Tech Gaming Hardware discussion (& Hardware Sales) thread

[Slobodan]

From what I've read, they're planning on releasing their first dGPU next year (maybe later in the year)

 

[My Spot]

It's weird, I got into PC gaming 20 years ago. Intel had gotten lazy and AMD's Athlon caught them off guard. And now here we are again. They also had their own video card (i740) at the time and it sucked. Sure hope they don't go the way of 3dfx.

 

[jefferz]

if you want to pay more for intel based on the past, it's your money.

ryzen's legit, though. and the 3950 should be out in ~2 months (and the rest on 7/7).

One thing about Intel is that they hold their value a lot better than AMD. Launch price of the 7700k was $339 and the Ryzen 1700 was $329, both released within a couple months of each other.
Now look at what they're going for on the used market. 7700k's are going for $250 while the 1700 is $130. That price on the 1700 is going to plummet when the next gen Ryzen drops, $80 1700's wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Madmick]

if you want to pay more for intel based on the past, it's your money.

ryzen's legit, though. and the 3950 should be out in ~2 months (and the rest on 7/7).

i find your viewpoint to be fascinating.

I find his viewpoint to be rational. He's a gamer who wants the processor with the best game performance.

I find your viewpoint to be more confusing. You talk about not overpaying for Intel in one post, then in the next you mention the upcoming R9-3950X which is a CPU that costs $749, despite that these leaks suggest Intel will maintain dominance-- or parity-- in actual game performance against it (that's why Intel was thumping their chest at E3 calling out AMD to bring some "real-world performance").

$749. You could nearly buy a PS4 Slim, Xbox One bundle, and Nintendo Switch for the price of that CPU alone!

Remember when the top gaming CPU was an i7 that ran a launch MSRP of $329-$349? That makes much more sense to me, and it does to most consumers. So it's going to be similar to past generations. The R5-3600 and R7-3700X are going to be the processors that actually sell.

 

[rob mafia]

@Madmick
disagreed (obviously). we'll know more in a couple weeks, but i've seen benchmarks for the 3600 that were brutal for single-core. time will tell what the other and better ryzen offerings will do. i mentioned the 3950x because @Woldog clearly likes top of the line systems (hence, 9900k). even $750 is cheaper than intel's counterpart. and the new mobos...

i don't think woldog cares about buying a ps4 slim/xbox/switch/etc.

as for real world, again - time will tell. but real-world performance also indicates intel CPUs are going to be hamstrung with the security patches and lack of hyperthreading.

you're now talking about 2 different things. the best general gaming CPUs (ie: performance: money) and the literal best, regardless of price. and even then, i'm not sure it's going to be an i9. but like i said, time will tell.


and i think you're confusing the 3700x with the 3800x. i suspect the 3800x will sell more, the 3700x is the low-power (65W) offering.

 

[Madmick]

@Madmick
disagreed (obviously). we'll know more in a couple weeks, but i've seen benchmarks for the 3600 that were brutal for single-core.

What benchmarks leak was this? Link it.

time will tell what the other and better ryzen offerings will do. i mentioned the 3950x because @Woldog clearly likes top of the line systems (hence, 9900k). even $750 is cheaper than intel's counterpart. and the new mobos...

i don't think woldog cares about buying a ps4 slim/xbox/switch/etc.

Yes, time will tell. Right now we're all staring at tea leaves. It's very difficult to estimate where that 4.7 GHz turbo will put the 3950X, how much of that turbo will be held across all cores on the stock cooler (or a Noctua NH-D15 like Woldog has), and how much additional fps the extra cores will lend. AMD has brought consumers a big win by forcing Intel to depress their pricing.

No, $750 isn't cheaper than Intel's counterpart. You're matching cores to cores, but Intel doesn't yet have a gaming-focused 16-core CPU. The counterpart to the 2700X was the 9900K because each represents, respectively, the top gaming processor that either company makes right now. For the time being the 9900K will be the counterpart to the R9-3950X. It's significantly cheaper.

as for real world, again - time will tell. but real-world performance also indicates intel CPUs are going to be hamstrung with the security patches and lack of hyperthreading.

LOL, do you know what "hyperthreading" means?

If you think that spectre and meltdown are causing Intel to lose real-world gaming benchmarks you might need to stop reading PEB's posts. That's a gas.

you're now talking about 2 different things. the best general gaming CPUs (ie: performance: money) and the literal best, regardless of price. and even then, i'm not sure it's going to be an i9. but like i said, time will tell.

and i think you're confusing the 3700x with the 3800x. i suspect the 3800x will sell more, the 3700x is the low-power (65W) offering.

I'm not. You don't understand how this works.

Historically, and for the past few generations of Ryzen, AMD has won over enthusiast PC gamers, especially those on a budget who have wanted to stretch their dollar. Their motherboards carried overclocking potential at much lower prices (an advantage slated to end with X570). All of these CPUs are actually the same CPU, but we'll leave that for now because I don't want to confuse you more than you already are.

The important thing to understand is that the chief difference between the R5-2600 and R5-2600X, for example, was that the latter was chosen from better-binned fabrications of their CPU architecture, and also came from the factory with a higher clocked frequency (which is why they draw more power to stabilize that frequency). This appeals mostly to non-overclockers.

This is why the bestselling discrete CPUs from the past Ryzen generation were always the lower TDP variants: the R7-2700 over the R7-2700X, the R5-2600 over the R5-2600X, the R7-1700 & R7-1700X over the R7-1800X, the R5-1600 over the R5-1600X. PC buyers bought the cheaper CPU, and cranked up the frequency in the BIOS. This demands a higher power draw, but neutralizes (almost all of) the performance advantage for the more expensive chip.

Not only are the R5-3600 and R7-3700X in a stronger pricing range for the mass market, even among PC enthusiasts, but they're positioned in the same way to maximize value. Even on paper the R7-3800X brings a 2.3% performance increase for a 21.3% price increase. Of course that won't be the market winner.

 

[Woldog]

I generally just build the best computer I can, money isn't really an issue for me. I make a fair amount. But I do try and spend it on things that will keep their value, hence the 1080ti over the 2080ti. A CPU should last me 3 - 4 years before I get the itch again and upgrade.

 

[Prefect]

One thing about Intel is that they hold their value a lot better than AMD. Launch price of the 7700k was $339 and the Ryzen 1700 was $329, both released within a couple months of each other.
Now look at what they're going for on the used market. 7700k's are going for $250 while the 1700 is $130. That price on the 1700 is going to plummet when the next gen Ryzen drops, $80 1700's wouldn't surprise me.

Ryzen is better bang per buck. Intel just gets you better single core performance.

 

[Prefect]

What benchmarks leak was this? Link it.

Yes, time will tell. Right now we're all staring at tea leaves. It's very difficult to estimate where that 4.7 GHz turbo will put the 3950X, how much of that turbo will be held across all cores on the stock cooler (or a Noctua NH-D15 like Woldog has), and how much additional fps the extra cores will lend. AMD has brought consumers a big win by forcing Intel to depress their pricing.

No, $750 isn't cheaper than Intel's counterpart. You're matching cores to cores, but Intel doesn't yet have a gaming-focused 16-core CPU. The counterpart to the 2700X was the 9900K because each represents, respectively, the top gaming processor that either company makes right now. For the time being the 9900K will be the counterpart to the R9-3950X. It's significantly cheaper.

LOL, do you know what "hyperthreading" means?

If you think that spectre and meltdown are causing Intel to lose real-world gaming benchmarks you might need to stop reading PEB's posts. That's a gas.

I'm not. You don't understand how this works.

Historically, and for the past few generations of Ryzen, AMD has won over enthusiast PC gamers, especially those on a budget who have wanted to stretch their dollar. Their motherboards carried overclocking potential at much lower prices (an advantage slated to end with X570). All of these CPUs are actually the same CPU, but we'll leave that for now because I don't want to confuse you more than you already are.

The important thing to understand is that the chief difference between the R5-2600 and R5-2600X, for example, was that the latter was chosen from better-binned fabrications of their CPU architecture, and also came from the factory with a higher clocked frequency (which is why they draw more power to stabilize that frequency). This appeals mostly to non-overclockers.

This is why the bestselling discrete CPUs from the past Ryzen generation were always the lower TDP variants: the R7-2700 over the R7-2700X, the R5-2600 over the R5-2600X, the R7-1700 & R7-1700X over the R7-1800X, the R5-1600 over the R5-1600X. PC buyers bought the cheaper CPU, and cranked up the frequency in the BIOS. This demands a higher power draw, but neutralizes (almost all of) the performance advantage for the more expensive chip.

Not only are the R5-3600 and R7-3700X in a stronger pricing range for the mass market, even among PC enthusiasts, but they're positioned in the same way to maximize value. Even on paper the R7-3800X brings a 2.3% performance increase for a 21.3% price increase. Of course that won't be the market winner.

The 9900k is not a gaming cpu. Nothing makes use of all of its cores. You are better off getting a i7 9700k and spending the extra money on a better video card. The difference in performance between the 9900k and 9700k is insignificant. You are spending a couple of hundred dollars for a couple of extra frames per second.

 

[My Spot]

You're better off getting an i5 for gaming purposes. 9600k is over $150 less.

 

[ssBaldy]

I suggest we wait till new ryzens hit the market and then see for real world performance tests. It is just 2 weeks, guys.

 

[rob mafia]

This is why the bestselling discrete CPUs from the past Ryzen generation were always the lower TDP variants: the R7-2700 over the R7-2700X, the R5-2600 over the R5-2600X, the R7-1700 & R7-1700X over the R7-1800X, the R5-1600 over the R5-1600X

actually, the 2700x sold much more than the 2700 (in contrast to the 2600 series). which is why i suspect the 3800x might sell more than the 3700x. but maybe not. perhaps the 3950x might even cut into that grouping. *shrug* (also, i think the 1800x sold more than the 1700. at the very least, there have been way more 1800x than 1700 sales recently)

as for most of the rest, i did have a brain fart and was thinking of the i9-9900x, instead of k. hence, 3950x comparison and $750 being cheaper. so that was my bad.

regardless, i still think it's a terrible time to buy a new intel cpu. for most of the reasons listed. waiting 2 weeks seems to be the safer move, unless it's one hell of a deal. but it's not my money, so i really barely care enough to keep posting.

 

[Woldog]

You're better off getting an i5 for gaming purposes. 9600k is over $150 less.

i5's are starting to struggle with gpu bottlenecking. The days of 4cores being enough for a top tier machine is coming to an end. Money isn't really an issue for me, but I do like futureproofing. The 7700k has served me well in the same way my z170 board has served. At the end of the day, I want a CPU that will be relevant for the next 3 - 4 years and a motherboard with some cute flashy lighting as it's currently the only thing in my computer without RGB (Well the ram as well)

 

[My Spot]

i5's are starting to struggle with gpu bottlenecking. The days of 4cores being enough for a top tier machine is coming to an end. Money isn't really an issue for me, but I do like futureproofing. The 7700k has served me well in the same way my z170 board has served. At the end of the day, I want a CPU that will be relevant for the next 3 - 4 years and a motherboard with some cute flashy lighting as it's currently the only thing in my computer without RGB (Well the ram as well)

i5s are 6, not 4. The difference between the 9600k and 9700k is roughly 1 FPS whether you're at 1080p, 1440p, or 4k.

 

[Madmick]

The 9900k is not a gaming cpu. Nothing makes use of all of its cores. You are better off getting a i7 9700k and spending the extra money on a better video card. The difference in performance between the 9900k and 9700k is insignificant. You are spending a couple of hundred dollars for a couple of extra frames per second.

The i9-9900K is the top gaming CPU in the world across the gamut. That is objective and undeniable.

The i7-9700K is a better value than the i9-9900K as a gaming processor due to the fact it sacrifices hyperthreading which is largely impractical for improving performance in almost all games. I'm with you on that 100%. That's precisely the issue Salazar raised when he mused how attractive gamers would really find greater overall synthetic horsepower, and much better overall synthetic value, versus supreme real-world gaming performance. It's not about cores or threads.

Frequency is the divider, here. The i9-9900K at stock has the +100MHz advantage (5.0GHz). It also carries more L3 cache, and those doubled threads. But the real thing that puts the i9-9900K over the i5-9600K or the i3-9350K in games is that frequency advantage; the additional cores, cache, and threads are secondary.

The 9900K has more hybrid appeal to gamers who also stream, or who also edit, but it doesn't make sense to call it an Editing Processor when it doesn't support quad channel memory. That is a distinguishing hallmark of editing CPUs.

 

[Woldog]

i5s are 6, not 4. The difference between the 9600k and 9700k is roughly 1 FPS whether you're at 1080p, 1440p, or 4k.

My mistake, I hadn't looked into the latest i5's. I stick to i7's and above mostly as the cost isn't really a factor for me.

 

[Prefect]

The i9-9900K is the top gaming CPU in the world across the gamut. That is objective and undeniable.

The i7-9700K is a better value than the i9-9900K as a gaming processor due to the fact it sacrifices hyperthreading which is largely impractical for improving performance in almost all games. I'm with you on that 100%. That's precisely the issue Salazar raised when he mused how attractive gamers would really find greater overall synthetic horsepower, and much better overall synthetic value, versus supreme real-world gaming performance. It's not about cores or threads.

Frequency is the divider, here. The i9-9900K at stock has the +100MHz advantage (5.0GHz). It also carries more L3 cache, and those doubled threads. But the real thing that puts the i9-9900K over the i5-9600K or the i3-9350K in games is that frequency advantage; the additional cores, cache, and threads are secondary.

The 9900K has more hybrid appeal to gamers who also stream, or who also edit, but it doesn't make sense to call it an Editing Processor when it doesn't support quad channel memory. That is a distinguishing hallmark of editing CPUs.

The point about it not being a gaming processor is that which ever is overclocked more is the best. I can buy a corsair h150i liquid cooling setup with the money I saved on a cheaper cpu and make a 9700k always outperform a 9900k for gaming applications. The only benchmarks I have seen that showed any real differences between a 9700k and 9900k is with Crysis 3. Most benchmarks are the same with like setups and in some the 9700k slightly edges the 9900k. I have no idea honestly why companies release chipsets that performance-wise are not exceeded by "inferior" chipsets with cheap ancillary upgrades

If I was recommending a build, I would go with an I7 9700k or with a cheaper Ryzen and save some money for a future cpu upgrade or a better video card. A great graphics card with a good cpu is better than a great cpu with a good graphics card. Ryzen cheaps are offering great value for their performance.

 

[Madmick]

The point about it not being a gaming processor is that which ever is overclocked more is the best. I can buy a corsair h150i liquid cooling setup with the money I saved on a cheaper cpu and make a 9700k always outperform a 9900k for gaming applications. The only benchmarks I have seen that showed any real differences between a 9700k and 9900k is with Crysis 3. Most benchmarks are the same with like setups and in some the 9700k slightly edges the 9900k. I have no idea honestly why companies release chipsets that performance-wise are not exceeded by "inferior" chipsets with cheap ancillary upgrades

If I was recommending a build, I would go with an I7 9700k or with a cheaper Ryzen and save some money for a future cpu upgrade or a better video card. A great graphics card with a good cpu is better than a great cpu with a good graphics card. Ryzen cheaps are offering great value for their performance.

Indeed, frequency is most critical to which CPU wins, and so an OC'd 9700K can outperform a 9900K if it is OC'd more. Nevertheless, no, the 9900K still wins by a fractional margin if the 9700K and 9900K are normalized to the same frequency:



The same is true for 9600K and 9350K (on most games) despite fewer cores. Normalized to the same frequency, they won't give up a whole lot, but they still won't be top dog. Furthermore, since you highlighted the difference in cost between the 9900K and 9700K at stock, you have to factor in the premium on other components to buy an OC-class rig versus one intended to be just good enough a platform for the 9900K that it doesn't throttle its performance: CPU Cooler, motherboard, PSU, Case, and additional Case Fans, chiefly. That is a better strategy for overclockers, but this is a niche, and once again, if you afforded the 9900K the same advantages, the latter wins.

So it sits on the throne of gaming CPUs. Even more powerful, higher-core Intels can't match it.

This Tom's Hardware competitive overclocker suggested that the i9-9900KF variants appear to boast better average overclocking potential than the 9900K itself.

i5's are starting to struggle with gpu bottlenecking. The days of 4cores being enough for a top tier machine is coming to an end. Money isn't really an issue for me, but I do like futureproofing. The 7700k has served me well in the same way my z170 board has served. At the end of the day, I want a CPU that will be relevant for the next 3 - 4 years and a motherboard with some cute flashy lighting as it's currently the only thing in my computer without RGB (Well the ram as well)

On final concern Woldog has raised here is a concern for future-proofing. The R9-3950X's 16 cores should prove relevant. It's something I've talked about before, but whatever else its flaws, the FX-8350 (Oct-2012) has proven remarkably long in the tooth despite that it wasn't truly an 8 discrete core CPU. Remember that the FX-8370, FX-9370 & FX-9590 were just factory-overclocked refinements of that same chip, and these still meet the minimum requirements for almost every game today including Ark Park:
https://www.game-debate.com/games/most-demanding

The FX-8350 single core scores against the Haswell i5-4690K that came out the following year are abysmal (-52%), even if it is overclocked to 4.8 GHz versus a stock 4690K (-33.6%), so the additional cores are carrying that CPU into the future. This means even if these leaks aren't misleading, and the R9-3950X is inferior to the i9-9900K in game performance today, that doesn't mean it won't enjoy relevance for longer. So this is yet another reason Woldog really ought to see if Intel will reply in 2019 with Ice Lake. If we don't start seeing rumors drop when Ryzen 3000 does that's a bad sign, and then the tough call is whether to just pull the trigger without waiting more.

 

[ssBaldy]

An interesting test. Ryzen+ Radeon vs Intel + 2070, both machines using dx11. AMD has a slight lead.

 

[Woldog]

An interesting test. Ryzen+ Radeon vs Intel + 2070, both machines using dx11. AMD has a slight lead.

Why the 2070? Why not the 2080? or even the 1080ti?