Just How Much Faster are Intel CPUs for Gaming?

amstech

Posts: 2,643   +1,804
The difference you posted are not playable vs non playable performance though so at the end of the day the numbers are academic and don't mean much.
You know you've beaten down a fanboy when he starts resorting to terms like 'playable'.

But it seems to me 100% of your workload is just playing games do you actually do anything else on your pc? if not why didn't you buy a console ?
This is just whimpering, no offense.
The PC gaming industry is massive, and every frame counts.


Where do you live? You keep bringing up 3600 vs 8700k and the difference in gaming performance,
They are both 6 core/12 thread CPU's.

but you don't mention the price difference.
A 9700K is faster then a 3900X in games and costs less.
Lets mention that price difference.

"why does intel's 6 core cost almost twice the price?"
Because until Ryzen showed up AMD didn't have anything competitive.
Intel still, to this day, control the market, even though Ryzen's been out several years.
Most people with Intel chips with gaming rigs would be downgrading if they switched to Ryzen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MaxSmarties

meric

Posts: 268   +220
A 9700K is faster then a 3900X in games and costs less.
Lets mention that price difference.
This is exactly why I said your example was wrong but you keep mentioning 3600 vs 8700k. Actually 3600 makes for a better gaming PC, if you invest the price difference into a better GPU.

Because until Ryzen showed up AMD didn't have anything competitive.
I'm glad that you at least mention that Ryzen is competitive lol
 

Lionvibez

Posts: 2,009   +1,343
You know you've beaten down a fanboy when he starts resorting to terms like 'playable'.

This is just whimpering, no offense.
The PC gaming industry is massive, and every frame counts.
Yes the industry is big but that doesn't prove your point.

There is no difference you can tell playing on two similar builds side by side.

Do you play these games or just stare at a FPS counter? To me one is far more important than the other.

Its fine to be Team blue that is your choice but you're reasoning will always fail when someone looks at it objectively and with logic.

You haven't really beaten anything, because playable performance is what people feel when playing a game. At the end of the day 90 vs 105 and I will say this for the people in the back MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.

Everyone here has seen my post I'm far more balanced with my opinon and its obvious who the fanboys are on the site. You have 20 people telling you it doesn't matter yet we are all wrong and fan boys?

Once Zen 3 is out and last talking point of gaming frame rate is gone I will be curious to see what you say next.
 
Last edited:

amstech

Posts: 2,643   +1,804
This is exactly why I said your example was wrong but you keep mentioning 3600 vs 8700k. Actually 3600 makes for a better gaming PC, if you invest the price difference into a better GPU.
Thats completely true, if you ignore results like these:
Also, these results are before overclocking, the 8700 runs 5.1-5.3 all day and picks up another 3-8 FPS across the board overclocked.
[link]

Battlefield 5: 8700K faster by 11FPS/18FPS
8700K:114/167
3600: 103/149

Tomb Raider: 8700K faster by 10FPS/19FPS
8700K: 78/114
3600: 68/95

Far Cry: 8700K faster by 10FPS/7/FPS
8700K: 84/110
3600: 74/103

World War Z: 8700K faster by 34FPS/25FPS
8700K: 169/201
3600: 135/176

Rage 2: 8700K faster by 4FPS/8FPS
8700K: 122/168
3600: 118/160

Hitman 2: 8700K faster by 12 FPS/13FPS
8700K: 94/118
You haven't really beaten anything, because playable performance is what people feel when playing a game. At the end of the day 90vs 105 and I will say this for the people in the back MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.
Could be a big difference if someone is trying to play at a higher refresh rate then 60Hz.
Every frame counts, and core vs core, Ryzen is 5-30FPS slower across the board.
If it was the other way around, we would never hear the end of it.
Your just trying to downplay it because you don't like the results. Tough sh!t.
Sick of hearing all of the Intel negativity, give credit where credit is due.
AMD is second fiddle in one important area, get over it, and stop making excuses.
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,594   +1,628
TechSpot Elite
Its more then 5%, its about 10% overall, and in certain games, 15-25%.
Those 8700K vs 3600 bench's show its not just high end gaming when your seeing a 7-15FPS difference.
Most importantly no one cares about core heavy workloads when building a gaming rig.
Any new i5, i7 or i9 performs very well in synthetic benchmarks/multitasking, especially when you compare them core to core, thread to thread, they are almost even, and Intel actually wins a benchmark here and there.
Nobody cares how fast your PC encodes an MP4 or zips a file.
Here's your 5%, from this very article:



6.8-9.9% with a $1200 GPU
0.5-2.3% with a $400 GPU

5% is accurate for summarizing these numbers. Perhaps even an overestimate.
 

Lionvibez

Posts: 2,009   +1,343
If it was the other way around, we would never hear the end of it.
Your just trying to downplay it because you don't like the results. Tough sh!t.
Sick of hearing all of the Intel negativity, give credit where credit is due.
AMD is second fiddle in one important area, get over it, and stop making excuses.
It has nothing to do with me down playing the results. Does intel give you a paycheck why do you care about Intel Negativity, or where credit is going?

Guess what one of my Boxes is a Ryzen 3800X and it games fine I never have any issues. So everything you posted if of the opposite of my experience and I actually own the hardware you don't.

Maybe its time to take your own medicine and stop making excuses?

You can't seem to understand that most people just play games and don't stare at FPS counters. When you actually produce an argument that I can't easily destroy with simple logic I would love to read it.

The conclusion of this article by tech spot themselves provides more truth and accuracy then anything you have posted in this thread thus far.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: m3tavision

amstech

Posts: 2,643   +1,804
You can't seem to understand that most people just play games and don't stare at FPS counters.
Actually, they do.
They also need every last frame, especially when gaming at refresh rates above 60hz.


The conclusion of this article by tech spot themselves provides more truth and accuracy then anything you have posted in this thread thus far.
The conclusion was Intel is better for gaming.
Sometimes by a little, sometimes by alot.
 

Lionvibez

Posts: 2,009   +1,343
Actually, they do.
They also need every last frame, especially when gaming at refresh rates above 60hz.

The conclusion was Intel is better for gaming.
Sometimes by a little, sometimes by alot.
That is only people that will notice a difference is high monitor refresh gaming and that market is tiny compared to the 60hz market which is the majority.

You need to reread the last two paragraphs and take off the blue tinted glasses.
 

Boshum

Posts: 144   +105
Intel still, to this day, control the market, even though Ryzen's been out several years.
Most people with Intel chips with gaming rigs would be downgrading if they switched to Ryzen.
Intel only controls the OEM market. AMD rules the DIY market because they have the better product for most enthusiasts and those in the know, who also happen to be gamers.
It's also false that most gamers with Intel chips would be downgrading with a switch to Ryzen. All i5 users up to 7th gen would be getting a clear upgrade if they play modern games. I'm betting that's 'most' of them right there.
 

Markoni35

Posts: 782   +271
Looks to me that Intel fanboys forgot to read the graphs. The test was done on MINIMUM details. Just to maximize the impact of CPU. But in real life you won't be playing at 500 fps using minimum details. You'll rather switch to 60 or 144 fps at maximum details.

And when you maximize the details, the whole thing becomes GPU bound. Which means, the differences between the CPUs will become even lower than you see in the tests.

Anyone saying that 30 fps is "substantial" when you compare 375 and 345 fps has skipped entire elementary school. I guess that's a person which would say "A thousand is pretty substantial when comparing 123,456,789,000 vs 123,456,788,000 dollars". You know what, just give me $123 billions, I don't even care about the rest of the digits.
 

meric

Posts: 268   +220
Thats completely true, if you ignore results like these:
Also, these results are before overclocking, the 8700 runs 5.1-5.3 all day and picks up another 3-8 FPS across the board overclocked.
There was $150 difference between 3600 and 8700k, if you are willing to run an overclock, you can't rely on a $120 motherboard like the Ryzen can. Decent x90 intel boards cost at least $200. I wouldn't touch anything cheaper than that for my costly system. Then, you already have to buy an aftermarket cooler. Whether or not liquid cooling, your choice. Difference grows even further. Let's say you got a %20 FPS advantage on average over a cheaply 3600. You should be willing to pay at least $250+ over the Ryzen build. Probably north of $300 with liquid cooling, if you prefer. So, you see, you got a perceivable FPS boost, only if you ignore the price difference :)

In a world where both systems cost the same, I'd definitely get the 8700k, gladly. But it seems we're not living in such a world where we can ignore such price differences.

Then, you'd be better off giving the example of ryzen 3700x vs 10600k, because that would be an apple to apple comparison. (even though you wouldn't want to put your 10600k on a cheap motherboard, which is still a Ryzen's strong point)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lionvibez

Strawman

Posts: 306   +181
Don't know if it's relevant but my 10900k @ 5.1 ghz gets 79.1 fps in ashes cpu focused. A bench / game that does well on Ryzen and it scales across multiple cores. You know how much a tuned 3900x with 3733c15 ram gets? It's not even close...
 

amstech

Posts: 2,643   +1,804
Looks to me that Intel fanboys forgot to read the graphs.
Looks to me that AMD fanboys don't like what they are reading.
These results are before overclocking, the 8700 runs 5.1-5.3 all day and picks up another 3-8 FPS across the board overclocked.
[link]

Battlefield 5: 8700K faster by 11FPS/18FPS
8700K:114/167
3600: 103/149

Tomb Raider: 8700K faster by 10FPS/19FPS
8700K: 78/114
3600: 68/95

Far Cry: 8700K faster by 10FPS/7/FPS
8700K: 84/110
3600: 74/103

World War Z: 8700K faster by 34FPS/25FPS
8700K: 169/201
3600: 135/176

Rage 2: 8700K faster by 4FPS/8FPS
8700K: 122/168
3600: 118/160

Hitman 2: 8700K faster by 12 FPS/13FPS
8700K: 94/118


So its not just at 300FPS your seeing a 10-25 FPS difference.


Anyone saying that 30 fps is "substantial" when you compare 375 and 345 fps has skipped entire elementary school.
From 720p, to 1080p and 1440p, its 7-20FPS across the board when you compare them core for core and thread for thread. You can downplay that and the 30FPS all you want, its just fanboy whimpering and the inability to accept the truth.
 
Last edited:

theruck

Posts: 241   +110
I like that AMD is reaching over Intel but for the last 2 years techspot has always found a way how to praise the AMD CPU even if they are 6% slower in comparison. Come on techspot, you can do better than that. Biased reviews is not what people want.
 

m3tavision

Posts: 558   +319
Price matching. The 3700X is about the same as the 10600K. Well, actually the 3700X is the much better CPU right now because you can buy it. The 10600K is not available.
The 3700x is getting a price reduction soon... because the XT's are coming.

Also, doesn't matter what Intel CPU, they load games slow... I am killing people in game, before intel's sl0w bus loads up... AM4 gives moAr frames.
 
Last edited:

Lionvibez

Posts: 2,009   +1,343
I like that AMD is reaching over Intel but for the last 2 years techspot has always found a way how to praise the AMD CPU even if they are 6% slower in comparison. Come on techspot, you can do better than that. Biased reviews is not what people want.
There reviews are pretty balanced actually. The results just don't align with your preferences. It doesn't benefit Techspot to be a fan boy for either company as they need to stay netural when doing their reviews. You don't believe if they were posting stuff that was just totally wrong that both AMD or Intel wouldn't reach out to them directly? It could cost them review samples, credibility in the industry. They have more important things to worry about then whiners complaining about frame per second. They do have a business to run.

Get out of your Feelings!
 
  • Like
Reactions: m3tavision

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,594   +1,628
TechSpot Elite
I like that AMD is reaching over Intel but for the last 2 years techspot has always found a way how to praise the AMD CPU even if they are 6% slower in comparison. Come on techspot, you can do better than that. Biased reviews is not what people want.
TechSpot generally likes the better value CPU and that's been AMD Ryzens for a couple of years now. You forgot to specify "in gaming with a $700-1200 GPU" to make your statement more accurate because overall AMD chips are faster in more scenarios than Intel CPUs.

Though in reality, outside of niche gaming and core-heavy workloads, you won't notice the difference between them in everyday use.
 

MaxSmarties

Posts: 397   +215
I am just glad to see the 10th generation i3 and i5 making such impacts on gaming.

Normally, I only recommend my clients to i7 or i9 if I'm sure they can afford it.

Now I can feel comfortable recommending an i3 with a 1660Ti or RTX 2060.
Even an i5-9600K was a very good gaming CPU, with very little difference from an i7-9700K.
And I can say that for sure, having both the CPUs in my home.
 
  • Like
Reactions: m3tavision

MaxSmarties

Posts: 397   +215
Unless you're playing CS:GO (which is currently the most played game on Steam by a wide margin) in which case you had better get the AMD CPU because it has up to a 37FPS AVG lead (or 40FPS in lows) advantage over Intel which is SIGNIFICANT!

This is also the case for Battlefield V (2FPS advantage @1080p) and Rainbow Six Siege (19FPS advantage @1080p).

As long as you make sure to avoid those games, Intel is the best but if you play those, be prepared to have an inadequate machine compared to an AMD setup.
“Inadeguate machine” .... for a 2 FPS difference (considering battlefield V, and just at low settings and low resolution).
Lol I love AMD “supporters” ...
 
Last edited:

MaxSmarties

Posts: 397   +215
Right now, seems the only reason to build an Intel rig is for pure gaming. And that may only be true for a few more months. The next AMD chips are likely to close that gap too - it's not like it's a large gap to close.
Yes, and after that where will be a new Intel CPU... and so on...

Every AMD supporter (I don’t like the term fanboys...) here are speaking about Zen3, as if Intel wouldn’t release any new CPUs in the future ...
 

Boshum

Posts: 144   +105
Let's assume we all have
Even an i5-9600K was a very good gaming CPU, with very little difference from an i7-9700K.
And I can say that for sure, having both the CPUs in my home.
A 9600K is a good gaming CPU, you are right. My R5 1600 is also a good gaming CPU, and I can say that for sure. It's been smooth as silk in every game I play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lionvibez

Boshum

Posts: 144   +105
“Inadeguate machine” .... for a 2 FPS difference (considering battlefield V, and just at low settings and low resolution).
Lol I love AMD “supporters” ...
Those are the kinds of points being made in favor of Intel all the time. Look at Amstech post where he rattled off a bunch of games, making that exact point in favor of Intel. One of them was just 4fps.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Lionvibez