD's.
Last edited: