Tech Gaming Hardware discussion (& Hardware Sales) thread

[jefferz]

yeah, that was a debacle.

It's not just the new cards that came out with driver issues. AMD has a long history of shitty drivers and at this point they have no excuse for it.

 

[Madmick]

9400F is $140 now. Still the shiznit for gaming.

PCPP is showing me a low tender of $150. That's $25 less than the R5-3600:

• Inferior stock cooler (not as bad as it used to be, but still inferior, and despite the lower TDP, the 9400F runs hotter)
• More expensive equally featured motherboard complements than the cheapest B450 (or A320) motherboards for budget gamers
• Motherboard on a dead platform that can't be upgraded except within its own generation unlike the X570 chipset for more affluent gamers
• Not unlocked-- can't overclock it
• Not hyperthreaded, half the L2 cache, 1/3 the L3 cache-- substantially inferior overall synthetic power for streaming, editing, or multitasking
• Native RAM support specified at DDR4-2666 memory (vs. DDR4-3200)

AMD Ryzen 5 3600 vs. Intel Core i5-9400F: Mainstream Titans Clash (Aug-2019)
And that head-to-head was published before last October's AGESA patch version that yielded the biggest gaming performance boost of all the firmware updates to the Ryzen 3000 series. The 9400F needs to be delivering a knockout in every game with all of these handicaps, and it just isn't.

*Edit* 2020 update. Have no idea how reliable this channel is. It would be nice to see a specified test bench with DDR4-3600 (or faster) RAM on the latest firmware:


*Edit #2* Here's TPU's bench of the new 3300X from several days ago. Follow the link to look at each game, but they summarize overall performance across all games in the roundup. RAM is CL14 DDR4-3200, which is nicely controlled, but this also deprives the R5-3600 of a potential speed advantage as it isn't as RAM-limited (nor as RAM-sensitive) as Intel. As you can see, across the gamut of games, at stock frequency, where the 9400F is locked, it is 1.1% superior @1080p, and dead equal @1440p:
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-3-3300x/15.html

Spoiler: Techpowerup CPU Benchmark, May 2020

I recall last year there was times when the R5-3600 was at its $200 price point, and the i5-9400F was as low as $145. You could make a case with that price discrepancy. For $25 in 2020? No.

 

[Blayt7hh]

i've always favored nvidia in my builds due to their efficiency (they've always been a solid step or two ahead of amd, obviously), but the rumours around the near future are interesting. just rumours, so no idea, but hearing that 'big navi' might be a real monster... and nvidia was just bitching about their mistake (and late recovery) with tsm and trying to prevent amd from leapfrogging them.



so i don't know if amd will be making significant gains vs nvidia or not, but competition would be nice.

I like nvidia too. That’s part of why I was so disappointed with the 2000 series. 1000 series was a landmark series though. I have a 1080Ti in my desktop and it’s been my favorite card

 

[My Spot]

I like nvidia too. That’s part of why I was so disappointed with the 2000 series. 1000 series was a landmark series though. I have a 1080Ti in my desktop and it’s been my favorite card

Pricing for the 2000 series was disappointing but the leap between the 9000 and 1000 series was the exception and usually not the rule.

 

[Woldog]

It's not just the new cards that came out with driver issues. AMD has a long history of shitty drivers and at this point they have no excuse for it.

Yeah making the switch from Intel to AMD was easy to do. But I have little to no interest in changing from Nvidia to AMD GPU's.

 

[jefferz]

Yeah that's why I said if he's not up for it no worries.
I have a feeling they might hold off on releasing the 10900k until things settle down and the holiday season arrives.

Newegg has the i5-10400, 6/12 cores $200, for presale. Release date on 5/20/20.

 

[Madmick]

So conflicted right now...I was an AMD guy from the late 90's all the way up until 3 years ago. I went from an AMD Phenom 2 (ran hot as fuck) to an Intel i5 6500, runs cool with stock fan. I don't OC, just never felt comfortable messing with it. I'm mostly a Total War gamer these days so the faster single cores of the Intel CPU made a big difference when gaming since TW games are very CPU intensive.This was my first ever Intel CPU, ironically Ryzen literally had just come out when i bought it.
But now that AMD redeemed themselves i dunno what to do....
Currently i have the i5 6500, GTX 1070 and 16gb ram. 2k 144hz gaming monitor.
I'm gonna wait on the 3080 series of cards as far as GPU. Probably get 32gb ram 2 SSD's, ect. ect.
Money isn't really an issue. I'm looking to spend 2-4k. Already have the solid gaming monitor so that's not part of the money i'd spend.
But i am jaded, get a new 10th Gen Intel or wait for Ryzen 4000...
That's the big question. I'm not a competitive gamer. Really the only games that push my current rig is heavily modded Rome 2, Attila, and in Kingdom Come Deliverance i get huge fps drops in the big battles on Ultra settings. But i have the money and figure it's about time i go all out and treat myself to a pc master race rig.

Do you have an RTX 2080 Ti? Then you don't have that much money, and you should go with AMD. The Intels are barely better in single core scores these days, and considering the 10th Gen debacle, I wouldn't be surprised if AMD leapfrogs them once Ryzen 4000 comes out.

Intel's 10th Generation Comet Lake release is a train wreck. It's a joke.
https://www.techpowerup.com/266411/...400-series-chipsets-announced-heres-whats-new

Intel today launched its 10th generation Core desktop processor family and its companion Intel 400-series chipsets. Based on the 14 nm++ silicon fabrication process and built in the new LGA1200 package, the processors are based on the "Comet Lake" microarchitecture. The core design of "Comet Lake" and its IPC are identical to those of "Skylake," however Intel brought significant enhancements to the processor's clock-speed boosting algorithm, increased core- or thread counts across the board, and introduced new features that could interest enthusiasts and overclockers. The uncore component remains largely unchanged from the previous-generation, with support for DDR4 memory and PCI-Express gen 3.0. Use of these processors requires a new socket LGA1200 motherboard, they won't work on older LGA1151 motherboards. You can install any LGA115x-compatible cooler on LGA1200, provided it meets the thermal requirements of the processor you're using.

Skylake's 14nm architecture launched August, 2015, FFS. That's the 6th Gen of Intel Core CPUs.

As I posted in the other thread, Intel is essentially pulling the same stunt AMD pulled when they released their FX-9xxx series processors. They're calibrating these Comet Lake chips with absurd overclocks at the factory so it looks like they've improved on past generations. They haven't. You could have just overclocked a previous gen 10-core Intel chip to achieve the same results. The only difference from AMD's stunt is they added a few things like more cores, but from the early looks we're getting, if you scrutinize the numbers, all this practically achieved was to gimp the ability of the processor to reach the same ceiling frequencies as the 9th gen or 8th gen processors (with 8 or fewer cores) because the heat gets out of hand. This handicaps those higher single core scores.
Intel Core i9-10900K 10 Core Flagship CPU Runs Very Hot & Consumes 235W Power at 4.8 GHz – Over 90C Temps With a 240mm AIO Cooler

The CPU was running at 4.8 GHz which is the peak all-core boost frequency without Intel's Thermal Velocity Boost. For Thermal Velocity Boost to function, the CPU needs to sit at under 70C which isn't going to happen with a 240mm AIO liquid cooler. It looks like anyone using a Core i9-10900K would have to get hands-on a higher-end cooling setup, say a 360mm AIO, or a custom-loop solution to get the Core i9-10900K running at its highest rated clock speeds. If you can't, then a lower tier chip would be your best bet. This also seems to indicate that overclocking would require a lot of tuning and cooling.

What a disaster. Good luck, btw. A 360mm liquid cooler might keep that CPU from throttling at its stock settings. I'd love to see the actual frequencies this CPU can maintain with the TVB activated, on the cheapest LGA 1200 motherboards, with a lineup of different CPU coolers. Because the 3700X can deliver its promised turbos with the modest, stock Wraith Prism cooler even on $100 B450 motherboards with better temps than these.

Meanwhile, the i9-9900K (8 cores) will hit 4.7GHz across all 8 cores at stock, 100Mhz shy of this, no overclocking required, either, and it wouldn't sniff these temperatures under a 240mm liquid cooler (93C peak / 87C avg).

This generation is a fucking rebrand. They're just rebranding the 9th gen; adding a few cores, adding some cache, playing loose with their usually strict memory speed quote to make it look like it went up, and irresponsibly overclocking the chips at the factory.

 

[jefferz]

Do you have an RTX 2080 Ti? Then you don't have that much money, and you should go with AMD. The Intels are barely better in single core scores these days, and considering the 10th Gen debacle, I wouldn't be surprised if AMD leapfrogs them once Ryzen 4000 comes out.

Intel's 10th Generation Comet Lake release is a train wreck. It's a joke.
https://www.techpowerup.com/266411/...400-series-chipsets-announced-heres-whats-new

Skylake's 14nm architecture launched August, 2015, FFS. That's the 6th Gen of Intel Core CPUs.

As I posted in the other thread, Intel is essentially pulling the same stunt AMD pulled when they released their FX-9xxx series processors. They're calibrating these Comet Lake chips with absurd overclocks at the factory so it looks like they've improved on past generations. They haven't. You could have just overclocked a previous gen 10-core Intel chip to achieve the same results. The only difference from AMD's stunt is they added a few things like more core, but from the early looks we're getting, if you scrutinize the numbers, all this practically achieved was to gimp the ability of the processor to reach the same ceiling frequencies as the 9th gen or 8th gen processors (with 8 or fewer cores) because the heat gets out of hand. This handicaps those higher single core scores.
Intel Core i9-10900K 10 Core Flagship CPU Runs Very Hot & Consumes 235W Power at 4.8 GHz – Over 90C Temps With a 240mm AIO Cooler

What a disaster. Good luck, btw. A 360mm liquid cooler might keep that CPU from throttling at its stock settings. I'd love to see the actual frequencies this CPU can maintain with the TVB activated, on the cheapest LGA 1200 motherboards, with a lineup of different CPU coolers. Because the 3700X can deliver its promised turbos with the modest, stock Wraith Prism cooler even on $100 B450 motherboards with better temps than these.

Meanwhile, the i9-9900K (8 cores) will hit 4.7GHz across all 8 cores at stock, 100Mhz shy of this, no overclocking required, either, and it wouldn't sniff these temperatures under a 240mm liquid cooler (93C peak / 87C avg).

This generation is a fucking rebrand. They're just rebranding the 9th gen; adding a few cores, adding some cache, playing loose with their usually strict memory speed quote to make it look like it went up, and irresponsibly overclocking the chips at the factory.

A CPU hitting over 90 degrees while running FurMark

 

[mixmastermo]

It's not complicated. Right now, for pure gaming, ignoring sales, there are effectively five price points on the market: $400+, $300, $225, $175, $75.

• ($490) i9-9900KF* or ($370) i7-9700KF*
• ($295) R7-3700X
• ($195) i5-9600KF*
• ($175) R5-3600
• ($75) i3-9100F [formerly $85 R5-1600AF, but those are out of stock again]

*requires aftermarket CPU cooler, and a decent one runs $30+

#1 is the epeen option, and hasn't been selling because: (a) these CPUs are barely better than the much cheaper 3700X for pure gaming, (b) on the flipside, for those who also stream or want workstation power, the R9-3950X and R9-3900X are vastly superior choices, (c) while the 9700K holds a pure gaming advantage, it still isn't the true epeen #1 gaming processor, and it lacks the multithreading the already cheaper 3700X carries, (d) they're on a platform everyone already knew was dead.

Intel's Comet Lake i9-10900K is out, and benchmarks in the wild are already starting to surface. Userbenchmark has over 50 samples though it isn't clear how many of these are discrete processors:
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...0900k-processor-20m-cache-up-to-5-30-ghz.html
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Intel-Core-i9-10900K/Rating/4071
Core i9-10900K CPU Score Spotted in 3DMark - let's chart that up

Spoiler: Time Spy CPU Score

Everyone expected a really modest gain from the architectural changes, and it looks like Intel is desperate to notch scores that defy this inescapable reality. It's reminiscent of the FX-9xxx series catastrophe. They obviously couldn't maintain an equal per-core performance as the 9900K while expanding to 10 cores with the same thermals:
Intel Core i9-10900K 10 Core Flagship CPU Runs Very Hot & Consumes 235W Power at 4.8 GHz – Over 90C Temps With a 240mm AIO Cooler

Anyone who bought a 9700K or 9900K last year fucked up. Even those who are affluent fucked up.

Because the gamers with more disposable income who more frequently upgrade, and who bought the 3700X with an X570 motherboard, are positioned to update their processor when the Ryzen 4000 series hits without even having to purchase a new motherboard. The way Ryzen has been making monumental leaps in performance with each successive generation, I fear Intel is in for another bad couple of years (like 2019) in the gaming CPU sector. These gamers are also ready to upgrade to a PCIe 4.0 SSD anytime, as soon as they come down in price, and more importantly as soon as they become relevant, which the new consoles might catalyze. The really solid X570 boards also still have tons of RAM speed headroom while the RAM market catches up as these gamers wait on those Ryzen 4000 processors.

Meanwhile, if those gamers had bought a 9900K, they would have been stuck with the option of keeping it, or buying this new 10900K for $488 MSRP all over again, but a also an expensive new LGA 1200 motherboard, and from the looks of it, unless they purchased a monstrous CPU cooler, an upgrade to one of those just to keep the damn i9-10900K from spontaneously combusting, too. If these gamers aren't rocking an RTX 2080 Ti at a minimum then what the hell were they thinking? Opportunity costs.

There's having money, and there's being stupid.

Yea... I dunno about that Madmick.. I mean I don't disagree that there are better deals on the horizon but that doesn't mean 9700ks and 9900ks are not going to last..

I was running a PC I built with a I7 3770K from 2012 to late 2019... in that time frame i upgraded my GPU from an AMD 5770 to a 7950, then a crossfire setup with a 7970 and a 7950, then in 2016 got a GTX 1070 and I was running that same custom build until late 2019 when I bought an iBUYPOWER PC...

CPUs don't age that fast...

 

[Madmick]

Yea... I dunno about that Madmick.. I mean I don't disagree that there are better deals on the horizon but that doesn't mean 9700ks and 9900ks are not going to last..

I was running a PC I built with a I7 3770K from 2012 to late 2019... in that time frame i upgraded my GPU from an AMD 5770 to a 7950, then a crossfire setup with a 7970 and a 7950, then in 2016 got a GTX 1070 and I was running that same custom build until late 2019 when I bought an iBUYPOWER PC...

CPUs don't age that fast...

Sure. It's not like they bought a bad product. This is about opportunity costs. Because the same truth about CPU endurance applies to the 3700X.

The difference is the 3700X was $160 cheaper than the 9900K, came with a CPU cooler, is compatible with a motherboard socket that could support an updated CPU on the next gen (and just might be for the series that follows it), and also already carried PCIe 4.0. Obviously none of that is a concern to someone who is going to ride their CPU and RAM into the ground with a mid-tier GPU they intend to upgrade once or twice. I was discussing more affluent gamers, there, specifically.

Still, for the ones riding the CPU into the ground, if GPU wasn't an RTX 2080 Super, that decision still might prove to be questionable. Factoring in the additional cost of a CPU cooler, and cheaper motherboard options where immediate future upgrades aren't a relevant benefit, but are still sufficient to avoid throttling the CPU at stock, the 3700X was ~$225 cheaper. That isn't enough to cover the distance between the 2080 and 2080 Ti, but it was the difference between the RTX 2070 and RTX 2080 Super, for example. That's a large initial GPU sacrifice for a future CPU age of relevance that probably isn't going to significantly differ.

Prebuilt price differences are all over the map, so those are different. Generally, the AMD's have only been $100-$150 or so cheaper on spec, but it's all about catching a big sale on a whole unit.

 

[560ti]

Yea... I dunno about that Madmick.. I mean I don't disagree that there are better deals on the horizon but that doesn't mean 9700ks and 9900ks are not going to last..

I was running a PC I built with a I7 3770K from 2012 to late 2019... in that time frame i upgraded my GPU from an AMD 5770 to a 7950, then a crossfire setup with a 7970 and a 7950, then in 2016 got a GTX 1070 and I was running that same custom build until late 2019 when I bought an iBUYPOWER PC...

CPUs don't age that fast...

The 9700k/9900k came out in 2018 when the 2000 series was the only option out. It's going to take AMD 2 years just to match it game wise so it's not like your getting no value from the product. Not only that people that pay for enthausist products want best performance, they don't give a crap about oppurtunity cost and bang for you buck

 

[AlphaBetaShark]

Newegg has the i5-10400, 6/12 cores $200, for presale. Release date on 5/20/20.

I was talking about the flagship chips not the low end or mobile chips but hopefully that release date stands.

 

[jefferz]

I was talking about the flagship chips not the low end or mobile chips but hopefully that release date stands.

They had the i9-10900k with the same date but they're not taking preorders anymore on the i9. you can still preorder the i5

 

[AlphaBetaShark]

They had the i9-10900k with the same date but they're not taking preorders anymore on the i9. you can still preorder the i5

I really thought they would hold the stock but I guess I'm wrong.

 

[jefferz]

I really thought they would hold the stock but I guess I'm wrong.

Why?

 

[AlphaBetaShark]

Why?

Their were talks of low yields on the 10900k and that coupled with factories shutting down due to quarantines caused by the virus created the perfect opportunity to delay the launch even further.
I heard of soft launches but I didn’t think Intel would go this far with AMD breathing down their neck. I wonder how many will ship.

 

[Madmick]

The 9700k/9900k came out in 2018 when the 2000 series was the only option out. It's going to take AMD 2 years just to match it game wise so it's not like your getting no value from the product. Not only that people that pay for enthausist products want best performance, they don't give a crap about oppurtunity cost and bang for you buck

My original statement he quoted qualified those who bought last year, and had a choice. Intrinsic to that is the truth we aren't discussing 2018. It's July 2019 or later.

Furthermore, as I already highlighted, even those who want "the best" are usually working with limited (if more generous) funds. Every decision should be evaluated through the lens of opportunity cost. If these gamers aren't gaming on an RTX Titan, they're not really gaming with the "best performance", are they? So they do care about their dollars. Anyone who isn't on an Silicon Lottery top-bin i9-9900K, RTX Titan, 16GB+ b-die RAM with sub-4ns latency, Z390 motherboard in the $200+ range, and a powerful liquid AIO cooler cares about price to performance aka the value curve. Full stop.

Depending on the strategy for the life of the build this can be assessed differently according to those strategies, but what is the shelf life on wanting this "best performance" past which we forgive that desire, hm? After all, as soon as the i9-10900K drops, here, the 9900K will no longer offer the "best performance". Once the Ryzen 4000 series drops it very well may not offer better performance than those chips.

Suddenly those limited resources come into play again. It's very, very hard to keep up with the Kardashians.

 

[My Spot]

RTX Titan SLI.

 

[jefferz]

Gigabytes B550 Aorus Master appears to have 3 PCIe 4.0x4 M.2 ports. Top shares lanes with the chipset and bottom 2 with the PCIex16.
One thing I noticed I haven't seen on motherboards in a long time is there's a RAM placement chart printed on the board.

 

[Senzo Tanaka]

Intel's stuff is still good but they charge a premium and haven't done anything special in awhile. The i9 processors are great but it's the cost per performance that people get upset about. Meanwhile, AMD is putting out near equivalent products for much lower prices while innovating with Threadripper CPUs with a huge number of cores.

I'm still an Intel guy because I've never once had one of their CPUs die on me. They've all been rock steady. Yeah, you pay more but I have confidence in their products. AMD is on a good run right now and if you are on a budget or need a high core processor for editing, it's the way to go. I just want to see it play out and see if they hold up in the long run.