Intel praises AMD for 'closing the gap' but says i9-9900K is still better for gaming

[FF222]

Left behind? How? They still command over 70% of the market share. They're still worth over 90 BILLION more than AMD. You took and inch and turned it into a mile lol settle down.

Well, the point I made pretty much went over your head, didn't it?

 

[pcnthuziast]

Some people confuse me for a fanboy. I am not, for anyone. For the price, I'd take the 3900x over the 9900k even though gaming is really all I do. Call me crazy. lol

 

[cliffordcooley]

Call me crazy. lol

You're not crazy. If that is what you want. I'm happy for you.

 

[Lounds]

9900K is the best for gaming if money's not an issue. However if you have a limited budget like most do, you can spend $300 less for an R5 3600 and put that $300 towards a better GPU to get higher framerates than the 9900K with the cheaper GPU.

That's not always true. If you're a competitive FPS ***** like I am and drop details for the sake of FPS a 9900k becomes more valuable than a higher end GPU. Dropping settings makes the CPU the bottleneck and that's where that 9900k at 5 GHz will pull away and stomp anything Ryzen.

There are zero competitive games that won't get crazy high FPS on a 3600 when you drop the settings. Do you need more than 500 FPS in CS:GO? The whole idea that you need the 9900k for competitive gaming is just BS. 99.99999% of competitive gamers (beyond esports organisations which receive them from sponsors) don't even have a high end GPU to take advantage of the few extra FPS.
Spending $3-4k on a gaming PC is unrealistic at best and those that do it want it for the best graphics they can find at a high resolution, not for CS or Dota at 1080p.

A massive high end rig doesn't make you play CSGO any better lol. I feel sorry for folk that think it gives them an advantage. Yeah you might be 10ms faster, but that means nothing if you can't play the game fast and have good reactions.

 

[toooooot]

Can intel cpus render an edited 15 minute 1080p video in less than 20 minutes?

My amd athlon x845 is similar to an intel pentium g4560 and it takes like 40 minutes to render

Whatevs. I never seen that weird grainy effect with Nvidia or Intel. And thats Im just worried there could be something more extreme due to this new AMD architecture not tested on many systems. As I build AMD based systems, I feel like im putting a burden of being required to deal with incompatibilities if such arise. Also, people want intel even if they have no idea how they differ from AMD. Intel did a good job there since even housewives want the best processor of them all--Intel core...

 

[Irata]

"Of course, gaming is only part of the equation. If productivity factors into your buying decision, AMD’s offering suddenly becomes far more attractive."

Errr...what about price?

Or upgradability / platform longevity , or power consumption.....

 

[Irata]

"Of course, gaming is only part of the equation. If productivity factors into your buying decision, AMD’s offering suddenly becomes far more attractive."

Errr...what about price?

What about price? A 3900x/x570/DDR4 3600 combo will end up being more expensive than a 9900k/z390/DDR 3600 combo. X570 offsets Intel's price premium.

And before anyone jumps in and says you can use an old *** x470 board, no. Just, no. Buy a $500 CPU and cheap out by pairing it with a cheap motherboard? Gtfo lol

But would (or even could) you get a cheap z390 mainboard for your i9-9900k ? I would expect the high power draw to require a board with good a good PCB and higher standard power delivery.

Looking at Newegg's Z390 / X570 mainboards sorted by best selling, I do not see much of a difference in price at all, but same as for the i9-9900k, I would argue that going for the cheapest x570 mainboard is not the best option as - unlike for the i9-9900 k - you do need to consider future upgradability (e.g. if you want to upgrade to a 16 core Ryzen 2 or even Ryzen 3 later on).

What you also need to factor is is the HSF. Ryzen 3000 comes with a bundled "good enough" HSF, i9-9900k without and again you probably would not want to go for the cheapest here if you want to run it @ 5 Ghz.

But this is talking high end options. If you want to go cheaper, it could either be a Ryzen 3600 on a B350 board or a core 9400 / 9600k, where I would wager that the 3600 package would be cheaper overall.

 

[Irata]

I don't think the 9600K is a good option. It trades blows with the 3600 in games and is destroyed in everything else. This make sense give the 3600 has hyper-threading (AMD's SMT) and the 9600K does not. It's more expensive plus it's going to need a CPU cooler. In the end you are looking at $60 extra for equal gaming performance, much less multi-threaded performance, higher cost, and high power consumption.



1. Ryzen 3000 CPUs can be paired with X370, B450, X470, and X570 motherboards. In fact I have an X370 taichi sitting right here you can come pick up for $120. It's VRM is overkill for the power sipping Ryzen 3000 series and could easily handle a 9900K. X570 is purely for those who want that PCIe 4.0. Otherwise, just get any X470 or X370 motherboard at a massive discount compared to launch prices.

2. Your second paragraph makes zero sense. Many of the X470 and X370 boards are very high quality. It is in no sense cheaping out. Do you also consider a $140 Intel Z390 "cheaping out" or do you just have a double standard?

Last year I built a system for someone. He used intel CPU, old Nvidia GPU and an old Sharp TV as a monitor.

And here is a problem with AMD or specifically its graphic processing unit:
Picture was grainy which never happened with his old graphics. I I tried everything I could in AMD settings and TV itself. Nothing worked. My client saved some money with AMD CPU but was very unhappy he had to upgrade his monitor. I had some other people report small annoying things with new AMD CPUs. It is a peace of mind when you go with more expensive Intel CPU.
You wanna save money, get AMD, but they need to work hard to close the gaps in compatibility and areas where intel fixed everything just because in the past 90% of the PCs used their hardware.

So you went from a Intel CPU + nVidia dGPU (which ones) to an AMD APU (which one) and not CPU then ? How was each set-up connected to the old sharp TV and by old, how old / what native resolution ?

How you connect your PC to the TV can make a difference - a simple search for "Picture grainy PC TV" turns up a lot of entries, mostly in cases where the picture was fine when using VGA but looks bad when using HDMI.

Here is Samsung's suggested solution to this problem:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Common complaints when connecting a computer to the TV are either the text on the screen is fuzzy or that images seem grainy. This is because the TV's scaling is set for standard HDMI input. To resolve these image issues, you simply need to rename the input to PC or PC DVI. Once renamed, the TV will adjust the scaling of the input. Naming your TV's input can help you remember what is connected to each source."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Could it be that you used VGA for the old and HDMI for the new PC ? Hard to tell since your post is rather vague on details, but judging by the search results this problem is not really that rare.

 

[RaXoR]

"Of course, gaming is only part of the equation. If productivity factors into your buying decision, AMD’s offering suddenly becomes far more attractive."

Errr...what about price?

What about price? A 3900x/x570/DDR4 3600 combo will end up being more expensive than a 9900k/z390/DDR 3600 combo. X570 offsets Intel's price premium.

And before anyone jumps in and says you can use an old *** x470 board, no. Just, no. Buy a $500 CPU and cheap out by pairing it with a cheap motherboard? Gtfo lol

x470 is not a bad choice of motherboard. Has everything to do with power delivery. PCIE 4.0 is just a gimmick at this point so it's pointless to buy an x570 right now. x470 is still a high end chipset, you'd be gimping by purchasing a 300 series motherboard.

 

[Pauper Jenkins]

I’d say that gaming is a small fraction of what most CPU are actually used for. So, good job Intel. You’re 5% better in gaming and get passed by a large amount in everything else. Kudos.

 

[poohbear]

I'm looking at AMD more and more for my next CPU purchase. When intel released a rebadged Whiskey Lake, called it Comet Lake, and branded it 10th generation CPU, I said enough is enough! We've seen AMD & Nvidia release rebadged GPUs and they got called out and chewed up by the media, but they learned from it. Intel's latest move with Comet Lake was the last straw, and so far only 2 tech media sites have called them out, the others have just said it's a "little confusing".

Let's see what AMD's got for my next laptop and desktop purchases. Been using 4th gen Haswell for both my desktop and laptop.

 

[QuantumPhysics]

I could imagine Ferrari having this talk with Lamborghini.

 

[evolucion8]

9900K is the best for gaming if money's not an issue. However if you have a limited budget like most do, you can spend $300 less for an R5 3600 and put that $300 towards a better GPU to get higher framerates than the 9900K with the cheaper GPU.

That's not always true. If you're a competitive FPS ***** like I am and drop details for the sake of FPS a 9900k becomes more valuable than a higher end GPU. Dropping settings makes the CPU the bottleneck and that's where that 9900k at 5 GHz will pull away and stomp anything Ryzen.

Daat Intel damage control mode though...

 

[Markoni35]

Core i9 definitely has a cooler box

 

[That Dude There]

My 3770k is still doing fine. I want to upgrade based on the benchmarks, but why bother. no need to spend more than $200 on a CPU these days.