fps4ever
Posts: 1,149 +1,899
Just chill...
AMD's 16-core Ryzen 9 5950X CPU reportedly hits 5 GHz in benchmarks
- Thread starter nanoguy
- Start date
Just chill...
JimboJoneson
Posts: 310 +507
No seriously, I don't like to misunderstand people, please clarify.
fps4ever
Posts: 1,149 +1,899
No misunderstanding we are good...I think we both hope AMD hits a home run with Zen3 regardless if some think its not that important or they are already on parity. Win for everybody!
The performance surely looks nice, but the problem is the increase in prices across the board. They practically eroded the performance gains with price hikes. Considering that for gamers what matters most is not actually CPU but GPU (in most cases anyhow) I think I am going to pass and buy Ryzen 3600 instead.
Theinsanegamer
Posts: 5,448 +10,225
I'd like to point out the EXACT SAME THING was said about faildozer, and Phenom II before it.
You know what ended up happening? Those slower chips aged much faster, as a result while intel sandy bridge was still viable for gaming the phenom II and FX series dropped off a cliff in userbase.
Top end gaming performance matters, even if you dont think so.
Squid Surprise
Posts: 5,597 +5,227
I’d argue that the only reason anyone could consider Intel and AMD’s CPUs as “even” would be because Intel wins at gaming. If AMD catches up (and it looks like they may very well have done so), then AMD will be superior in every aspect.
JimboJoneson
Posts: 310 +507
What may or may not have been said of faildozer about the level of gaming performance had no causality into the reasoning why the architecture fell off a cliff though. It was worse at literally everything across the board vs Core.
So, if it turns out that Intel loses its "gaming crown" to zen3, does that mean Intel will, or should, fall off a cliff if people say they are still willing to buy them because the GPU or resolutions they play with doesn't make much of a difference to them personally? <scratches head>
I don't really know what you are trying to say here ... gaming performance has importance, I never said it didn't, but when the GPU is doing all the work, the CPU matters less. This is easily demonstrated as a fact.
What I did say is that if the CPU isn't reasonably bottlenecked, the CPU doesn't matter as much (given its a modern desktop CPU) in contributing to the performance. This is due to the fact that the GPU then becomes the bottleneck and the CPU is relieved. This fact isn't really up for debate.
Let me know if I have misunderstood what you were trying to get at there though, it seemed a bit confusing.
Last edited:
zamroni111
Posts: 446 +249
Amd: we use tsmc 7nm process.
Ron burgundy: bigger, bolder, burgundier
Intel: we use in house 14nm+* process. bigger, bolder, bluer
Ron burgundy: bigger, bolder, burgundier
Intel: we use in house 14nm+* process. bigger, bolder, bluer
Darth Shiv
Posts: 2,371 +886
At this point in time I'm pretty convinced Zen 3 would be my next upgrade but I am still wary of AMD's mobo chipset issues. PCIe 4.0 has needed bios updates for many motherboards - and some still to this day cannot run certain PCIe hardware when 4.0 is enabled. Have they squashed all those issues?
Workaround of drop mobo to PCIe 3.0 is frankly junk imo - PCIe bus is absolutely core to the system and you can't work around that issue by buying expansion cards like for USB 3.0 issues previously.
JimboJoneson
Posts: 310 +507
Well first I would ask myself: "Do I require (or highly ddesire) PCI 4.0?" - (not a whole lot of benefit now but it might be future proofing)
2nd I would ask: "What hardware am I going to be using?" - and then do some research to see if there has been reported issues, what frequencies, resolutions, etc. with said hardware, and see if it will be a problem.
3rd: you can ask yourself if you need the benefit of PCIe 4.0 if you DO have to run a slot in PCIe 3.0 and evaluate if that will be a problem for you.
It shouldn't be hard to determine. If you are unwilling to ask yourself those three questions, do a little bit of research, and give yourself honest answers, then maybe don't upgrade at all? Its not like there's currently a PCI 4.0 alternative if you need that feature.
I personally don't know of current chipset issues, but I haven't been following the chipset reviews and news closely, but again a bit of research wouldn't be difficult. Perhaps someone here with a b550 or x570 here could add their 2 cents.
mattferg
Posts: 250 +257
JimboJoneson
Posts: 310 +507
Darth Shiv
Posts: 2,371 +886
You are correct - I will wait until I'm confident the issues are sorted!
Rdmetz
Posts: 425 +211
TO be fair catching up in gaming does not mean mean "becoming the gaming king"
I'm going to want undisputed crown in gaming not just a couple fps higher here and there.
I took Intel over amd because of the 10-30% lead in gaming they offered for me to want to switch they going to need to flip that table completely around.
The rest never mattered to me before now so it definitely still doesn't.
Give me a no questions asked Gaming win like Intel has been offering (and amd fanboys have been ignoring) and I'll gladly switch.
I have no Allegiance but to getting the most gaming out of my gaming pc.
Rdmetz
Posts: 425 +211
If cpu doesn't matter where I like to game I'll go with the one that's faster at whatever level it takes to get a difference to show. I don't buy a cpu for anything other than it being the best at what it do and if I have to test that at 720p to know doesn't change the fact that it's still faster. The only reason I don't "see" it at the highe resolution is a limitation of something compeltley separate from the 2 choices I'm deciding between.
And argue semantics all day about how that doesn't matter because t when gpu's start pulling crazy performance out of thin air like 3080/90 did and suddenly what used to be a 720p test is now showing at 1440 and who knows what it will look like in 3 to 4 years.
You buy the best thing that's best at doing the job you expect it to do and my cpu is always goi g to be the fastest Gaming cpu you can find to go with the fastest gpu.
Rdmetz
Posts: 425 +211
So if this gaming performance "doesn't really matter" why are we even here discussing / celebrating them reaching it? It matters very much so because people either NEED it to be the best or WANT to know they have the best.
You can't go around acting like something doesn't matter when you're losing in it to calling the battle over win you finally catch up.
It does matter and I'm glad they caught up but being the best is still the ultimate goal for one reason or another.
People may not put it to use but the celebration of this milestone PROVES they desire it (even if they been saying forever that they don't).
If none of this mattered just go buy the 3600 and stop even worry about it.
Rdmetz
Posts: 425 +211
A 10900k isn't trash at most things finishing in 2nd or 3rd in most tests outside of gaming.
While it ALWAYS took the top spot in gaming sometimes by up to 30% to act like this chip isn't competitive is ignorant. It played in the same ballpark for most thing's it's competiton was doing while dominating in 1 particular (and very important to a large section of the market) area... Gaming
I could see if every ryzen chip including the $200 chip was whipping its a&& in everything BUT gaming that there might be some major issue but overall if you wanted a really fast chip that was THE BEST in gaming it was a great choice.
All of this is up to now and doesn't take into account ryzen 5000 but to see so much celebration for numbers that are basically just 10900k ish with a bit more of an advantage in those productivity tasks seems a bit one sided.
Now there biggest advantage (cost) is gone and there productivity advantage still matters nothing to a big portion of users who aren't riding a hype train.
What makes them most likley still falling short in gaming overall (especially with oc taking into account) and a highest cost make for such a "win"?
Again I'm speaking from a purely gamer focused point of view.
If productivity is important by all means go ryzen but a pure gaming build seems to me to still likley to favor Intel (now including pricing).
AM4 supports PCIe 4.0, Intel platform does not. Also AM4 motherboards are miles better than any Intel LGA1xxx (20 PCIe lanes from CPU is alone enough reason).
For AM4 motherboard you can add 16 core CPU. For Intel platform, at most 10.
So AM4 has much more longevity despite next generation is coming for "AM5" or something.
JimboJoneson
Posts: 310 +507
If that's what you want to do and you have the money to do it, that is fine, as long as you realize that if your GPU is say an RTX 2060 or GTX 1060, and you choose to pair it with a 10900k over a R5 3600, you will be paying a $400 premium for an experience that is 0% better. If its actual performance that you are interested in and not theoretical, that in real life has no relevancy, then one might not think that way for obvious reasons.
I actually have seen two cases where a poor sap spent all his hard earned cash to replace his older CPU for a 9900k thinking that he would gain 20% FPS, but because he had a mid-range GPU, the difference was 0% and they end up seeking help on tech forums and can't understand why the theoretical numbers didn't apply in his real life scenario.
I assume you'll be making the switch to Zen3 if AMD claims are maintained by 3rd party testing?
Last edited:
JimboJoneson
Posts: 310 +507
Again, like I clearly had to spell out for the other guy, I never said that at all. What I did say (I think this is the third time of correcting people on this), was that in real life, in real settings, that people actually use, 99.9% of the time the GPU is the bottleneck. What happens when the GPU is the bottleneck? That's right, the CPU is NOT the bottleneck. And what happens to game performance whenusing the same GPU in a system where the GPU is the bottleneck, that's right the real life actual performance is at parity or so close to it that it doesn't matter.
But if you are saying that "it matters" because everyone has a false sense about what is real life bottlenecks and what bottlenecks are induced in CPU specific testing, and in a niche .01% of competitive players who use $1000+ GPUs to play at low resolutions and quality settings, then I would agree. I'm just not going to be one to continue to enable this false sense.
Avro Arrow
Posts: 3,721 +4,821
It's like I always say...
HyperPete
Posts: 129 +67
So, I see all of you here battling over 5% improvement, or maybe 10% improvement, and I am looking at Zen 3 CPUs for a new build, to upgrade from my I5-750. (I did, however, just spend $41 to buy a Xeon X3480 to max out my old motherboard and designate the old system as my security monitoring system.)
Not everyone is looking at an upgrade from a Zen 2. I, for one, am interested in the new architecture. I don't mind paying a premium price because I keep my hardware for a LONG time. So, which is better for a non-gamer; going high-end with everything except the CPU and upgrading that in a year or two, or just popping for the new top of the line now?
I would seem to me that two CPUs will cost more than one new one, even when it's new and expensive.
Not everyone is looking at an upgrade from a Zen 2. I, for one, am interested in the new architecture. I don't mind paying a premium price because I keep my hardware for a LONG time. So, which is better for a non-gamer; going high-end with everything except the CPU and upgrading that in a year or two, or just popping for the new top of the line now?
I would seem to me that two CPUs will cost more than one new one, even when it's new and expensive.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Ford is losing boatloads of money on every electric vehicle sold- Jigs Gaton replied
-
Generative AI could soon decimate the call center industry, says CEO
- Jigs Gaton replied
-
BlizzGone: Blizzard cancels 2024 convention but promises an eventual return- Superconductor replied
