Intel Shows That Their 9th Gen Core CPU Lineup Is Faster Than AMD Ryzen 3000 In Everything Except Cinebench

[Glo.]

Im struggling to see the reason in the comments. i5 9400F runs circles around 3400G, while costing the same, and using the same amount of power. Core i3 9100F is still faster than 3400G in games, while costing 40$(!) less. There is no comparison between 3200G and 9100F in CPU benchmarks.

Intel has a point in showing that they are still relevant in some ways as a buyers option. High-end mainstream belongs fully to AMD, however.

 

[DrMrLordX]

3400G

Picasso is to Pinnacle Ridge as Raven Ridge is to Summit Ridge. That's essentially last year's product in an APU format. No wonder Coffee Lake is doing so well against it. Wait for Renoir if you want to focus on AMD's desktop APUs. Guess what Intel will have on the desktop to face Renoir? Here's a hint: it will not be Icelake.

 

[Glo.]

Picasso is to Pinnacle Ridge as Raven Ridge is to Summit Ridge. That's essentially last year's product in an APU format. No wonder Coffee Lake is doing so well against it. Wait for Renoir if you want to focus on AMD's desktop APUs. Guess what Intel will have on the desktop to face Renoir? Here's a hint: it will not be Icelake.

Well guess, what - that is the best AMD offers RIGHT now in desktop space. I won't even mention Mobile CPUs, because there is still no competition from AMD there.

Also, what makes you believe Renoir is 8 core APU, and not just 4 Core one?

I won't wait for next year products which will appear by Q2-3 of 2020 from AMD. I bought few weeks ago brand new H370 ITX Mobo and one month used Core i5 8400.

 

[AtenRa]

I bought few weeks ago brand new H370 ITX Mobo and one month used Core i5 8400.

For what use ??

 

[Glo.]

For what use ??

Why does it interest you?

Gaming. 100% gaming.

 

[Gideon]

Why does it interest you?

Gaming. 100% gaming.

Yeah, $100-150 price range for CPUs (when you can afford a discreet GPU) is where Intel is the most competitive right-now. At $200+ 3600 clearly becomes the best general-purpose CPU to buy.

AMD could really use a R5 3500 (which will probably be a salvage-die with some L3 disabled) for 150-170€ or so. Renoir would also fill the gap very-well (I will be soooo dissapointed if AMD were dumb enough to limit it to 4 cores) but it probably won't come before spring

 

[AtenRa]

Why does it interest you?

Gaming. 100% gaming.

Im trying to understand the reason for your choice.
Care to share what dGPU and what monitor are you using ??

 

[Glo.]

Im trying to understand the reason for your choice.
Care to share what dGPU and what monitor are you using ??

I still have no dGPU. It is 100% brand new build, that is going to be Linux based, and the only game, for now will be played is Overwatch. In future, there are coming two new Blizzard titles which I might be interested in.

The GPU of choice is either GTX 1660 Ti, or Navi 14 based GPU, depends on which is faster, and/or cheaper.

Monitor is Asus VG279Q. 144 Hz, 1080p IPS display.

And before anyone asks. In Overwatch, or any Blizzard game, there is no point in going for AMD CPU. 9400F runs circles around R5 3600X, while costing 100$ less(you lose effectively 10-15 FPS in the HIGHEST settings, even on GTX 1660 Ti).

 

[AtenRa]

I still have no dGPU. It is 100% brand new build, that is going to be Linux based, and the only game, for now will be played is Overwatch. In future, there are coming two new Blizzard titles which I might be interested in.

The GPU of choice is either GTX 1660 Ti, or Navi 14 based GPU, depends on which is faster, and/or cheaper.

Monitor is Asus VG279Q. 144 Hz, 1080p IPS display.

And before anyone asks. In Overwatch, or any Blizzard game, there is no point in going for AMD CPU. 9400F runs circles around R5 3600X, while costing 100$ less(you lose effectively 10-15 FPS in the HIGHEST settings, even on GTX 1660 Ti).

Ahh ok, for a single game only.

 

[Glo.]

Ahh ok, for a single game only.

So it is justified, and I will not be judged?

 

[AtenRa]

Yeah, $100-150 price range for CPUs (when you can afford a discreet GPU) is where Intel is the most competitive right-now.

AMD could really use a R5 3500 (which will probably be a salvage-die with some L3 disabled) for 150-170€ or so. Renoir would also fill the gap very-well (I will be soooo dissapointed if AMD were dumb enough to limit it to 4 cores) but it probably won't come before spring

At that price range the 1600 and 2600 are very competitive as well. Unless you are really in to a specific workload that benefits from one CPU over the other i dont see Intel having a definitely advantage at those prices.

 

[amrnuke]

https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2263?vs=2519

I cant figured out how its possible 9900K wins in most reviews in Octane, Kraken, Speedometer, WebXPRT, 7zip, winrar, AES... when in AT benchs 3900X smokes 9900K in (majority) of them.

And I cant figured out how its possible image editing such as Photoshop seems to favot to 9900K, when here https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/a...adripper-2-Intel-9th-Gen-Intel-X-series-1529/ (the more complete Photoshop testing ever), even a 3600 wins 9900K.

The reality is that 3900X is the fatest desktop processor right now in the majority of tasks, and by a large margin in many of them.

I looked at reviews from TechReport, TechPowerUp, Anandtech, TomsHardware (I know...), PCMag... there are plenty of areas in basic office tasks where the 9900K wins, and it often wins at Octane, sometimes in WebXPRT, almost always in WinRAR, etc.

We can trust one group over another, and I trust Anand, but I also trust TPU's work, so it's hard to claim universally that one site's results are a reflection of the totality of the performance.

 

[Gideon]

I still have no dGPU. It is 100% brand new build, that is going to be Linux based, and the only game, for now will be played is Overwatch. In future, there are coming two new Blizzard titles which I might be interested in.

The GPU of choice is either GTX 1660 Ti, or Navi 14 based GPU, depends on which is faster, and/or cheaper.

Monitor is Asus VG279Q. 144 Hz, 1080p IPS display.

And before anyone asks. In Overwatch, or any Blizzard game, there is no point in going for AMD CPU. 9400F runs circles around R5 3600X, while costing 100$ less(you lose effectively 10-15 FPS in the HIGHEST settings, even on GTX 1660 Ti).

Your buy seems reasonable enough, that imo it's pointless to nitpick. But out of curiosity do you have any Overwatch benchmark links that have Ryzen 3xxx series? The only one I found is this but it doesn't seem to be running on highest settings - as even the 2600 (non-x) using bargain-bin 2666 MHz memory won't dip below 144FPS once (though it gets close). R3700X has a 0.1% low of 187FPS and average FPS of 264 (using the same terrible memory). So it doesn't look like 3xxx series is particularly bad at running overwatch. Starcraft 2 is another story entirely.

 

[Kenmitch]

So it is justified, and I will not be judged?

Nice creative punslinging!

 

[Gideon]

I looked at reviews from TechReport, TechPowerUp, Anandtech, TomsHardware (I know...), PCMag... there are plenty of areas in basic office tasks where the 9900K wins, and it often wins at Octane, sometimes in WebXPRT, almost always in WinRAR, etc.

We can trust one group over another, and I trust Anand, but I also trust TPU's work, so it's hard to claim universally that one site's results are a reflection of the totality of the performance.

That they are trading blows depending on the reviewer also means, that it's very hard to claim that 9900K 'is better in those tasks'.

Lets focus on TPU. Just look again at TPU Office and Web results. In some of the tests AMD actually wins, in some others it's only a hair slower.

Now look at the article of updated chipset drivers TPU did after the review:

Take Octane for example: 51391 * 1.08 = 55502 (which is faster than any Intel CPU) just from getting Single-Core turbo to work. There are other tests as-well that were neck-to-neck where AMD would win. If they had bothered to update their review, it would be visible there.

There are still some tests, where AMD loses noticabley (like 3DF Zephyr Photogrammetry), but nowhere near the amount they gain in multi-threaded tests (Google Tessaract OCR).

Now obviously you can find other tests where the 9900K is faster, but Web-browsing, Office, and Photoshop really aren't among them (some other Adobe suite tools are, but mostly barely so).

EDIT:
Guru3d is another reviewer that got better results for Web on Ryzen.

 

[AtenRa]

Your buy seems reasonable enough, that imo it's pointless to nitpick. But out of curiosity do you have any Overwatch benchmark links that have Ryzen 3xxx series? The only one I found is this but it doesn't seem to be running on highest settings - as even the 2600 (non-x) using bargain-bin 2666 MHz memory won't dip below 144FPS once (though it gets close). R3700X has a 0.1% low of 187FPS and average FPS of 264 (using the same terrible memory). So it doesn't look like

Well I found one older review from techspot with the old R5 1600 and at 1080p its more than capable to reach more than 170fps when OC to 4GHz. The R5 1600 currently can be found at only $116 in newegg.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1490-ryzen-vs-core-i7-vega-64-geforce-1080/page3.html

 

[Glo.]

Your buy seems reasonable enough, that imo it's pointless to nitpick. But out of curiosity do you have any Overwatch benchmark links that have Ryzen 3xxx series? The only one I found is this but it doesn't seem to be running on highest settings - as even the 2600 (non-x) using bargain-bin 2666 MHz memory won't dip below 144FPS once (though it gets close). R3700X has a 0.1% low of 187FPS and average FPS of 264 (using the same terrible memory). So it doesn't look like 3xxx series is particularly bad at running overwatch. Starcraft 2 is another story entirely.

3600X + GTX 1660 Ti in Overwatch:

2700X+ GTX 1660 Ti:

9400F + GTX 1660 Ti, only Epic settings, at 3:00 minute mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIzQN7s_ieg
8400 + GTX 1660 Ti, only epic settings at 29:53 mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz1ecuG8eTs

In general, you can find that anything below Intel CPUs in Overwatch will make from RX 5700 XT, RTX 2060 performance. AMD CPUs are a bottleneck for Blizzard games.

 

[Hitman928]

Your buy seems reasonable enough, that imo it's pointless to nitpick. But out of curiosity do you have any Overwatch benchmark links that have Ryzen 3xxx series? The only one I found is this but it doesn't seem to be running on highest settings - as even the 2600 (non-x) using bargain-bin 2666 MHz memory won't dip below 144FPS once (though it gets close). R3700X has a 0.1% low of 187FPS and average FPS of 264 (using the same terrible memory). So it doesn't look like 3xxx series is particularly bad at running overwatch. Starcraft 2 is another story entirely.

I found this:


Link to video.

 

[rbk123]

And before anyone asks. In Overwatch, or any Blizzard game, there is no point in going for AMD CPU. 9400F runs circles around R5 3600X, while costing 100$ less(you lose effectively 10-15 FPS in the HIGHEST settings, even on GTX 1660 Ti).

Nothing wrong with your purchase other than upgrade path. However I would hardly call 10-15FPS "running circles around". Might want to ease off on the hyperbolometer a tad...

 

[Glo.]

Nothing wrong with your purchase other than upgrade path. However I would hardly call 10-15FPS "running circles around". Might want to ease off on the hyperbolometer a tad...

You do realize that just switching from Intel CPU to AMD CPU makes from GTX 1660 Ti a GPU that is BELOW GTX 1660 in performance in those scenarios?

And we are talking about highest settings only. In lower details the differences might be bigger, than just 10-15 FPS.

 

[Hitman928]

You do realize that just switching from Intel CPU to AMD CPU makes from GTX 1660 Ti a GPU that is BELOW GTX 1660 in performance in those scenarios?

And we are talking about highest settings only. In lower details the differences might be bigger, than just 10-15 FPS.

All the direct tests I've seen show the latest Ryzen CPUs competing very well? Clock for clock they might even be a bit faster but the highest clocked intel CPUs start to pull away (the 8400/9400F clocks are more in line with Ryzen clocks).

 

[Glo.]

All the direct tests I've seen show the latest Ryzen CPUs competing very well? Clock for clock they might even be a bit faster but the highest clocked intel CPUs start to pull away (the 8400/9400F clocks are more in line with Ryzen clocks).

Everything depends on the perspective and optimization.

In case of Overwatch, and in general - Blizzard games, equally clocked part from Intel will behave much, much better than equally clocked CPU from AMD,, that has twice the amount of threads. In Overwatch, 8400/9400F, are not competing with 3600/3600X from AMD. They are competing with 3800X, and even higher.

Lightly threaded games. Its just that.

 

[Schmide]

(snip) much, much better (snip)

Whoa there tiger, you don't need much much for margin margins.

 

[rbk123]

You do realize that just switching from Intel CPU to AMD CPU makes from GTX 1660 Ti a GPU that is BELOW GTX 1660 in performance in those scenarios?

And we are talking about highest settings only. In lower details the differences might be bigger, than just 10-15 FPS.

Err, I have no idea what your first statement means; I did try a few times but no luck.

And if the AMD "might be" bigger than 10-15, then it also "might not be" bigger than 10-15. Hardly "running circles around". I get your happiness, I really do, I'm just suggesting you ease up on the drama as it's not helping your cause...

 

[Glo.]

Err, I have no idea what your first statement means; I did try a few times but no luck.

And if the AMD "might be" bigger than 10-15, then it also "might not be" bigger than 10-15. Hardly "running circles around". I get your happiness, I really do, I'm just suggesting you ease up on the drama as it's not helping your cause...

GTX 1660 is averaging on Intel CPUs 144 Hz in Overwatch in 1080p. GTX 1660 Ti with Intel CPUs averages 155 FPS in the same settings.

You can use Ryzen 5 3600X, and you get in the same settings 139-140 FPS averages on... GTX 1660 Ti.

Using AMD CPU is making GTX 1660 Ti, in Overwatch, a GPU that is slower than GTX 1660, that is paired with Intel CPU in this game.