Intel Core i3-9100F vs. Ryzen 5 1600 AF: Battle of the Budget CPUs

fps4ever

Posts: 739   +982
Fortnite, Apex /multiplayer games missing
Big mistake because this show what difference but zipping showed relative performance xD
(but BFV lucky keeped it in test and here look 9100f cant hold fixing/keep FPS BiG up 110 and DowN ☻↓ 50 soso this is terrible rollercosting 50-100)
Most part Singleplayer game still enough 9100f 4cores

LOL wut?
 
Just a couple of comments...
1) If your upgrade path does NOT include a 2080 Ti or whatever Ampere card will be at the top, then these gaming benchmarks are useless. It's like comparing a GTX 950 with a RTX Titan on a Athlon 3000G. The bottlenecks go both ways.
2) If you own a RTX 2080 Ti, you sure as hell ain't gonna consider buying any of these two CPUs. If you got the money for just the RTX 2080 Ti, you're better off just getting a 2070 super and you'll have enough leftover money to jump straight to an i9 or Ryzen 9.
3) What all these benchmarks show, is that at that point, when the benchmark ran, the 1600AF was faster. That is true. What they don't show, is how the 9100F vs 1600AF on the long run. How about a 8h/day typical workload sim? For many people, that's the scenario. How about how easy it is to build a system with these two CPUs? System stability, virtualization benchmarks. You talk "productivity" but seriously, 7zip, Cinebench and Blender? That's all the productivity you can do with a PC?
Disclaimer: I decided to go with an i3 9100F, after having 5 of my friends coming over to my place, because their Ryzen systems would act up on daily basis. RAM compatiblity issues, overclocking where they shouldn't have... I think Intel's K and non-K philosophy actually makes sense. What's the use of having an unlocked CPU if you have no idea what to do with it? That, right there, is 80% of the people. That's why big integrators don't use overclocking chips, nor do their BIOSes allow overclocking. Simple as that
 

Ludak021

Posts: 553   +402
1600AF is downclocked 2600, so this comparison is BS from the start. In the Intel vs 2600 I choose 9400F, no regrets. Cinebench, man, that's 3Dmark all over, useless. 7zip, sure ryzen is faster, I can live with less speed once or twice a week, uzniping 10~20MB archive for 0.6 seconds longer. Browser and browsing worked fine since i3 2100....
 
I have been playing Computer Games since DOOM first came out on 3.5" Floppy Disk for 486 computers. I dont know anyone who plays games on *Ultra Settings* What's the point?
You want Pretty or Fast? My Rig. i3-9100F $75. MSI B365 $75. MSI GTX 1660 Super $255. Viper 16gb DDR4 2400 $65...you get the point. I play Doom 2016 on High settings and get 150FPS.
Any Questions?
 

fps4ever

Posts: 739   +982
I have been playing Computer Games since DOOM first came out on 3.5" Floppy Disk for 486 computers. I dont know anyone who plays games on *Ultra Settings* What's the point?
You want Pretty or Fast? My Rig. i3-9100F $75. MSI B365 $75. MSI GTX 1660 Super $255. Viper 16gb DDR4 2400 $65...you get the point. I play Doom 2016 on High settings and get 150FPS.
Any Questions?

I want pretty. Now you know someone.