Tech Gaming Hardware discussion (& Hardware Sales) thread

rob mafia said:
right, because of the aforementioned errors. i get it, though. you hate amd.
Click to expand...

Lmao, you defend them so much you must own stocks in them. Mentioned numerous times here that I'd make the switch if their claims were true, had indepth discussions with @Madmick through our messages about making the switch and what motherboard to get for them.

The aforementioned errors don't seem to show up in 90% of reviews.....

If they are better than the 9900k then I'll get one, I don't care what company I go with as long as its the best within reach at the time and will last me 3 - 4 years before I upgrade.
 
Last edited:
Woldog said:
The aforementioned errors don't seem to show up in 90% of reviews......
Click to expand...

LVY2jhM.gif
 


Doesn't make it over 4225mhz, so he obviously has the bios issue.

They certainly run much cooler than the Intel toasters, which will play a big part into my next upgrade, Australia is too hot for scorching hot cpu's
 
Woldog said:
AMD seems to be bob the buildups again, all the hype, none of the realworld performance.
Applications - AMD is king, the 3900x is smashing everything in that department.
Gaming - 9900k and surprisingly 9700k are still king. |

So in my view AMD would be a better option for my build because I do use applications other than just playing games, unless there is a significant drop in price on a 9900k I'm guessing I may make the switch to AMD.... Unless Intel announce their Icelake stuff soon.
Click to expand...
Still a phenomenal leap forward for AMD, and a crushing win for them as a market reality. As I said pages back the R5-3600 and R7-3700X are the CPUs that are going to fly off the shelves. They're closing more and more of the real-world gap, they have taken hold of the overall synthetic advantage, and they continue to widen their value-advantage gap in both, so they're only going to continue gobbling up market share. The only thing they don't win is the throne for gaming CPUs. The charts we're seeing from the past two days suggest the R9-3950X with four more (mostly unused) cores and a +100MHz turbo frequency isn't going to change that in September.

One of the biggest potential advantages for you is the incredibly low temps these 7nm CPUs maintain. Even Salazar had this to say about the 3700X (timestamped)-- keep in mind he's in Miami:


If you watch his full review, particularly his comments when the game benchmarks begin with GTA V, one should immediately realize that the next obsession in gaming these CPUs will precipitate is better per-core OC tuning. Notice his 3700X overclocked to 4.3 GHz loses to itself at stock in several games. That's because the 4.4 GHz turbo boost on 1-2 cores is better for game performance. The demand to be able to OC the first 1-4 cores much more aggressively while maintaining the best frequency across the rest is going to swell with Ryzen 3000. That's mostly a theoretical possibility right now where Windows fights to balance the load on all cores. Expect this to become as easy and stable as overclocking from the BIOS has become the past decade.
Woldog said:
Lmao, you defend them so much you must own stocks in them. Mentioned numerous times here that I'd make the switch if their claims were true, had indepth discussions with @Madmick through our messages about making the switch and what motherboard to get for them.

The aforementioned errors don't seem to show up in 90% of reviews.....

If they are better than the 9900k then I'll get one, I don't care what company I go with as long as its the best within reach at the time and will last me 3 - 4 years before I upgrade.
Click to expand...
It's his M.O. He does it in every thread where he has emotionally grounded himself in a position before learning the facts as he did here:
LifeIsNotFair said:
Intel is still king when it comes to gaming.
Click to expand...
rob mafia said:
not for long.
Click to expand...
Woldog said:
How many years have AMD fans been saying that though? I remember when the FX chips came out, more cores more power, higher clocks the big hope on the horizon for AMD and what did we get? 8 cores that couldn't compete with an Intel dual core.
Click to expand...
He's going to learn this doesn't play well with hardware assessment where one's subjective hopes hold no bearing on objective truth.
rob mafia said:
there's a driver error from pci express bus/nvidia GPUs causing the cpu not to boost properly.

edit: also

Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
btw, lolz @ believing i pulled the comment to woldog out of thin air:

Woldog said:
AMD seems to be bob the buildups again, all the hype, none of the realworld performance.
Applications - AMD is king, the 3900x is smashing everything in that department.
Gaming - 9900k and surprisingly 9700k are still king. |
Click to expand...


Woldog said:
It's actually embarrassing to see a CPU people were arguing would kill the 9900k I was looking at get beaten even by my 7700k... AMD's usually hype seems to be just as usual all hype. The more reviews that come out today the more I'm leaning back towards Intel.
Gaming AMD lags yet again.
Click to expand...

Woldog said:
I thought about that but just can't bring myself back to AMD
Click to expand...

Woldog said:
Right now the 9900k is $200 off at a local store, Ryzen Gen 3 doesn't seem to offer anything that in real world usage actually beats the 9900k other than the fact that for once in their pathetic existence AMD is being competitive.

Though I may wait for the supposed Intel price cuts and see what price they end up at.
Click to expand...
 
Madmick said:
giphy.gif


Do you know what the single core turbo deficit was on the 3900X?
Click to expand...

huh? i didn't realize this was about single-core now... or just the 3900x (yeah, sarcasm on both). most of the gaming benchmarks seemed to be focusing on fps in games while ensuring the GPU isn't bottlenecked...

but focusing on single-core on a 12 core cpu makes sense, i guess...
 
rob mafia said:
huh? i didn't realize this was about single-core now... or just the 3900x (yeah, sarcasm on both). most of the gaming benchmarks seemed to be focusing on fps in games while ensuring the GPU isn't bottlenecked...

but focusing on single-core on a 12 core cpu makes sense, i guess...
Click to expand...
LVY2jhM.gif
 
No one's reviewed the 3800X yet. Weird.
They also have the 3200G and 3400G but those still use Zen +.
 
LifeIsNotFair said:
No one's reviewed the 3800X yet. Weird.
They also have the 3200G and 3400G but those still use Zen +.
Click to expand...
Only stuff AMD has shipped so far appears to be the R5-3600X, R7-3700X, and R9-3900X. All sold out. One may infer from this those are the units they expect to move most at the various brandings (R5, R7, R9).
 
So the 3900X is only 3% faster in gaming than a 9400F but costs 233% more.

<{MingNope}>
 
CSGO benchmarks are all i care about. The 3700X is looking nice : )
 
Madmick said:
Only stuff AMD has shipped so far appears to be the R5-3600X, R7-3700X, and R9-3900X. All sold out. One may infer from this those are the units they expect to move most at the various brandings (R5, R7, R9).
Click to expand...
Best Buy has the 3200G & 3400G
 
Based on what we know so far is it better to get the 3900x or the 3700x? they seem to be very close in gaming and both should be a good buy for rendering and photoshop

I've also considered the 9700k and the 9900k but at this stage it's a toss up between the 4 of them, AMD I lean more towards the 3900x
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,530
Messages
58,293,931
Members
175,997
Latest member
WingedC

Share this page

Back
Top