• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Speculation: i9-9900K is Intel's last hurrah in gaming

Page 19 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Will Intel lose it's gaming CPU lead in 2019?


  • Total voters
    184
  • This poll will close: .

PotatoWithEarsOnSide

Senior member
Feb 23, 2017
664
688
106
Different games have different bottlenecks, so it isn't surprising to see a huge uplift in one whilst getting less signifucant gains elsewhere.
It is good that AMD are targeting these bottlenecks though for sure.
 

rbk123

Senior member
Aug 22, 2006
642
181
116
You said "if the 3900X and 3950X could beat Intel outright, they would have said so in the presentation" but they didn't show all their cards neither at CES nor at Computex. What makes you think they did that at E3 now?
Because at E3 those cards were already on the table and nobody comes out and says they have a product that will equal another competitors product, while having a product that can beat it. The day AMD sandbags or under-hypes something is the same day Intel admits to unethical behavior and business practices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ondma

rbk123

Senior member
Aug 22, 2006
642
181
116
By now you should be able to easily extrapolate performance numbers for the whole lineup in most common desktop workloads. If you still think AMD is behind you suffer from a serious case of cognitive dissonance.
Right. I always extrapolate from manufacturer released scenarios and results instead of independent unbiased testers. I'm cognitive dissonant that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ondma

OTG

Member
Aug 12, 2016
101
169
86
I'm cognitive dissonant that way.
No, you're pretending that everybody else here doesn't also understand that AMD is showing their products in their best light at a product launch.
Zen2 may not be faster than every Intel chip in every scenario.
Wait for benchmarks if you have specific requirements.

But, unless AMD dreamed up every bit of performance data they've shown, we DO have enough info to determine that the R5 3600 is going to be faster, in most scenarios, than an i5.
 

Thunder 57

Senior member
Aug 19, 2007
948
605
136
There's a reason why they called it GAMECACHE. Funny name that they came up with, but it's true. The effect of the doubling of L3 cache alone is huge according to one of the slides we got, bigger than I had thought. Even up to 21% performance increase (in CSGO).
I don't like that name at all. Kind of gives off the impression the chip is not for professionals.
 

rbk123

Senior member
Aug 22, 2006
642
181
116
No, you're pretending that everybody else here doesn't also understand that AMD is showing their products in their best light at a product launch.
Weak. I responded to individuals not ‘everybody here’. Try again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zucker2k

eoniverse

Senior member
Sep 10, 2004
225
1
81
Hoping this hype is real. If the hype is real...next build is AMD. My last AMD build was a 1 GHz Thunderbird.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rbk123

guachi

Senior member
Nov 16, 2010
685
334
136
I think it is.

You can get a CPU, at basically any price, that's well-rounded and is capable in basically anything you can throw at it and Intel doesn't really have an effective response. I'm lucky I'm in the market for a new PC build in a month or two.
 

OTG

Member
Aug 12, 2016
101
169
86
Weak. I responded to individuals not ‘everybody here’. Try again.
:rolleyes:
Fine, I'll be more specific: you pretend that the people you're arguing with are unable to make allowances for a company promoting it's own products.
It's still a poor assumption, and we still have enough info to estimate performance for Zen2 chips.
 

Zucker2k

Senior member
Feb 15, 2006
909
370
136
:rolleyes:
Fine, I'll be more specific: you pretend that the people you're arguing with are unable to make allowances for a company promoting it's own products.
It's still a poor assumption, and we still have enough info to estimate performance for Zen2 chips.
This is so frustrating. If the people he is replying to are able "to make allowances for a company promoting it's own products" they are not showing it. I see this too often in this forums - go after the argument, don't go after wrongly perceived motivations.
 

OTG

Member
Aug 12, 2016
101
169
86
This is so frustrating. If the people he is replying to are able "to make allowances for a company promoting it's own products" they are not showing it. I see this too often in this forums - go after the argument, don't go after wrongly perceived motivations.
Well, the problem is that I took issue with the sarcastic dismissal of using currently available info to estimate performance.
I probably shouldn't care, but it's a lazy way to dismiss an argument, and I'd rather grant that the people I'm conversing with have basic common sense than assume otherwise (yeah, even on the internet, maybe I'm a slow learner).
Discussions get frustrating pretty quick, otherwise.
And now, I'll stop derailing the thread.
 

rbk123

Senior member
Aug 22, 2006
642
181
116
Well, the problem is that I took issue with the sarcastic dismissal of using currently available info to estimate performance.
Oh brother. I was sarcastically dismissed by the poster and I replied in kind. Oddly, the original dismissal didn't bother you.

As for unable to make allowances, I am replying to their words, not to what I think they actually are saying. You may be all knowing when it comes to people's thoughts, but I'm going to stick to what they actually said, so as not to assume. If they wish to modfiy/clarify/elaborate, then the discussion continues.
 

OTG

Member
Aug 12, 2016
101
169
86
Oh brother. I was sarcastically dismissed by the poster and I replied in kind. Oddly, the original dismissal didn't bother you.

As for unable to make allowances, I am replying to their words, not to what I think they actually are saying. You may be all knowing when it comes to people's thoughts, but I'm going to stick to what they actually said, so as not to assume. If they wish to modfiy/clarify/elaborate, then the discussion continues.
I think I was just in a bad mood when I saw your post.

[Edited Sentence Redacted]

We don't allow user insults in the tech areas.

AT Mod Usandthem
 
Last edited by a moderator:

PotatoWithEarsOnSide

Senior member
Feb 23, 2017
664
688
106
This thread is now pointless due to the 9900KS. In any event, it has descended into a sarcy back and forth so probably needs closing since no real value is being added on either front.
 

rbk123

Senior member
Aug 22, 2006
642
181
116
I think I was just in a bad mood when I saw your post.
I have thick skin so it's a non-issue to me. I find internet insults/slams more funny than anything else. Worst case we can agree to disagree and that's perfectly fine.
 

Boze

Senior member
Dec 20, 2004
631
5
91
Timeline is wrong, everything else is right.

Intel won't be competitive in gaming when Zen 3 arrives. Intel is AT LEAST 18 months away, and probably two years if they were honest about it, from hammering out the 10nm process to a point where they can expect 65/95/105/125 watt parts for desktops. And that's a minimum. Charlie Demerjian over at SemiAccurate was talking about this back in October of 2018, and here we are halfway through 2019.

There's only so much IPC blood they can squeeze from the 14nm++ rock.

I expect Ryzen 4000 series is going to really embarrass Intel's i7 / i9 WhateverK come this time in 2020. They're getting "okay" yields on their mobile 10nm parts at 15 watts, but that only impresses mobile warriors. Good for Microsoft Surface Book 3, not so good for my gaming rig / workstation.
 

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
978
653
136
Gotta say based on the reviews so far, gaming seems to be (relatively speaking) still the weakest aspect of Zen 3000.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1869-amd-ryzen-3900x-ryzen-3700x/

While definitely faster than previous gen Zen, it still doesn't match, let alone exceed, the 9900K as many here had hoped and predicted. The wait goes on for a 'next gen' gaming CPU, unfortunately. I got caught in the hype a bit, was really hoping the rumours would be true, that a lower clocked Zen 3000 chip could hand it to a 9900K gaming wise.

I must admit I am a bit disappointed in this, as I was looking forward to possibly upgrading my 8700K rig for gaming, but it appears Zen 3000 is actually still a 'downgrade' for gaming :(

Come on AMD... I really was expecting better this time.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Zucker2k

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
13,473
2,932
136
I must admit I am a bit disappointed in this, as I was looking forward to possibly upgrading my 8700K rig for gaming, but it appears Zen 3000 is actually still a 'downgrade' for gaming :(
Eh? Only chip Intel has right now to beat it in games is 9900k. The main weakness we're seeing is that boost clocks aren't going that high in games (compared to what is advertised). Is that due to the review samples, or will retail chips have the same problem?
 

PotatoWithEarsOnSide

Senior member
Feb 23, 2017
664
688
106
Probably because none of the reviews have PBO working correctly due to non-final BIOS.
Anandtech review has identical results as stock, whilst also stating that they couldn't change PPT, which is a function of PBO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
978
653
136
Eh? Only chip Intel has right now to beat it in games is 9900k. The main weakness we're seeing is that boost clocks aren't going that high in games (compared to what is advertised). Is that due to the review samples, or will retail chips have the same problem?
The 8700K/9700K also beats it, though by slightly lesser margins: https://static.techspot.com/articles-info/1869/bench/Cost_1.png In terms of gaming, the Ryzen 3000 chips are about equal with the 9600K, according to that chart.

You're right, the boost clocks (and potential overclocks, it seems) are somewhat underwhelming, but even if it boosted (or overclocked) to 4.5GHz hypothetically, it's still not a 9900K killer like many here had claimed.

My 8700K overclocks to 5.0GHz, frankly if there is a Ryzen 3000 chip that can beat this for gaming purposes, I will gladly upgrade to it. Heck, even if it beats a stock 8700K I'll probably jump onboard just because I'm bored of Intel (been using them since Core 2, mainly because they always lead in gaming) and just want an excuse to build an AMD gaming rig, apart from a lower price for equivalent cores/threads.

Was really looking forward to Zen 3000, but apart from 'more cores' (useful of course, just not so much for gaming) there really isn't any reason for me to 'upgrade'.
 
Last edited:

BigDaveX

Senior member
Jun 12, 2014
392
141
116
Eh? Only chip Intel has right now to beat it in games is 9900k. The main weakness we're seeing is that boost clocks aren't going that high in games (compared to what is advertised). Is that due to the review samples, or will retail chips have the same problem?
While it could be a board issue, AMD's processors historically haven't turboed up quite as aggressively as their Intel counterparts. Wouldn't surprise me if AMD waits until Zen 3 and a more refined 7nm process before before pushing harder on the turbo clocks.
 

IEC

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Jun 10, 2004
13,770
3,239
136
Looks like OC 8700K and 9700K/9900K still rule the roost for 1080p high refresh rate gaming, but outside of that niche are increasingly harder to justify.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arkaign and DooKey

ASK THE COMMUNITY