Sadly, AMD 3K series will still play the catch-up game... I've been disappointed many times before with AMD whenever I waited to buy the next big release from AMD. AMD supporters have been rejoicing that it has been closing the wide gap narrower nowadays. But it's just that - trying to close the gap. Never trounced Intel once and for all and claim clear, undoubted superiority.
Some argue to death the superiority of more cores, but meh...
Intel's pricing scheme is to just dampen the initial sales of the 3xxx ryzens.
Intel....worried? Bwahahahahahaha...
I'm no Intel fanboy. I'm just an opportunistic customer. If the AMD comes out a clear victor in both productivity AND games and trounces Intel and remains so for a long period of time and the next Intel iteration can't take over it, I would get AMD.
And all talks that AMD's 3 series ryzens gonna kick *** are all pure BS until we see the actual reviews.
Until then... just Intel.
So because Intel wins in a single metric, gaming, people who don't game should buy Intel? That makes zero sense. The situation is a lot different then you portray it to be, one single use case does not override dozens of others. Heck, even in gaming Intel only wins in the high end. Budget gaming AMD wins and mid-range is a toss-up.
You are taking a very niche scenario and portraying it as if it's the one and only metric that matters when for 97% of PC users, they have other variables that mix up the equation.
Mind you none of that is taking the security holes into consideration either. I've seen far too many people make reckless recommendations like "just disable the security patches". If I'm a hacker the there is a massive install base of Intel processors filled with holes like swiss cheese, that's a prime target for Malware / Viruses that can exploit those systems. The larger the target the more incentive. The best part about the speculative execution exploits is that if used, the person operating the PC will be none the wise and security applications can not detect exploitation of these low level holes. That's dangerous.
This is a gamer website so yes, AMD needs to do more than beat Intel at productivity. They need to at least match the 9900K in 1080p or 1440p high refresh gaming to convince the more demanding users here. It's that simple and they haven't done it yet. When you're wary about a company's claims or haven't been completely satisfied with their products in the past, the bar is set very high to convince the most demanding to switch to a new product.
There are no independently verifiable benchmarks yet about R3K from anyone so it's just wait and see.
I don't get a comment like this. So all the people advocating Intel here have purchased AMD products in the past they weren't completely satisfied with? That's a highly convenient excuse and also extremely unlikely. It sounds like something someone would say to gain the upperhand in a conversation, as if they actually care about making unbiased choices, when in reality they would have chosen Intel regardless. After all, most ignorance is willingly done.
I can understand taking AMD's word with a grain of salt, that is healthy skepticism. On the other hand the love of Intel's, despite clearly being far less trustworthy, is a double standard. It seems to me you are going into a AMD benchmark with the mental position that they are lesser to begin (as you said you are "weary" of them), which in turn stints the way you will interpret the results. Likewise, despite the numerous security holes in Intel processors, you still "trust" them more then AMD. I'm not asking you to trust AMD, I'm asking you to trust neither.
