So basically you are saying better off getting either (i)the cheaper CPU and spending that saved money on a GPU or (ii)paying the same money for a more-core CPU which will more or less game the same but be much more productive away from games.Being beaten in cinebench by a CPU with 50% more cores is pretty irrelevant for a gaming CPU which is the topic of this here post. And yeah the normal one and the s are going to be very very close since most games are still bottlenecked by graphics.
I'm sure AMD chose the most CPU bound games (and at 1080P ofc!) for these tests, but let's wait for actual reviews because company made slides are basically a marketing exercise. Intels own 9900K vs 2700X comparison, FWIW:Hi all, time to revive this thread. AMD has just revealed the details of Zen 2 and the Ryzen 3000 line-up at E3 — with claims of remarkable progress in gaming — but there is still some time for speculation before the processors are released and the benchmarking embargo is lifted (7 July), confirming or disputing AMD's numbers.
Since I started this thread, the sentiment has shifted markedly. The poll started well in favour of Intel retaining the gaming CPU lead, but it has since shifted to 48%/39% in favour of AMD (as of time of writing). For those among the 39% — do you expect i9-9900K to still be better, or do you expect i9-9900KS (5 GHz base clock, to be released in Q4) to retake the lead, or do anyone of you still expect high-performance 10nm desktop chips from Intel this year (or next)?
And how shall we define "take the lead"? Top of the benchmarks? How many? All? Over 50%? Of which reviews? Or by reviewer's recommendation? Again, whose? Personally, I guess we are looking at AMD becoming a "disputed" champion, with Intel still winning a lot, especially when flexing its frequency muscle, but overall, I sense that reviewers will recommend AMD, in particular for non-overclocked performance, power and value.
Here is PCWorlds's take:
AMD's Ryzen 9 3950X is a 16-core CPU aiming to topple Intel's gaming dominance
"With the debut of AMD’s 16-core Ryzen 9 3950X, Intel’s slim lead in gaming CPUs could disappear."
PS. Personally, I'm astounded by Ryzen 3000s results in CS:GO. I expected AMD would still lose in this title, as they were so far behind, but it seems that architectural changes — cache in particular — have changed the picture completely.
Price=performance ratio, or you do not pay 100$ more for 10FPS higher gaming performance.I'm sure AMD chose the most CPU bound games (and at 1080P ofc!) for these tests, but let's wait for actual reviews because company made slides are basically a marketing exercise. Intels own 9900K vs 2700X comparison, FWIW:
I think it will be a very close battle, but I could see the 9900KS just edge it just due to brute force clockspeed with all core 5GHz boost. The 'vanilla' 9900K and 3800X should be a very exciting battle indeed, bring on the reviews already!
Of course they did, otherwise the framerates would have hit the GPU bottleneck and everything would look mostly the same. Though if they used a 2080Ti for the dGPU, I think you'd still see separation in 1440p, where Intel's lead wasn't so high to begin with.I'm sure AMD chose the most CPU bound games (and at 1080P ofc!)
All the 3900x owner has to do is turn on PBO2 and win. Or manually overclock. Either way, the 9900KS will have very little headroom - maybe 100-200 MHz all-core - before exotic cooling is required. Put the 3900x in the same power envelope as 9900KS boosted to 5 GHz all-core turbo, and say bye to Intel's gaming performance lead. Except in DotA2 apparently, and maybe one or two other games.I think it will be a very close battle, but I could see the 9900KS just edge it just due to brute force clockspeed with all core 5GHz boost.
I don't know why I spend time with this but below these numbers are compared with intel's own infamous Principled Technologies rapport just half a year ago...... Have fun with the so-called "reviews"
Principled Technologies (Intel) Intel Nov 2018 June 2019 Grand Theft Auto V 6.5% ----> 21.0% Far Cry 5 19.5% ----> 38.0% Warhammer Battle 9.6% ----> 31.0% Warhammer Campaign 24.2% ----> 29.0% Warhammer Skaven 24.1% ----> 32.0% War Thunder 16.6% ----> 49.0% World of Tanks 15.3% ----> 37.0% Fortnite 16.3% ----> 27.0% PUBG 4.9% ----> 27.0%
That's a striking observation!
- Intel's problem is getting a new platformThe problem IMO isn't now, it's next year and the year after that, especially if Rocket Lake is still good 'ol Skylake cores. Imagine Rocket Lake using 14 nm Skylake cores versus Zen 4 on TSMC 5 nm... heh.
Good point. The two big open questions are: (1) Are AMD's gaming performance claims fair and representative? (2) How overclockable is the Ryzen 3000 series?And from all the rumors, AMD has made it to 5 ghz on the series 3000 CPU's.
Back in 2013, AMD released a Piledriver CPU (the FX-9590) with a stock turbo clock of 5GHz. No one cared - because it sucked. Back when Intel was pushing the Pentium 4, they were the first to hit 2GHz - but AMD's Socket A Athlon chips were still better.It's a psychological issue, 5GHz that is. Hell, if we used base 9 we would be 5GHZ+ already with Ryzen 3000.
Yup, I was only responding to someone that apparantly did care, and said they could not get there.Back in 2013, AMD released a Piledriver CPU (the FX-9590) with a stock turbo clock of 5GHz. No one cared - because it sucked. Back when Intel was pushing the Pentium 4, they were the first to hit 2GHz - but AMD's Socket A Athlon chips were still better.
Not many people really obsess that much over clock rates.
Ay you're right, it's more that 5GHz 'sounds' cool.I don't see 5GHz as an important mark as many seems to do... IPC can easily compensate small clock differences (4.7GHz to 5GHz is just ~6%)
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 5000)||CPUs and Overclocking||340|
|Speculation: Spring refresh for Ryzen||CPUs and Overclocking||123|
|N||Speculation: Thread Ripper 3||CPUs and Overclocking||27|
|Speculation: Ryzen 4000 series/Zen 3||CPUs and Overclocking||3092|
|E||Speculation: Future Iterations of Compute Technology||CPUs and Overclocking||9|