AMD Zen 2 lineup

[Sorshen]

30% ahead is a bold claim. Also, we should compare it to something closer in price point, and with the windows 10 scheduler update.

[Fascinate]

30% ahead is a bold claim. Also, we should compare it to something closer in price point, and with the windows 10 scheduler update.

Ive tested this before, 3.9ghz 1700 vs 3.9ghz 8700k and that was 30-35% ahead in WoW. Now lets say AMD has gained 20% ipc since then but are still behind by 800mhz in clockspeed and the 30% number still holds (or will be very close). This also takes into consideration the preference the WoW engine has for intel cpu's and their architecture (ring bus is the only thing i can point to for the favoring).

[Evildeffy]

@Evildeffy, an overclocked intel chip is going to be ahead of a overclocked ryzen 3000 by 30% in mmo's, this is not a small amount and is completely noticeable on a high refresh rate monitor (70 vs 100 fps is big).

1: No evidence to support this yet, show and tell not gossip and believe.

2: 30% faster on 70 FPS is 91 FPS and yes that is noticeable ... except in MMOs it will have no functional meaning except for feeling it smoother, which is a factor, but not a functional one.

Had it been the same margins for a high speed FPS then you would've had a point.
Even CS:GO is actually the same as a 9900K with the Ryzen 7 3700X and in FPS.

Try again.

- - - Updated - - -

Ive tested this before, 3.9ghz 1700 vs 3.9ghz 8700k and that was 30-35% ahead in WoW. Now lets say AMD has gained 20% ipc since then but are still behind by 800mhz in clockspeed and the 30% number still holds (or will be very close).

And I tested the opposite multiple times over (before I effectively quit WoW ... work) and the difference was at worst 14% under full raiding conditions.

Still a noteworthy difference but not one that would have a major impact since it was still above 50FPS.

[Temp name]

Had it been the same margins for a high speed FPS then you would've had a point.
Even CS:GO is actually the same as a 9900K with the Ryzen 7 3700X and in FPS.

Try again.

Except the part where we only have 240hz monitors, and they're easily maxed out by either AMD or intel.

[Fascinate]

1: No evidence to support this yet, show and tell not gossip and believe.

2: 30% faster on 70 FPS is 91 FPS and yes that is noticeable ... except in MMOs it will have no functional meaning except for feeling it smoother, which is a factor, but not a functional one.

Had it been the same margins for a high speed FPS then you would've had a point.
Even CS:GO is actually the same as a 9900K with the Ryzen 7 3700X and in FPS.

Try again.

- - - Updated - - -



And I tested the opposite multiple times over (before I effectively quit WoW ... work) and the difference was at worst 14% under full raiding conditions.

Still a noteworthy difference but not one that would have a major impact since it was still above 50FPS.

I dunno man my testing was very particular, i had two pc's setup next to each other and was in the same phase of a busy dalaran server and in the spots that were clearly cpu bound i was consistently seeing 30-35% higher fps on my intel rig. This was using the exact same speed memory btw to rule that out entirely. And if you cant tell the difference between 50 fps 75 and 100 i dont know what to say lol, its very clear to me (going over 100 is sketchy to see tho, i doubt i could consistently tell between 120 and 165 fps for example).

[Wermys]

Ive tested this before, 3.9ghz 1700 vs 3.9ghz 8700k and that was 30-35% ahead in WoW. Now lets say AMD has gained 20% ipc since then but are still behind by 800mhz in clockspeed and the 30% number still holds (or will be very close). This also takes into consideration the preference the WoW engine has for intel cpu's and their architecture (ring bus is the only thing i can point to for the favoring).

Based on Benchs. If you are NOT someone who does overclocking. The Intel chips just do not make any sense based on current pricing. If you overclock. Then Intel is still a better choice. The 3600x is heads and shoulders above the Intels equal product stack UNTIL you get to overclocking. So basically. If you are not a tech head, AMD provides equal performance with a cheaper price. But if you know what you are doing, the Intel processor is definitely faster with tweaking.

[Evildeffy]

Except the part where we only have 240hz monitors, and they're easily maxed out by either AMD or intel.

eSports titles are yes .. there is still an additional benefit to higher FPS but you'd require a 2 millisecond registration and response time in real life to be able to respond to them and whilst I'm no expert on biology ... I think that might be out of human reach of the nervous system's ability to travel along with brain registration.

But it's an advantage nonetheless.

I was more aiming for higher end games that can do more frames whilst being played ... Battlefield or COD or whathaveyou.
Not the eSports titles ... 500+ FPS is already insane enough to not make a difference.

[Fascinate]

Based on Benchs. If you are NOT someone who does overclocking. The Intel chips just do not make any sense based on current pricing. If you overclock. Then Intel is still a better choice. The 3600x is heads and shoulders above the Intels equal product stack UNTIL you get to overclocking. So basically. If you are not a tech head, AMD provides equal performance with a cheaper price. But if you know what you are doing, the Intel processor is definitely faster with tweaking.

Almost every motherboard has a 5ghz preset that will get the job done, its not ideal but it usually works.

[moremana]

Ryzen 2 still the 2000 series. The architecture for the 3000 series is called Zen 2

You cant help it. You just argue to argue.

Or post count up, or troll...I cant tell which.

[Evildeffy]

I dunno man my testing was very particular, i had two pc's setup next to each other and was in the same phase of a busy dalaran server and in the spots that were clearly cpu bound i was consistently seeing 30-35% higher fps on my intel rig. This was using the exact same speed memory btw to rule that out entirely. And if you cant tell the difference between 50 fps 75 and 100 i dont know what to say lol, its very clear to me (going over 100 is sketchy to see tho, i doubt i could consistently tell between 120 and 165 fps for example).

Re-read exactly what I wrote before stating what you stated once more regarding performance of 30%.

Second bit: I actually tried side-by-side raiding with a 1600X and 2600X with almost identical set-ups barring mobo and CPU of course compared to my 8700K and 4690K I had lying around at the time (test examples being ORBs (Outdoor Raid Bosses), Dalaran and several shitty ass Tomb of Sargeras bosses)
And I haven't tested WoW's new multi-core optimizations (hell I bought BFA CE and not even registered it yet in my account) but from what I'm hearing and reading it's made quite a bit of difference especially for Ryzen users.

In the end all testing is flawed in some way and at that point in time Intel was faster ... but nothing that was noticeable for a raider.
Potentially if you tried raiding at full settings .. that may make a difference .. but no self respecting raider did, nor did it help during the stupid triple boss (forgot the name) in ToS which murdered FPS just because it could.

[Fascinate]

Re-read exactly what I wrote before stating what you stated once more regarding performance of 30%.

Second bit: I actually tried side-by-side raiding with a 1600X and 2600X with almost identical set-ups barring mobo and CPU of course compared to my 8700K and 4690K I had lying around at the time (test examples being ORBs (Outdoor Raid Bosses), Dalaran and several shitty ass Tomb of Sargeras bosses)
And I haven't tested WoW's new multi-core optimizations (hell I bought BFA CE and not even registered it yet in my account) but from what I'm hearing and reading it's made quite a bit of difference especially for Ryzen users.

In the end all testing is flawed in some way and at that point in time Intel was faster ... but nothing that was noticeable for a raider.
Potentially if you tried raiding at full settings .. that may make a difference .. but no self respecting raider did, nor did it help during the stupid triple boss (forgot the name) in ToS which murdered FPS just because it could.

You said you had 14% max difference, i consistently saw 30-35% in a busy dalaran during legion. This was nerfing my 8700k and max overclocking my 1700, this is why i am 100% confident in my claims that a max overclocked ryzen 3000 will still be 30% behind a max overclocked intel chip (8600k,9600k, 8700k etc etc) in WoW.

BTW just walking around a city at 70 fps vs 91 fps is very noticeable on a good monitor, its a totally different experience.

[Evildeffy]

@Fascinate: Since you're, yet again, ignoring the point I shall bold it for you from my own post:

2: 30% faster on 70 FPS is 91 FPS and yes that is noticeable ... except in MMOs it will have no functional meaning except for feeling it smoother, which is a factor, but not a functional one.

Had it been the same margins for a high speed FPS then you would've had a point.

Do you understand what is written there or do I need to dumb this down further?

The 14% difference for my testing, like I said, for raiding in an MMO where I'm already near the 60FPS point at some of the most stupid raiding encounters there were wasn't noticeable, something entirely difference from what I stated about the 30% part.

30% is not 14%, different part of the conversation, pay attention instead of attempting to blanket statements.

[Fascinate]

The one thing i will mention for AMD's favor is cost for cooling, you need a pretty beefy cooler to hit 5ghz on all cores for a 8700k unless you delid, not sure the story for ninth gen. But again the reason we are all here talking today is everyones claims of amd taking the gaming crown from intel, this is why you dont listen to manufacturers nonsense and wait for reviews...

[Sorshen]

Well, consider this - for the price of the i7-9700K you can get the R5-3600X (comes with Wraith Spire cooler that looks decent) & the AM4 motherboard, and you can use the ~100$+ saved to go up one tier in GPU or monitor. At 1440p the difference is <5%.

I've looked around and there are no R5-3600X samples tested this early, but the difference might be worth it for pushing the OC considering this:

[lolpve]

@Evildeffy, an overclocked intel chip is going to be ahead of a overclocked ryzen 3000 by 30% in mmo's, this is not a small amount and is completely noticeable on a high refresh rate monitor (70 vs 100 fps is big).

LOL have i time travelled back to 2010? I cant believe this kind of intel fanboying is still a thing.

[Fascinate]

@Fascinate: Since you're, yet again, ignoring the point I shall bold it for you from my own post:



Do you understand what is written there or do I need to dumb this down further?

The 14% difference for my testing, like I said, for raiding in an MMO where I'm already near the 60FPS point at some of the most stupid raiding encounters there were wasn't noticeable, something entirely difference from what I stated about the 30% part.

30% is not 14%, different part of the conversation, pay attention instead of attempting to blanket statements.

You are an incredibly odd bird evildeffy, you love to yell at people (you must do this at work or something and are used to it) but not only do you yell you do it about things that are subjective now too? I can easily tell a difference between 71 and 90 fps and it was the MAIN REASON i dumped my ryzen system in favor of my intel, just running around a city this is a 100% night and day difference. I recently got a 75hz monitor for 30 bucks on a pricing error and i couldnt use it, the difference between it and my normal ~100 fps in cities was too drastic.

[Evildeffy]

You are an incredibly odd bird evildeffy, you love to yell at people (you must do this at work or something and are used to it) but not only do you yell you do it about things that are objective now too? I can easily tell a difference between 71 and 90 fps and it was the MAIN REASON i dumped my ryzen system in favor of my intel, just running around a city this is a 100% night and day difference. I recently got a 75hz monitor for 30 bucks on a pricing error and i couldnt use it, the difference between it and my normal ~100 fps in cities was too drastic.

Final time I'm saying it.
Read the text written, comprehend the text written and THEN reply.

Do NOT reply skimming the text written.

Take a minute to fully understand what I wrote.

[Fascinate]

Final time I'm saying it.
Read the text written, comprehend the text written and THEN reply.

Do NOT reply skimming the text written.

Take a minute to fully understand what I wrote.

I read the entire thing you dolt, we clearly have two different viewpoints on what feels good on a monitor and what doesnt. Before i got my 165hz gsync panel i was "ok" with 60 fps but i knew i was missing out, since then i wouldnt go back even if you paid me 5 grand. MMO or not you can feel those 20-30 fps just running around cities, you dont need to be playing a shooter to benefit from a quality gaming monitor.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

[Jimusmc]

simply put intel is king for quite some time again?

[Sorshen]

simply put intel is king for quite some time again?

Only for 1080p MMO gaming.