Adi6293
Posts: 931 +1,309
The problem with this is that if you own anything below 2070S you wont see the difference between i9 or Ryzen 7 same goes for people who game at 1440p and higher. Intel is best only for 165Hz+ gaming that's it
Report: More PC gamers are turning to AMD's processors
- Thread starter midian182
- Start date
The problem with this is that if you own anything below 2070S you wont see the difference between i9 or Ryzen 7 same goes for people who game at 1440p and higher. Intel is best only for 165Hz+ gaming that's it
Everyone here is aware that the Steam survey is worldwide. Did you actually assume that I didn't know that? If so, thanks for posting your ID photo.1.
2. Valve has always stated its a survey of PCs with STEAM installed, they never claimed its North America and UK users only.
3. I don't see a lot of "cheerleading" for Intel or AMD because....wait for it...it's a survey of PCs with Steam installed clients for that month. Nothing more and nothing less. Completely useless to make a claim stating any peace of hardware is better then another peace. Useful when making the claim hardware is more often found on gaming PCs.
And the cheerleading is not at Steam, it's in the comments here, or haven't you read them yet?
dirtyferret
Posts: 900 +1,274
Your own posts contradict your own statements. I neither wrote them or posted them.
OK, I'll spell it out to you in simple terms.
"Steam added a huge chunk of the Chinese market..."
Does not mean "Steam added the entire Chinese market," which you could have figured out if you looked at the language numbers. There were 23% Chinese speakers the month before. Steam had been excluding a big *part* of the Chinese market previously and apparently decided to add them in again this past month. This skewed the numbers and thus you can't make any market share judgements based on those 2 months of data. That is the point.
Does that make sense to you?
wiyosaya
Posts: 9,760 +9,644
I get you have AMD hardware now, and I thing that is great. But sIntel has also let a lot of people down, over the years, by requiring an entirely new build to move to their next generation of processors, and also by trivial performance increases from generation to generation; it seems like AMD has simply inspired sIntel to sleep at the wheel for a few more years.
It is going to take time whether we like it or not; 3000+ systems even using significanly less expensive consumer space CPUs is a large chunk of change for any business to swallow. Maybe its worth becoming an AMD champion where you work.
Still, though, the one AMD system is a start. Is the IT department using that as a test case?
Those with less knowledge think sIntel is the safer bet simply because sIntel has been the only game to play for far too long.
dirtyferret
Posts: 900 +1,274
Not even a subject that I have posted about previously. If you want to change the subject to avoid your previous posts, have at it.
??? Where are you going with this? Do you have a point?
amstech
Posts: 2,662 +1,824
This is proven to not be true, so you can keep saying it all you want, but that doesn't change the truth.
AMD Ryzen 5 3600 Review: Best All-Round Value CPU
The successor to our favorite best value CPU, the Ryzen 5 3600 is AMD's new $200 6-core, 12-thread processor. The chip clocks between 3.6 GHz and 4.2...
www.techspot.com
Look at the 1080p benchmarks for the 6/12 8700K against the 6/12 3600.
The 8700K is quite faster in many games, from Battlefield (167/114 against 149/103) and Tomb Raider, 114/78 against 95/68. World War Z is another example.
Again the 3600 is a beast and does pretty well, coming within 5-10FPS sometimes...but also, half the time, its getting spanked.
This is the last time I am saying it, anyone trying to say its just at high resolutions or as extreme refresh rates is just lying to themselves, and thats biased fanboyism. You need to be open minded in the world of IT and always be willing to accept information and learn, if you choose to brand wave your only holding yourself back.
Last edited:
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
Could that be because you are both correct?
wiyosaya
Posts: 9,760 +9,644
Here's an interesting article at Tom's. While not quite on-topic, I think it is relevant - https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-discontinues-cascade-lake-xeon-m-slashes-l-model-pricing
Adi6293
Posts: 931 +1,309
This is proven to not be true, so you can keep saying it all you want, but that doesn't change the truth.
AMD Ryzen 5 3600 Review: Best All-Round Value CPU
The successor to our favorite best value CPU, the Ryzen 5 3600 is AMD's new $200 6-core, 12-thread processor. The chip clocks between 3.6 GHz and 4.2...
Look at the 1080p benchmarks for the 6/12 8700K against the 6/12 3600.
The 8700K is quite faster in many games, from Battlefield (167/114 against 149/103) and Tomb Raider, 114/78 against 95/68. World War Z is another example.
Again the 3600 is a beast and does pretty well, coming within 5-10FPS sometimes...but also, half the time, its getting spanked.
This is the last time I am saying it, anyone trying to say its just at high resolutions or as extreme refresh rates is just lying to themselves, and thats biased fanboyism. You need to be open minded in the world of IT and always be willing to accept information and learn, if you choose to brand wave your only holding yourself back.
Ok so you badic
Adi6293
Posts: 931 +1,309
This is proven to not be true, so you can keep saying it all you want, but that doesn't change the truth.
AMD Ryzen 5 3600 Review: Best All-Round Value CPU
The successor to our favorite best value CPU, the Ryzen 5 3600 is AMD's new $200 6-core, 12-thread processor. The chip clocks between 3.6 GHz and 4.2...
Look at the 1080p benchmarks for the 6/12 8700K against the 6/12 3600.
The 8700K is quite faster in many games, from Battlefield (167/114 against 149/103) and Tomb Raider, 114/78 against 95/68. World War Z is another example.
Again the 3600 is a beast and does pretty well, coming within 5-10FPS sometimes...but also, half the time, its getting spanked.
This is the last time I am saying it, anyone trying to say its just at high resolutions or as extreme refresh rates is just lying to themselves, and thats biased fanboyism. You need to be open minded in the world of IT and always be willing to accept information and learn, if you choose to brand wave your only holding yourself back.
Ok so they used a 2080Ti for one and for two that CPU cost half of what the 8700K does. If you changed the GPU to something cheaper ( not everyone has a 2080Ti ) say 2070 and played at 1440p you would hardly see a difference between those CPU's and that is a fact plus when you already running at over 100fps does it really matter what gives you extra 5fps? I really don't this is why I don't believe in Intel is king because the only thing they're king at is ripping you off
Evernessince
Posts: 5,469 +6,158
1) Steam doesn't provide the numbers behind it's survey, ever. Methodology and data is simply not provided. What you are presenting is a prima facie argument.
2) Chinese users shot up 17% in a single month along with GTX 1060 usage. There are indicators that things like Net Cafes significantly impact the survey's numbers improperly.
Steam has had and continues to have issues parsing about single machine, multiple-user data entries. People are right to suspect the survey's legitimacy as steam has proven that they do make errors.
Even if steam hadn't made any obvious errors, everyone should question a survey which does not detail it's methodology, which is a requirement for ANY survey to be taken seriously.
You seem to assume that steam's data collection methodology is perfect, all without even knowing how they do it and the potential issues it faces.
Just a heads up, only 1% of steam users a surveyed. Steam says "at random" but once again, no explanation is provided on this.
That does not explain the massive jump in Chinese users, which accounts for a majority of the jump. A big maybe if they were American users but Christmas is not the biggest sale day in China.
The Steam survey is actually quite useful. As dirtyferret has already stated, if you understand basic statistics, in order for a survey to be statistically significant, it DOES NOT need to be taken by everyone. They key is simply to have a large enough sample of disparate users and simple math will dictate that your results will be virtually identical to the entire population at large.
As has also been stated, "official surveys" show virtually identical splits, basically proving this point.
But yes, the title IS misleading
Data collected incorrectly is garbage data, regardless of the sample size. If you understand statistics, methodology needs to be published in order for it to have any legitimacy. Otherwise, you don't know if the methodology is actually gathering data representative of the market nor it's potential flaws. Not having the methodology also prevents you from checking the data independently, which is key to ensuring accuracy.
The 9700K and 8700K also match the 9900K in gaming as well. The 9900K, like AMD's 8 core CPUs, only benefit from games that take advantage of the additional cores. It's entirely possible to make a benchmark without them. Of course it makes sense that the 8700K and 9900K would perform equally in games that use 6 cores, they are the exact same architecture. In the end, which processor is "better" is going to depend on what games you are benchmarking but the fact that they are all so close just shows you how much of a wash it really is. In the end, Intel has 4 processors that all perform within margin of error of each other with identical architectures at the top. Meanwhile AMD is 4.1% away from them. The numbers speak for themselves.
"heck even 3-5 generation old i7's still hang with Ryzen or beat them."
False. The 7700K, only 3 generations old and Intel's top dog of the time, can't beat Ryzen, let alone 5 generations old Intel CPUs.
https://www.techspot.com/review/1869-amd-ryzen-3900x-ryzen-3700x/
"AMD's much more expensive chips"
What? AMD's 8c, 16t starts at $320. Intel's start at $500. The 9700K is over $400: https://www.newegg.com/core-i7-9th-...tion=9700K&cm_re=9700K-_-19-117-958-_-Product
Almost $60 over the price you quoted and that's not including the fact that AMD CPUs come with a cooler.
"For the majority of people gaming, Intel is superior."
Is that why TechSpot recommends AMD CPUs at every price point the majority of people will be buying at, gaming or otherwise?
"And the folks making the 'only at certain resolutions or with certain GPU's' argument need to go look at the results again. Intel's chips are faster across the board, at various low/high resolutions and with various GPU's both red and green."
WITH A 2080 TI, the 9900K wins by 2.8% at 1440p. In case you are not aware, that's well within margin of error and not statistically significant enough to declare one better then the other. Any lesser GPU and that 2.8% shrinks even more. Any higher resolution shrinks that lead to LESS THEN A PERCENTAGE. That's a best case scenario, given that's their top end chip.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/22.html
Even with a 2080 Ti, which a vast majority of people are not using, that is not wiping the floor. That's too close to call.
JaredTheDragon
Posts: 685 +443
Imagine not even knowing that the "business market" has been using AMD processors the entire time. I do CGI - 3D architectural visualization, specifically - for a living. Perhaps you've seen all the Vray and Corona and Cinema 4D benchmarks on this site before? That's us. That's what we use, as data sets when upgrading our computers.
That's THE business market for these processors. Me. I've still got two 8350s and an 8120 running and rendering right now, in fact. That's how the "business market" is working.
This is proven to not be true, so you can keep saying it all you want, but that doesn't change the truth.
AMD Ryzen 5 3600 Review: Best All-Round Value CPU
The successor to our favorite best value CPU, the Ryzen 5 3600 is AMD's new $200 6-core, 12-thread processor. The chip clocks between 3.6 GHz and 4.2...
Look at the 1080p benchmarks for the 6/12 against the 6/12 3600.
The 8700K is quite faster in many games, from Battlefield (167/114 against 149/103) and Tomb Raider, 114/78 against 95/68. World War Z is another example.
Again the 3600 is a beast and does pretty well, coming within 5-10FPS sometimes...but also, half the time, its getting spanked.
This is the last time I am saying it, anyone trying to say its just at high resolutions or as extreme refresh rates is just lying to themselves, and thats biased fanboyism. You need to be open minded in the world of IT and always be willing to accept information and learn, if you choose to brand wave your only holding yourself back.
It is very telling that you need pick an Intel CPU that is more than double the price of the AMD one to get one that gives better gaming benchmarks. Actual conclusion of the article you linked to (they compare to the more similarly priced, but still more expensive i5):
"The Intel Core i5 was a little faster in a few of the games tested, but the R5 3600 was miles faster where you’ll notice it. So this one's pretty cut and dry unless Intel decides to cut pricing heavily."
Karl Hungus
Posts: 87 +53
I have issues with that statement from that article as it definitely matters what resolution you play at. The 3600 is a direct competitor to the 9600KF (these are the ones I'm considering...I don't care about on-board video), which was just cheaper than the 3600 by $20CDN ($249 CDN on Newegg.ca). I game at 1440p, and if I was to buy right now (I'm not until next year maybe) the 9600K is the clear winner by a fairly wide margin.
I don't care either way which one I get and would like to go with the 'underdog' AMD, but I only upgrade every 10 years or so when I start to notice ACTUAL performance issues that are ACTUALLY related to my CPU...5 - 10% gains are a waste of $ unless my games are stuttering or playing at 40fps or something. Better off upgrading the video card. Anyways, from that article if it's today that I'm upgrading, I would have to go with the 9600KF. If the 3600 were $25 cheaper, I'd certainly go for that instead.
Shadowboxer
Posts: 2,074 +1,655
I don’t have any direct benchmarks. However, from gamers nexus review you can see a stock 7700K is around 7% faster than an overclocked R5 3600;
AMD Ryzen 5 3600 CPU Review & Benchmarks: Strong Recommendation from GN | GamersNexus
stub Alongside the 3900X and 3700X that we’re also reviewing, AMD launched its R5 3600 today to the public. We got a production sample of one of the R5 3600 CPUs through a third-party and, after seeing its performance, we wanted to focus first on this one for our initial Ryzen 3000 review. We’ve...
If you then look at gamers nexus review of the 7700K there is only 1fps difference between the 7700K and the 4790K at stock as they are very similar chips;
Intel i7-7700K Review: Gaming, Rendering, Temps, & Overclocking
For this Intel i7-7700K review, we’ll be looking at thermal challenges, blender rendering performance, gaming performance, and synthetic applications. Among those, FireStrike, TimeSpy, and Cinebench are included. - P6: FPS Benchmarks – 7700K vs. 6700K, 4790K, 2600K
Ergo, it’s reasonably safe to assume that the 4790K when overclocked will be faster than a 7700K and therefore faster than the overclocked R5 3600 in games. I can confirm this personally, my housemate has a stock 7700K and gets a lower single and multithreaded score in cinebench than my 4790K at 4.9ghz does. I understand it’s not a direct comparison but it’s hard to find reviewers that have directly compared a 4790K with a 3xxx Ryzen part. This YouTube video is the best I can find and they most trade blows at stock, however the i7 will gain much more from an overclock than the Ryzen part.
Either way, my point stands, if you own an Intel quad from like a 3770K onwards, you probably wouldn’t notice much difference in games upgrading to most of today’s chips from AMD or Intel, maybe if you’re gaming at 144hz you might notice improvements with modern silicon but that’s about it. If AMD want us gamers to make the leap from our reliable Intel quad they need to offer us a noticeable leap in gaming performance. Same goes for Intel. Especially as chips cost a lot more than they used to (the entry level 3600 is only slightly cheaper than what I paid for my 4790k - a flagship product at the time!)
Intel have been criticised for offering basically the same silicon every year, however that means that users on older chips havent been left behind. And gaming doesn’t scale very well beyond 4 cores yet, that is changing but wont within the lifetime of today’s CPUs.
Of course both AMD an Intel (considerably more so from AMD) offer vastly more than they used to when it comes to core count and multithreaded workloads. However gaming is provably limited by single threaded performance.
Karl Hungus
Posts: 87 +53
Yes, exactly. People need to be honest with themselves...they're upgrading their CPU for the sake of upgrading, not to see significant increases to performance in games. These are usually the same ones that think you'll see 'HUGE GAINS' moving from DDR3 to DDR4 ram, which is completely false. Big CPU gains ended almost 10 years ago. Going from my Athlon 64+ to an i5 4670K was a pretty big upgrade. Going from the 4670K@4.4GHz to a 3600 or 9600K will not see much of a boost in games at all. I may end up just upgrading because I want a few of the newer features that a new motherboard offers, but that would be the main reason...that, and boredom.
There are games now that use more than 4 cores the battlefield series is a good example. So this statement isn't accurate. And how can you make this claim about the life time of todays cpu's?
The next gen of consoles will be using 8 core Zen 2 chips, so games will be made to use more than a Quad core with in the lifetime of those consoles, those same games will see PC ports for some of them.
Alot of new AMD build these days are using the 3700x only those on limited budgets would be using the 3600.
If you guys want to stick to Haswell Quads for 10 years enjoy I already play games that a quad core is a bottleneck.
Karl Hungus
Posts: 87 +53
I can play BFV, BF1, and Battlefront 2 at 1440p at my max refresh of 75fps with my 'old' quad-core at Ultra settings just fine. These aren't games I enjoy playing (I got two of them free, one for $12...twitchy high-school kid shooters...my sons play them all), but I use them to test stability on my overclock as they are some of the RARE games that do utilize all cores. Why would I upgrade then? Nerd-status? Also if people are putting in a 3700x for gaming instead of a 3600 they are just throwing cash in the toilet:
https://www.techspot.com/review/1871-amd-ryzen-3600/
Last edited:
Well I guess that would depend on if 100% of the time all you do is play games on your PC and nothing else. Since PC's are multipurpose devices I kinda don't see the point of that but to each their own.If the focus is just games only why not just buy a console will be much cheaper.
Karl Hungus
Posts: 87 +53
Yes, my desktop is pretty much 100% for games. Any 1990's PC can browse the internet. I use a PC precisely for the reason that I can play DCS World, Steel Beasts Pro PE, Squad, Post Scriptum, Workers & Resources, Combat Mission, ANNO 1800, Transport Fever 2, etc, etc. If I played nothing but Sports and FPS games, I would have a console.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Logitech thinks the computer mouse needs an AI upgrade- Dimitrios replied
-
Lenovo is first to announce LPCAMM2 memory-equipped laptop- Shawn Knight replied
-
US TikTok ban could begin next year as Biden signs law, but legal battle looms- dirtyferret replied
