Also @Vrika ray-tracing isn't just an Nvidia thing. They didn't invent it, so any card can have it + in games as of right now ray-tracing is there just in name, so anyone who buys those cards for that feature are getting kinda scammed. By the time ray-tracing becomes a thing these cards will probably obsolete(well not obsolete, but will be old and outdated).
I know they didn't invent it, but right now they have it and AMD does not. If you can get either NVidia's card with ray-tracing support or AMD's card that's a bit cheaper then both cards have their good sides and they're about even.
Even if ray tracing support is rare, there are still a lot of AAA games that have or have promised support: Battlefield, Call of Duty, Tomb Raider, Cyberpunk, Metro, Watch Dogs, etc. Most gamers who buy cards as expensive as this will be tempted to spend the $50 extra to see what it would look like with ray tracing.
Nvidia can do ray tracing in hardware too slowly to get much use out of it. AMD can do ray tracing in software, a lot more slowly and also too slowly to get much use out of it. For gaming where the rendering has to be done in real time, that's not a very big difference.
Xingbairong said: At the same time AMD is cheaper at the moment
It isn't really cheaper, it provides a bit different weight in task performance. Assuming the workstation is a home(gaming) computer, more cores/threads than 6 is only really useful for streaming.
150$ - i5-9400F if you want just gaming or Ryzen 2600 if you want to stream.
200$ - Ryzen 3600 if you want a step up to for your streaming machine
240$ - i5-9600k - best gaming experience for your money that no Ryzen can beat
Anything more expensive and you are just buying more threads or slight performance gains while performance/cost ratio goes tanks sharply.
Current market lay out is great.
The 9600k isn't the best experience for your money. At $250 the 3600x is better and at $329 the 3700x is essentially a better purchase than the 9900k. Also generally most games don't need such powerful CPU's for 1080p, so if we assume that you are going to do 1440p then the difference in performance is in negligable.
Microsoft has unreleased AMD scheduler that tries to lock down things like games into a single CCX. This will fix some frametime variances.
The AMD chips boost better and for longer while having about twice the L3 cache. It's a solid buy regardless of what you will be using this machine for.
Surely you are not going to pair it with a 10 year old GPU, so ... are you really going to nitpick for may or maybe not 10-15 fps difference while you are well above your monitor refresh rate, really?
Also don't just look at raw FPS values. Look at frame time variance graphs. The 9900k dips above 12ms on multiple occassion, which gets perceived as stuttering, while the AMD system gets continuous frame delivery which makes the experience appear smoother.
AMD packed a punch this time around. At least in the CPU segment anyway. The Navi GPUs seem passable for the pricing they've been placed at but after burning myself with a reference R9 290X, i'd rather wait until partner boards start arriving before discussing whether it's a good buy or a flop. Don't get me wrong, the 290X was an excellent GPU but boy was it loud AF and constantly running at 90 degrees or more (yes, celsius), while my gf runs the same GPU by Asus and ... you can barely hear that thing. Obviously it clocks better and runs better. Also from what I hear, AMD has yet another flopped driver on launch they, which they will undoubtedly clear up as time goes by so expect these GPUs to improve. As of this writing tho, they aren't really worth it. Reference boards with blower type cooler - huge NO from me. Been there, done that. It's just not pleasant. I don't know why AMD still does it. nVidia started putting actually good cooling solutions in their GPUs ...
The AMD trend is, hype the next generation to oblivion. Result, significantly underwhelming performance and Intel still reigns king and says "Hold my beer" but just slightly, as we'll just do a tiny increase compared to the last generation. We need competition, we need competent competition, AMD is not it.
[[ DEAD ]] - Funny - I deleted my account on the site using the cancel account button. Forum user is separate and still exists with no way of deleting it. Delete it admins. Do it, this ends now.
The 9600k isn't the best experience for your money.
I said gaming experience and that stands - 9600k beats any Ryzen in gaming.
I'm not really sure how it beats any Ryzen when it's literally about the same(wins in some games loses in other) as the 3600 which is $200 and can be paired with a cheaper board and don't need a $90+ cooler to actually be worth buying(because if you buy 9600k and don't OC it to 5GHz you are throwing your money away). The 3600x is about the same as the 8700k, but vastly cheaper. The 3700x is essentially the better buy over the 9900k. They are really close in performance, but their prices are miles apart.
I really can't see where Intel can score a point let alone talk about being better. The AMD CPU's are cheaper while at the same time deliver the same or better performance whilst also having a ton of extra cores for work.
Please avoid saying stupid stuff like Intel is better in 2 games and ignore the fact that it's much more expensive. Boards are vastly more expensive. You need at least $80-$90 cooler to properly OC it. It uses more energy(for the countries that care about that). Has less threads. I don't see how the 9600k can even be suggested at the moment as a good CPU, even if it's just for gaming. It's pretty much the same performance as the vastly more cheaper to build 3600 whilst 1. having limited upgrade path and 2. shorter life span due to less threads.
Pity there is no 9600 since K CPU is notoriously bad value
And no, AMD is not vastly more cheaper at all...that is just dumb to say.
Like I said, current market layout is great with nice options to choose from, but you must be capable to do the math actually...
Haha showing Gamer Nexus video where they tell you straight away that it's a better value CPU. I'm dying from laughter.
Also I know that you think in your head since the 9600k is more expensive that it's vastly better than the 9400f, but realitiy is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdyQg-9UVtk (literally picked the first video after googling 9400f vs 9600k).
Please avoid embarrassing yourself if you have no idea what you are talking about.
Also please go ahead and do the math. I'd like to see how you will manage to skew things that it will seem like they are close in price
Edit: HAHAHA I just skimmed over the GN video and literally at 28:39 they tell you that against the 9600k they prefer the 3600 and explain why. Dude just take the lose and don't respond anymore. It's turning into a clown fiesta when you link videos where they tell you exactly the opposite of what you suggest
Xingbairong said: I'd like to see how you will manage to skew things that it will seem like they are close in price
I am not skweing anything, anyone can do the math...well, apart from you apparently...
I posted a comparison of 9400F and R3600 so one can decide whether Ryzen is worth the $50 difference(intel will be cheaper than that in total) or 9600k is worth same $50 over R3600.
It is precisely like I said above.
Sadly, intel has no CPU at $200 price tag, something like 9600F would fit there nicely.
Xingbairong said: I'd like to see how you will manage to skew things that it will seem like they are close in price
I am not skweing anything, anyone can do the math...well, apart from you apparently...
I posted a comparison of 9400F and R3600 so one can decide whether Ryzen is worth the $50 difference(intel will be cheaper than that in total) or 9600k is worth same $50 over R3600.
It is precisely like I said above.
Sadly, intel has no CPU at $200 price tag, something like 9600F would fit there nicely.
Let me get this straight. A z390 mobo that's roughly $80-$90 more expensive + an aftermarket cooler for another $80-$90 + $40 more expensive CPU = just $50 more? Sorry I guess I slept in math hahaha You are killing me with the ignorance that's radiating from you
Let me get this straight. A z390 mobo that's roughly $80-$90 more expensive + an aftermarket cooler for another $80-$90 + $40 more expensive CPU = just $50 more? Sorry I guess I slept in math hahaha You are killing me with the ignorance that's radiating from you
...if you are in idiot to buy z390 and cooler for $80, sure, in that case it is no you though.
Let me get this straight. A z390 mobo that's roughly $80-$90 more expensive + an aftermarket cooler for another $80-$90 + $40 more expensive CPU = just $50 more? Sorry I guess I slept in math hahaha You are killing me with the ignorance that's radiating from you
...if you are in idiot to buy z390 and cooler for $80, sure, in that case it is no you though.
Hahaha suggesting 9600k and not buying a proper z390 and at least $80 coooler... You should remove 20-40 fps from all those benchmarks you looked to get an idea of the 9600k without those 2. Honestly when you don't understand it's best not to argue and in fact it's best to not to enter the conversation because your stupid comments can mislead someone and they might actually buy what you suggested.
Hahaha I'm still laughting at the GN video you linked where they literally said what I was saying This video embodies you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcBmf6dDmeE except with the comment that you said that you shouldn't get a z390 and a good cooler with the 9600k you should've K.O. yourself and not just self-punched like in the video.
just think, 10+ years ago, AMD was at a dollar a share.......
Been an intel fan for years but amd forcing intel to get off their lazy greedy butts is great. Now if only Raedon would do the same to Nvidia.
It's seem whoever is the market leader is accused of being lazy and greedy these days...
These forums get more depressing every day.
Are you suggesting that the ridiculous prices that Intel kept for years are reasonable? And bare in mind that for years people were paying those ridiculous prices for 4c/4t and 4c/8t... If it wasn't for AMD the 9900k would've probably been 4c/8t and the price would've been the same it's now.
I don't get it when people try to defend something so obvious. Intel has been always overpriced, but since they didn't have any competition no one could say anything, but now when there are better CPU's at cheaper prices things might change for the next generations, tho I'm doubtful seeing how Intel continues to keep these prices despite losing miserably at the moment in price/performance.
Things might be different next year or heck even next week, but here today AMD is superior and their prices show that Intel is overcharging. If cheaper CPU's with better performance don't prove that than nothing else will.
AMD offers a much better value proposition than a few years ago. I built Athalon machines a few years ago then got away from AMD, as I felt they just didn't complete. Most recently, I build new gaming rig based on a 2700X, x470 MOBO and don't regret it at all.
As a long-time PC builder and gamer, the defining factor has and will always be, what do you intend to do with the machine; i.e. look at the software you are running first then decide on hardware. If you are a FPS fan, twitch gamer, you may want the fastest overclocked beast you can afford. If you are me, you play MMOs, strategy games, roleplaying games; AMD is a good value.
just think, 10+ years ago, AMD was at a dollar a share.......
Been an intel fan for years but amd forcing intel to get off their lazy greedy butts is great. Now if only Raedon would do the same to Nvidia.
It's seem whoever is the market leader is accused of being lazy and greedy these days...
These forums get more depressing every day.
Are you suggesting that the ridiculous prices that Intel kept for years are reasonable? And bare in mind that for years people were paying those ridiculous prices for 4c/4t and 4c/8t... If it wasn't for AMD the 9900k would've probably been 4c/8t and the price would've been the same it's now.
I don't get it when people try to defend something so obvious. Intel has been always overpriced, but since they didn't have any competition no one could say anything, but now when there are better CPU's at cheaper prices things might change for the next generations, tho I'm doubtful seeing how Intel continues to keep these prices despite losing miserably at the moment in price/performance.
Things might be different next year or heck even next week, but here today AMD is superior and their prices show that Intel is overcharging. If cheaper CPU's with better performance don't prove that than nothing else will.
That's insane logic. It's like saying if I started baking my own tasty bread and selling it cheaper than the supermarket then the supermarket has always been overcharging for years... even though my bread didn't exist then. Ludicrous.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
just think, 10+ years ago, AMD was at a dollar a share.......
Been an intel fan for years but amd forcing intel to get off their lazy greedy butts is great. Now if only Raedon would do the same to Nvidia.
It's seem whoever is the market leader is accused of being lazy and greedy these days...
These forums get more depressing every day.
Are you suggesting that the ridiculous prices that Intel kept for years are reasonable? And bare in mind that for years people were paying those ridiculous prices for 4c/4t and 4c/8t... If it wasn't for AMD the 9900k would've probably been 4c/8t and the price would've been the same it's now.
I don't get it when people try to defend something so obvious. Intel has been always overpriced, but since they didn't have any competition no one could say anything, but now when there are better CPU's at cheaper prices things might change for the next generations, tho I'm doubtful seeing how Intel continues to keep these prices despite losing miserably at the moment in price/performance.
Things might be different next year or heck even next week, but here today AMD is superior and their prices show that Intel is overcharging. If cheaper CPU's with better performance don't prove that than nothing else will.
That's insane logic. It's like saying if I started baking my own tasty bread and selling it cheaper than the supermarket then the supermarket has always been overcharging for years... even though my bread didn't exist then. Ludicrous.
The ludicrous thing is your analogy here.
Intel sat on their asses for years. They raised the clockspeed by 100mhz or so each new generation, added a few minor tweaks and than let marketing hype it as the best thing since sliced bread. All the while the previous generation chips still had to be sold for full price as Intel doesn't do price cuts.
This isn't the first time AMD made a better product than Intel, but now the Intel marketing team will have a lot more trouble trying to downplay the difference.
Intel's 10nm chips will probably get them back in the lead, but only if they release before ryzen 4000 series next year and AMD's 4000 series is somehow lacking. Intel has been forced to actually try and innovate again. Something they haven't done for years and it shows they haven't.
So yes Intel has been lazy and overpriced for years. Not having competition has only been part of the reason. Simply not wanting to innovate and just rake in money has been the main reason the CPU market had stagnated for so many years.
just think, 10+ years ago, AMD was at a dollar a share.......
Been an intel fan for years but amd forcing intel to get off their lazy greedy butts is great. Now if only Raedon would do the same to Nvidia.
It's seem whoever is the market leader is accused of being lazy and greedy these days...
These forums get more depressing every day.
Are you suggesting that the ridiculous prices that Intel kept for years are reasonable? And bare in mind that for years people were paying those ridiculous prices for 4c/4t and 4c/8t... If it wasn't for AMD the 9900k would've probably been 4c/8t and the price would've been the same it's now.
I don't get it when people try to defend something so obvious. Intel has been always overpriced, but since they didn't have any competition no one could say anything, but now when there are better CPU's at cheaper prices things might change for the next generations, tho I'm doubtful seeing how Intel continues to keep these prices despite losing miserably at the moment in price/performance.
Things might be different next year or heck even next week, but here today AMD is superior and their prices show that Intel is overcharging. If cheaper CPU's with better performance don't prove that than nothing else will.
That's insane logic. It's like saying if I started baking my own tasty bread and selling it cheaper than the supermarket then the supermarket has always been overcharging for years... even though my bread didn't exist then. Ludicrous.
The ludicrous thing is your analogy here.
Intel sat on their asses for years. They raised the clockspeed by 100mhz or so each new generation, added a few minor tweaks and than let marketing hype it as the best thing since sliced bread. All the while the previous generation chips still had to be sold for full price as Intel doesn't do price cuts.
This isn't the first time AMD made a better product than Intel, but now the Intel marketing team will have a lot more trouble trying to downplay the difference.
Intel's 10nm chips will probably get them back in the lead, but only if they release before ryzen 4000 series next year and AMD's 4000 series is somehow lacking. Intel has been forced to actually try and innovate again. Something they haven't done for years and it shows they haven't.
So yes Intel has been lazy and overpriced for years. Not having competition has only been part of the reason. Simply not wanting to innovate and just rake in money has been the main reason the CPU market had stagnated for so many years.
OK, so when you're the best.. you're lazy and greedy if you don't constantly get dramatically better than yourself all the time. Got it.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
It's pretty clear Intel has been sitting on their asses on purpose simply to be able to milk the market more with less investment so to speak.
They are a company so this can be expected somewhat but it has gotten pretty darn obvious last few years.
Only thing ludicrous is acting all surprised or naive about this. When companies start doing this the only losers are all of us their clients so defending this kind of behavior isn't very clever which is why I think AMD's popularity is what it is right now and why people are giving intel the look.
To some extent this is also why I give M$ the stink eye as there's not really anyone to force them off their arses and to keep their monopoly in check.
It leads to crapware like windows 10 with backdoors built right into the OS that can't properly be removed unless you cripple the OS basically.
Post edited by Asm0deus on
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
just think, 10+ years ago, AMD was at a dollar a share.......
Been an intel fan for years but amd forcing intel to get off their lazy greedy butts is great. Now if only Raedon would do the same to Nvidia.
It's seem whoever is the market leader is accused of being lazy and greedy these days...
These forums get more depressing every day.
Are you suggesting that the ridiculous prices that Intel kept for years are reasonable? And bare in mind that for years people were paying those ridiculous prices for 4c/4t and 4c/8t... If it wasn't for AMD the 9900k would've probably been 4c/8t and the price would've been the same it's now.
I don't get it when people try to defend something so obvious. Intel has been always overpriced, but since they didn't have any competition no one could say anything, but now when there are better CPU's at cheaper prices things might change for the next generations, tho I'm doubtful seeing how Intel continues to keep these prices despite losing miserably at the moment in price/performance.
Things might be different next year or heck even next week, but here today AMD is superior and their prices show that Intel is overcharging. If cheaper CPU's with better performance don't prove that than nothing else will.
That's insane logic. It's like saying if I started baking my own tasty bread and selling it cheaper than the supermarket then the supermarket has always been overcharging for years... even though my bread didn't exist then. Ludicrous.
Sorry, but that example was really bad.
Here's a more clear view. Up until Ryzen, Intel did the bare minimum, especially after the 4790k. As soon as Ryzen came out Intel delivered more cores and more threads(safe to assume they could've done it before, but it just wasn't worth investing more money for less profit), but prices remained the same. Now with the new Ryzen AMD actually delivers almost same or better performance in games at vastly lower prices and I'm not taking into account the fact that the Ryzen CPU's are better for everything else, beside photoshop from what I've seen. Intel still wins there, at least the 9900k. What are we about to see due to the new Ryzen CPU's? A 15% price cut on all Intel CPU's... What does that mean? That 1. they admit that their CPU's aren't competitive at that price and 2. They admit that they can sell their CPU's at lower prices. The reason the price cut is only 15% is because Intel is still percieved by people who don't understand from computers as the better buy and at least for now they will still make enough money to keep them from doing serious price cuts. Intel is too big of a monster. If I remember correctly in 2017 or 2018 the profit AMD did throughout the whole year, Intel did in a single month... but I might be remembering wrong, so take this with a grain of salt.
Also I'm not even talking about how almost every 2 years tops they change their platform. How they give you a junk cooler, that is insult to the buyers, especially for the prices people pay for those CPU's. How people seem to have forgotten the vulnerability issues. How(some people might find this good) their CPU's remain expensive over the years even when they've become almost obsolete(for example the 4790k is still over $200) due to the issue I mentioned with them constantly changing platforms which results is almost no upgrade choice for people. Also I love their latest trick where they added F(no iGPU) CPU's that should've been cheaper, but almost everywhere they are more expensive, so essentially you are paying more for less features. Also the 9900KS... seriously? All you need to do on the 9900k is to choose 50 in the multiplier and it will run at 5GHz... why did they even add this 9900KS BS is beyond me.
just think, 10+ years ago, AMD was at a dollar a share.......
Been an intel fan for years but amd forcing intel to get off their lazy greedy butts is great. Now if only Raedon would do the same to Nvidia.
It's seem whoever is the market leader is accused of being lazy and greedy these days...
These forums get more depressing every day.
Are you suggesting that the ridiculous prices that Intel kept for years are reasonable? And bare in mind that for years people were paying those ridiculous prices for 4c/4t and 4c/8t... If it wasn't for AMD the 9900k would've probably been 4c/8t and the price would've been the same it's now.
I don't get it when people try to defend something so obvious. Intel has been always overpriced, but since they didn't have any competition no one could say anything, but now when there are better CPU's at cheaper prices things might change for the next generations, tho I'm doubtful seeing how Intel continues to keep these prices despite losing miserably at the moment in price/performance.
Things might be different next year or heck even next week, but here today AMD is superior and their prices show that Intel is overcharging. If cheaper CPU's with better performance don't prove that than nothing else will.
That's insane logic. It's like saying if I started baking my own tasty bread and selling it cheaper than the supermarket then the supermarket has always been overcharging for years... even though my bread didn't exist then. Ludicrous.
The ludicrous thing is your analogy here.
Intel sat on their asses for years. They raised the clockspeed by 100mhz or so each new generation, added a few minor tweaks and than let marketing hype it as the best thing since sliced bread. All the while the previous generation chips still had to be sold for full price as Intel doesn't do price cuts.
This isn't the first time AMD made a better product than Intel, but now the Intel marketing team will have a lot more trouble trying to downplay the difference.
Intel's 10nm chips will probably get them back in the lead, but only if they release before ryzen 4000 series next year and AMD's 4000 series is somehow lacking. Intel has been forced to actually try and innovate again. Something they haven't done for years and it shows they haven't.
So yes Intel has been lazy and overpriced for years. Not having competition has only been part of the reason. Simply not wanting to innovate and just rake in money has been the main reason the CPU market had stagnated for so many years.
OK, so when you're the best.. you're lazy and greedy if you don't constantly get dramatically better than yourself all the time. Got it.
Feel free to not buy AMD products and stick it to them.
Comments
Also generally most games don't need such powerful CPU's for 1080p, so if we assume that you are going to do 1440p then the difference in performance is in negligable.
Also let's not ignore price and future proofing.
The AMD chips boost better and for longer while having about twice the L3 cache. It's a solid buy regardless of what you will be using this machine for.
Surely you are not going to pair it with a 10 year old GPU, so ... are you really going to nitpick for may or maybe not 10-15 fps difference while you are well above your monitor refresh rate, really?
Also don't just look at raw FPS values. Look at frame time variance graphs. The 9900k dips above 12ms on multiple occassion, which gets perceived as stuttering, while the AMD system gets continuous frame delivery which makes the experience appear smoother.
AMD packed a punch this time around. At least in the CPU segment anyway. The Navi GPUs seem passable for the pricing they've been placed at but after burning myself with a reference R9 290X, i'd rather wait until partner boards start arriving before discussing whether it's a good buy or a flop. Don't get me wrong, the 290X was an excellent GPU but boy was it loud AF and constantly running at 90 degrees or more (yes, celsius), while my gf runs the same GPU by Asus and ... you can barely hear that thing. Obviously it clocks better and runs better. Also from what I hear, AMD has yet another flopped driver on launch they, which they will undoubtedly clear up as time goes by so expect these GPUs to improve. As of this writing tho, they aren't really worth it. Reference boards with blower type cooler - huge NO from me. Been there, done that. It's just not pleasant. I don't know why AMD still does it. nVidia started putting actually good cooling solutions in their GPUs ...
The 3600x is about the same as the 8700k, but vastly cheaper.
The 3700x is essentially the better buy over the 9900k. They are really close in performance, but their prices are miles apart.
I really can't see where Intel can score a point let alone talk about being better. The AMD CPU's are cheaper while at the same time deliver the same or better performance whilst also having a ton of extra cores for work.
You suggested a really strange CPU as the best gaming CPU, so I couldn't find any proper comparison beside this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krLqgYjjuqw
Please avoid saying stupid stuff like Intel is better in 2 games and ignore the fact that it's much more expensive.
Boards are vastly more expensive. You need at least $80-$90 cooler to properly OC it. It uses more energy(for the countries that care about that). Has less threads.
I don't see how the 9600k can even be suggested at the moment as a good CPU, even if it's just for gaming. It's pretty much the same performance as the vastly more cheaper to build 3600 whilst 1. having limited upgrade path and 2. shorter life span due to less threads.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAwKNuwwvHk
And that is just 9400f...
https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3489-amd-ryzen-5-3600-cpu-review-benchmarks-vs-intel
...and finally 9600k.
Pity there is no 9600 since K CPU is notoriously bad value
And no, AMD is not vastly more cheaper at all...that is just dumb to say.
Like I said, current market layout is great with nice options to choose from, but you must be capable to do the math actually...
Also I know that you think in your head since the 9600k is more expensive that it's vastly better than the 9400f, but realitiy is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdyQg-9UVtk (literally picked the first video after googling 9400f vs 9600k).
Please avoid embarrassing yourself if you have no idea what you are talking about.
Also please go ahead and do the math. I'd like to see how you will manage to skew things that it will seem like they are close in price
Edit: HAHAHA I just skimmed over the GN video and literally at 28:39 they tell you that against the 9600k they prefer the 3600 and explain why. Dude just take the lose and don't respond anymore. It's turning into a clown fiesta when you link videos where they tell you exactly the opposite of what you suggest
I posted a comparison of 9400F and R3600 so one can decide whether Ryzen is worth the $50 difference(intel will be cheaper than that in total) or 9600k is worth same $50 over R3600.
It is precisely like I said above.
Sadly, intel has no CPU at $200 price tag, something like 9600F would fit there nicely.
You are killing me with the ignorance that's radiating from you
Honestly when you don't understand it's best not to argue and in fact it's best to not to enter the conversation because your stupid comments can mislead someone and they might actually buy what you suggested.
Hahaha I'm still laughting at the GN video you linked where they literally said what I was saying
This video embodies you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcBmf6dDmeE except with the comment that you said that you shouldn't get a z390 and a good cooler with the 9600k you should've K.O. yourself and not just self-punched like in the video.
Been an intel fan for years but amd forcing intel to get off their lazy greedy butts is great. Now if only Raedon would do the same to Nvidia.
MurderHerd
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
That would be the differentiation, everyone is testing the same games, you guys can come in and test the MMOs!!
FF XIV, WoW, ESO, GW2 ... all have large communities + are very much CPU intensive games
And those are the customers who come to these forums...
These forums get more depressing every day.
If it wasn't for AMD the 9900k would've probably been 4c/8t and the price would've been the same it's now.
I don't get it when people try to defend something so obvious. Intel has been always overpriced, but since they didn't have any competition no one could say anything, but now when there are better CPU's at cheaper prices things might change for the next generations, tho I'm doubtful seeing how Intel continues to keep these prices despite losing miserably at the moment in price/performance.
Things might be different next year or heck even next week, but here today AMD is superior and their prices show that Intel is overcharging. If cheaper CPU's with better performance don't prove that than nothing else will.
Edit: Btw @Gdemami here's a video of the 3600 vs 9600k - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke3OnFlOUnI
Watch it and weep.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
As a long-time PC builder and gamer, the defining factor has and will always be, what do you intend to do with the machine; i.e. look at the software you are running first then decide on hardware. If you are a FPS fan, twitch gamer, you may want the fastest overclocked beast you can afford. If you are me, you play MMOs, strategy games, roleplaying games; AMD is a good value.
Seaspite
Playing ESO on my X-Box
Intel sat on their asses for years. They raised the clockspeed by 100mhz or so each new generation, added a few minor tweaks and than let marketing hype it as the best thing since sliced bread. All the while the previous generation chips still had to be sold for full price as Intel doesn't do price cuts.
This isn't the first time AMD made a better product than Intel, but now the Intel marketing team will have a lot more trouble trying to downplay the difference.
Intel's 10nm chips will probably get them back in the lead, but only if they release before ryzen 4000 series next year and AMD's 4000 series is somehow lacking. Intel has been forced to actually try and innovate again. Something they haven't done for years and it shows they haven't.
So yes Intel has been lazy and overpriced for years. Not having competition has only been part of the reason. Simply not wanting to innovate and just rake in money has been the main reason the CPU market had stagnated for so many years.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Here's a more clear view. Up until Ryzen, Intel did the bare minimum, especially after the 4790k.
As soon as Ryzen came out Intel delivered more cores and more threads(safe to assume they could've done it before, but it just wasn't worth investing more money for less profit), but prices remained the same.
Now with the new Ryzen AMD actually delivers almost same or better performance in games at vastly lower prices and I'm not taking into account the fact that the Ryzen CPU's are better for everything else, beside photoshop from what I've seen. Intel still wins there, at least the 9900k.
What are we about to see due to the new Ryzen CPU's? A 15% price cut on all Intel CPU's... What does that mean? That 1. they admit that their CPU's aren't competitive at that price and 2. They admit that they can sell their CPU's at lower prices. The reason the price cut is only 15% is because Intel is still percieved by people who don't understand from computers as the better buy and at least for now they will still make enough money to keep them from doing serious price cuts.
Intel is too big of a monster. If I remember correctly in 2017 or 2018 the profit AMD did throughout the whole year, Intel did in a single month... but I might be remembering wrong, so take this with a grain of salt.
Also I'm not even talking about how almost every 2 years tops they change their platform. How they give you a junk cooler, that is insult to the buyers, especially for the prices people pay for those CPU's. How people seem to have forgotten the vulnerability issues. How(some people might find this good) their CPU's remain expensive over the years even when they've become almost obsolete(for example the 4790k is still over $200) due to the issue I mentioned with them constantly changing platforms which results is almost no upgrade choice for people. Also I love their latest trick where they added F(no iGPU) CPU's that should've been cheaper, but almost everywhere they are more expensive, so essentially you are paying more for less features.
Also the 9900KS... seriously? All you need to do on the 9900k is to choose 50 in the multiplier and it will run at 5GHz... why did they even add this 9900KS BS is beyond me.