AMD Zen 2 lineup

[Vash The Stampede]

simply put intel is king for quite some time again?

Only if you ignore the 3900x.

[Fascinate]

Only if you ignore the 3900x.

A 220 dollar i5 9600k will beat the 500 dollar 3900x in pretty much every game on the market, gotta keep some perspective when talking about what is good and for what

[Wermys]

simply put intel is king for quite some time again?

If you game, Intel can get you better performance if you are willing to overclock. Its otherwise a wash to slight advantage to Intel depending on game. Productivity wise, the new Ryzen takes Intel to the woodshed with a 2x4, followed by an automatic wedgy, with an powerslam from the top rope. So if you game, and you want to spend on average 100-150 more then the equivelent AMD part with motherboard you can get slightly more FPS around 5-10 percent and up to 20 depending on title. But once you get into 1440p-4k range its pretty much a wash to slight very slight Intel advantage. If Intel wasn't capacity constrained they would be having issues.

[Evildeffy]

Honestly the TLDR on amd vs intel always boils down to:
Do you have a nice monitor? Buy an intel chip.
Still running an ancient/outdated 1080p/60hz tech? AMD is the brand for you.

A 220 dollar i5 9600k will beat the 500 dollar 3900x in pretty much every game on the market, gotta keep some perspective when talking about what is good and for what

If you truly believe this ... then you've not even viewed any review and are in a dimension of your own.
That is a seriously dumb statement.

[Fascinate]

If you truly believe this ... then you've not even viewed any review and are in a dimension of your own.
That is a seriously dumb statement.

A 5ghz 9600k WILL beat a max overclocked ryzen 3xxx chip in the VAST majority of games on the market.

Leaving overclocking out of this discussion is absolutely absurd, AMD has NO overclock headroom on these chips and intel has tons. Only a very few select titles will win on the 3900x that can actually leverage past 6 cores.

BTW 5ghz is kind of easy on a lot of these chips also, ive seen 5.2ghz fairly common on overclocking forums too. Tech deals couldnt even overclock past stock frequency on his 3600x, it was absolutely maxxed from the factory he left it at stock.

[Dacien]

None of the reviews I've been reading have been saying that Intel comes out looking good against Ryzen 3000, but I come to this thread and people are saying exactly that.

[Wermys]

A 5ghz 9600k WILL beat a max overclocked ryzen 3xxx chip in the VAST majority of games on the market.

Leaving overclocking out of this discussion is absolutely absurd, AMD has NO overclock headroom on these chips and intel has tons. Only a very few select titles will win on the 3900x that can actually leverage past 6 cores.

BTW 5ghz is kind of easy on a lot of these chips also, ive seen 5.2ghz fairly common on overclocking forums too. Tech deals couldnt even overclock past stock frequency on his 3600x, it was absolutely maxxed from the factory he left it at stock.

Sorry but you are wrong. The enthusiast market is going to look at 2 factors. What the GPU is and what the CPU is. For those with no budget, then the Intel solution is faster. But once you start talking about the vast majority of people, they will factor in cost of the motherboard/ram/cpu/gpu. When it comes down to it. AMD provides a more cost effective solution at such a significant savings most people are going to elect to go with AMD. You can't just hand wave and say overclock when the fact of the matter is that you are spending an 50-100 dollars extra with cooling+motherboard when that money instead will go towads an better GPU which is more important in the overall scheme of things. With no budget the Intel solution is better if you overclock it and only in strictly gaming workloads. But most people would be better served going with the AMD solution which is about on par to slightly slower but at a significant cost savings.

[Thunderball]

None of the reviews I've been reading have been saying that Intel comes out looking good against Ryzen 3000, but I come to this thread and people are saying exactly that.

Because the reviews are focusing on overall performance, not gaming, which tbh is a right thing to do, it's a CPU review afterall. Overall it's a very good CPU, well rounded, good value for the money, but for gaming it's still meh.

[Fascinate]

None of the reviews I've been reading have been saying that Intel comes out looking good against Ryzen 3000, but I come to this thread and people are saying exactly that.

Well this is an mmo forum with people that have experience with both chips in games like this. Rarely do review sites benchmark the games that ACTUALLY benefit from faster cpu's because they are hard to test. I would not be recommending the more expensive intel chips + cooling needed to normal consumers, a 3600x + b450 board would be a better choice for them. And really for most people id recommend 1st or 2nd gen ryzen because that is more than enough for most games (not mmo's tho) on 1080p 60hz monitors while offering a much better fps/dollar equation.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry but you are wrong. The enthusiast market is going to look at 2 factors. What the GPU is and what the CPU is. For those with no budget, then the Intel solution is faster. But once you start talking about the vast majority of people, they will factor in cost of the motherboard/ram/cpu/gpu. When it comes down to it. AMD provides a more cost effective solution at such a significant savings most people are going to elect to go with AMD. You can't just hand wave and say overclock when the fact of the matter is that you are spending an 50-100 dollars extra with cooling+motherboard when that money instead will go towads an better GPU which is more important in the overall scheme of things. With no budget the Intel solution is better if you overclock it and only in strictly gaming workloads. But most people would be better served going with the AMD solution which is about on par to slightly slower but at a significant cost savings.

No im not wrong on the 9600k vs 3900x thing, but yes of course most people would be best suited to ryzen because they are not only cheaper but the chance these people are using crappy monitors is higher. Sorry but yes 60hz monitors suck.

[Dacien]

Because the reviews are focusing on overall performance, not gaming, which tbh is a right thing to do, it's a CPU review afterall. Overall it's a very good CPU, well rounded, good value for the money, but for gaming it's still meh.

The gamersnexus review of the 3600 was pretty good on CPU-intensive game benchmarks, and that's the lowest of the legit gaming lineup. It'd be interesting to see how an overclocked 3700X - 3900X would stack up.

[Strawberry]

I have a core i3... and I'm happy with it at 1440p gaming. Honestly, I don't really game that much anymore, but it can handle everything together with 1080Ti at max details. Even games like the newest Metro.
It's a 4 core cpu though, but no threading.
I might actually just wait and see what kind of GPU Intel will give us next year and then upgrade my whole PC.

[Fascinate]

The gamersnexus review of the 3600 was pretty good on CPU-intensive game benchmarks, and that's the lowest of the legit gaming lineup. It'd be interesting to see how an overclocked 3700X - 3900X would stack up.

"pretty good" isnt class leading, intel still holds that crown. Again before these reviews hit AMD was claiming they took that crown, clearly that isnt the case. Cheaper sure, good value ya, but they are still the second choice for people who mainly game on their PC's.

[Dacien]

"pretty good" isnt class leading, intel still holds that crown. Again before these reviews hit AMD was claiming they took that crown, clearly that isnt the case. Cheaper sure, good value ya, but they are still the second choice for people who mainly game on their PC's.

Well I say pretty good for the low end of Zen 2. I'm still checking out overclocking benchmarks for the better cpus in the lineup.

[Fascinate]

Well I say pretty good for the low end of Zen 2. I'm still checking out overclocking benchmarks for the better cpus in the lineup.

Sure but at that point you would probably favor budget over performance, and you can find ryzen 2600's for like 70 bucks cheaper than a 3600.

[Thunderball]

The gamersnexus review of the 3600 was pretty good on CPU-intensive game benchmarks, and that's the lowest of the legit gaming lineup. It'd be interesting to see how an overclocked 3700X - 3900X would stack up.

Yeah ofc. Problem is - it's a review, it's looking into CPU performance in all scenarios, trying to differentiate results from the whole numbers of CPUs on their chart. Games most people play are not going to scale well with number of cores, but with frequency and GPUs instead. I love Gamersnexus, but they dont benchmark the games people actually play (except GTA V maybe), simply because they're not interesting from a reviewer standpoint.

[Gray_Matter]

Or are you superhuman enough to see 168 vs. 160 FPS in gaming benches that AREN'T outliers?

There is also something else going on. Linus Tech Tips ran his 3900X with 1 CCX and got 13% better performance in Battlefield 5 1080P Ultra.

Ryzen 3900X (OBS)= 142 fps
Ryzen 3900X (1 CCX)= 161 fps

It looks like AMD and Microsoft still have some work to do. It also means that performance is likely to increase over time. This might be specific to BF5 but I am not 100% sure. Windows has been slow to adapt to the CCX architecture.

- - - Updated - - -

engineering wise, it took a node advantage to get to this

though consumers doesnt really care which node they buy I suppose

but this definitely guarantees that I wont buy anything until Intel shows what it will have for desktop on 7nm

It will be very unlikely that Intel will just do a node shrink on their current monolithic dies for 7nm. They have Keller on board and you will probably see the Intel CPU's going the same route as AMD in the future. That means lower raw ST and more cores from them too. They have to do it to compete on the server side of things. That means that they will run into the same issues that AMD have with memory controllers, etc. You might find their 7nm CPU's overclocking better but time will tell.

[pansertjald]

The gamersnexus review of the 3600 was pretty good on CPU-intensive game benchmarks, and that's the lowest of the legit gaming lineup. It'd be interesting to see how an overclocked 3700X - 3900X would stack up.

They sadly clock like shit. A Danish Hardware site had to give up on OCing their 3600X to more then 4.35 GHz at 1.428v. They tried 4.4GHz but after going to 1.450v and still not getting it stable, they gave up

[Shakadam]

The thing most people don't seem to think about concerning gaming benchmarks is that those benchmarks are typically always measured while only gaming and nothing else, and seriously how many people really do that? Pretty much no gamer that I know, myself included, just simply play a game with nothing else going on. Most have at least 2 monitors and watch videos or streams or talk on discord or whatever else while gaming and have a whole heap of programs running which all require more or less resources.

I have a Haswell-era i7 so 4 cores and 8 threads, and let me tell you the gaming performance absolutely tanks if I watch a stream or video on my 2nd monitor. There's just no enough cores and threads to throw around. In 2019 I consider 8 threads to be the minimum requirement for a computer.

So lets consider then the 3700x and 9700k which are priced similarly.

A 9700k offers ~5% better performance IF you have a 2080TI AND you play at 1080p. I can't imagine there are many people who'd fulfill those 2 criteria lol. If you have any GPU worse than a 2080TI or play at anything above 1080p, the CPU gaming difference is practically 0.

Meanwhile the 3700x has 8 more threads so it's way more future proof and much better for streaming or any kind of workstation workload, it consumes less power, it has access to a more modern platform (pci-e 4.0 etc) with a later upgrade path to zen 3, and it comes with a decent cooler.

Pretty hard to justify any desktop Intel CPU right now.

[Dacien]

They sadly clock like shit. A Danisk Hardware site had to give up on OCing their 3600X to more then 4.35 GHz at 1.428v. They tried 4.4GHz but after going to 1.450v and still not getting it stable, they gave up

Is it possible at all that it's some kind of BIOS or driver issue? (I'm not experienced at all in overclocking, last overclock I did was a Core 2 Duo).

[pansertjald]

Is it possible at all that it's some kind of BIOS or driver issue? (I'm not experienced at all in overclocking, last overclock I did was a Core 2 Duo).

Not likely. Just look at der8auers video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXbCdGENp5I