Thread has been deleted
Last comment
INTEL X AMD.
 | 
Brazil dihshow 
I've always been an intel user, I decided to test AMD, a few years ago, I had a bad experience, with system overheating and shutdown, I tried to do all kinds of process, add coolers but nothing fixed the problem, so i decided to sell whole PC and bought a new i5, It's been 5 years since i bought this chipset and its working fine, i play CS GO without any problem. nowadays people say that AMD has improved a lot, and this warming problem has been solved, as I'm planning to switch my PC by the end of this year, I'm wondering if it's worth giving AMD and its Ryzen chipsets chance again, or i just upgrade a new generation of i5. Waht u guys think?
2019-07-20 23:02
#1
 | 
Brazil dihshow 
UP :)
2019-07-20 23:09
#16
 | 
Switzerland sl4p3z 
just get I7 9700K AMD got another issues like latency (ex: inputlag) (Intel processes better usb drivers)
2019-07-21 00:59
#20
 | 
Canada TheHDisnow 
uh wait a bit intel 9th gen core is probably either the penultimate or ultimate core chip, intel's working on sunny cove rn (core replacement) u might just be buying a new 7700k lol
2019-07-21 01:04
4c in 2k19
2019-07-21 01:06
#27
 | 
Canada TheHDisnow 
what I meant was that buying core rn would be like hopping on a sinking ship, sort of like buying the 7700k back in 2017 only to get replaced by 8700k
2019-07-21 01:08
k
2019-07-21 01:09
Then what about the security issues with the Intel chips? Or that AMD delivers more bang for the buck?
2019-07-21 03:55
#61
 | 
Switzerland sl4p3z 
what security issues ? you mean Intel ME and AMD PSP ? both spying us
2019-07-21 04:01
He's talking about spectre and meltdown, intel had to sacrifice performance to mitigate them such as drop hyperthreading and decrease performance. The 9th generation handles it better but the only one with hyperthreading are the i9s.
2019-07-21 10:42
+1
2019-07-21 11:41
#84
 | 
Switzerland sl4p3z 
oh ok no big deal
2019-07-21 12:05
idk men, using a ryzen 5 1600 with stock cooler for 1.5 years now and no problems so far))
2019-07-20 23:11
+1
2019-07-20 23:16
yes men))
2019-07-20 23:11
#4
 | 
Germany cucKingxaxa)) 
yes new ryzen 3000 really good men((((
2019-07-20 23:12
#5
 | 
Europe Vallon3 
No matter what anyone says and how much they hate on Intel, fact remains they have the best chips when it comes to performance. If you want the best, it's them, no way around that fact. AMD simply has a MUCH better bang-for-buck ratio.
2019-07-20 23:13
Not anymore, Intel is reducing the prices for their chips
2019-07-20 23:14
#14
 | 
Iceland fatboislim 
and intel having better performance is false aswell today, and amd cpu's use less power. and intel still has locked cpu's.
2019-07-20 23:23
#17
 | 
Switzerland sl4p3z 
check #16 . i prefer latency over fps tbh
2019-07-21 00:59
what do u call latency ?
2019-07-21 01:07
#35
 | 
Switzerland sl4p3z 
2019-07-21 01:24
80ns ? Omegalul
2019-07-21 01:38
One millisecond is 100,000 nanoseconds. The input lag is 80 nanoseconds more. You're absolutely retarded if you think that's even matters lol
2019-07-21 02:35
#50
 | 
Switzerland sl4p3z 
its not NS wtf thats bullshit from the guy commenting test your CPU with LatencyMon.exe and you will see
2019-07-21 02:40
It is nanoseconds.
2019-07-21 03:52
#62
 | 
Croatia mds818 
dude who cares about psu
2019-07-21 04:05
#73
 | 
Iceland fatboislim 
less power=less heat=better overclocking ability even with cheap mobos.
2019-07-21 10:32
#75
 | 
Croatia mds818 
if you had good cpu in the first place you wouldn't need overclocking, and we all know that overclocking is not exactly good for cpus
2019-07-21 10:37
#21
 | 
Canada TheHDisnow 
Actually for CSGO no, intel's getting beat by ryzen 3rd gen in csgo for some strange reason (and it's like one of the two games where zen 2 beats core)
2019-07-21 01:05
#26
 | 
Bulgaria vectralsoul 
lmao If you're after those last 5 fps in games, then sure. In everything else, AMD bangs the shit outta Intel with 3rd gen Ryzen. :-)
2019-07-21 01:08
in games (although now not even in every game) for prductivity amd demolishes intel
2019-07-21 01:16
#80
 | 
Europe tweekzter 
For most applications this is irrelevant tho. What most people wanna have, is decent gaming power for a good price. And there you cannot beat AMD. I'm saying this although I've only ever used Intel.
2019-07-21 10:53
ryzen 2200g 3.9oc here and dont pass 65c, usually 60c on bf5 and heavy games, all with the cooler box. the new ones are even better. I can oc it to 4ghz if i want.
2019-07-20 23:14
can u really? duuude im scared
2019-07-21 03:47
How much fps on cs and what res/settings?
2019-07-21 10:07
150-250 on majority of time. goes 120 fps sometimes but i dont feel stuttering. gpu rx580 1080p all low except textures are on high it goes 120 probably because i have only 1 ram stick and ryzen like to use dual channel.
2019-07-21 18:31
Nice man why do you have a graphics card with a 2200g though? Wouldnt the 2200g have enough to run csgo since you use low settings
2019-07-21 23:00
to play other games like bf5, the witcher 3, tomb raider or any game i want. I dont play csgo so often anymore, i dont even have a rank. i bought a 2200g cuz a 2600 was twice the price at the time.
2019-07-22 00:11
amd really good mens, I have AMD GPU and CPU
2019-07-20 23:14
#18
 | 
Belgium RobinDG 
Amd gpu no good men Especially the old ones men
2019-07-21 01:01
#34
pronax | 
Russia ShadTH 
588>1066 btw
2019-07-21 01:18
Navi is not bad
2019-07-21 02:09
rx 580 seems decent
2019-07-21 09:54
The new AMD processors seem like magic. Me and my friend have about the same rig, but he has one of the new AMD CPU:s, and it gets magic-like performance.
2019-07-20 23:16
#10
 | 
Finland M0nzaa 
Rule nr1: dont come to hltv for hardware advice :()
2019-07-20 23:16
As a guy who uses the 1700X I cant confirm, nor deny how good the newer 3rd gen CPU's are. But I can say that almost all reviews I've seen have said that the 3rd gen ryzen processors perform better than intel ones in gaming! They've always been good for productivity and professional use-cases (My first gen ryzen chip was far better than intel counter-parts at the time in benchmark tests), but they're now better in basically every environment. TL;DR: I would recommend an AMD cpu as they offer more power and better value in almost all use-cases. (From the reviews I've seen / my own experience)
2019-07-20 23:19
#13
 | 
Poland SalamiXgod 
I have Ryzen actually and I can reccomend 0 overheating temp. around 30-40 max
2019-07-20 23:21
#15
 | 
South America PartisanGrill 
The new rizen has better single and multicore core rating than Intel. m.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
2019-07-21 00:56
i will be honest, i have 8700k and sometimes in csgo i have small stutters, especially when round ends
2019-07-21 01:03
AMD and GeForce - dream team
2019-07-21 01:06
#30
 | 
Canada TheHDisnow 
that's what it used to be until amd decided to buy ati
2019-07-21 01:14
I have an outdated AMD processor (FX-8320E) and so far it's just fine and i've had no problems. Imo, if you want to invest a lot of money on a processor, Intel is better, if you just want a medium performance processor that will be ok, buy an AMD.
2019-07-21 01:07
3900x
2019-07-21 01:09
if you get i5 over ryzen 5 youre a moron
2019-07-21 01:15
Picking up everything apart from 9900k or 9700k ( if you buy intel ) is retarded
2019-07-21 02:12
Benchmarks are generally 50/50 and can be skewed. Are you on a budget? Then you will most likely get more bang for the buck by going full AMD. My personal experience is that you get what you pay for. AMD is cheaper, but for a reason. You are more likely to get a bad experience out of their hardware combinations. I've had quite a few Radeon cards over the years and I've had countless bad experiences with driver issues and compatibitlity. You want the best possible gaming rig that will give you 100% compatibility with everything then Intel + Nvidia is the way to go. This is based on my personal experience with Intel + AMD for over 20 years.
2019-07-21 01:16
Sorry, I might have missed it but It seems that your personal experience doesn’t provide benchmarks
2019-07-21 02:14
Most of these benchmark sites are biased. I purchase my hardware based on experience, not what someone else preaches. I doubt the OP gives a crap about some PassMark benchmark. You show me some actual ingame benchmarks where AMD has better performance overall and from a site that is not biased and runs the optimal hardware combinations for both vendors. Based on MY experience you get a better bang for the buck with AMD. But don't tell me you get a better compatibility or overall performance with AMD than Intel + NVIDIA combination.
2019-07-21 02:24
compatibility with what ? We r talking about cpu btw
2019-07-21 02:31
With games? General software? A basic CPU benchmark doesn't tell anything from a gaming perspective other than measuring pure CPU vs CPU calculations the AMD Ryzen appears faster in PassMark. But when it comes to getting the most out of games or software you need to take other things into regard such as compatibility, hardware setups, hardware compatibilities. Intel is better overall in those regards. If they aren't then please explain to me why there is no AMD system in the top20 on PassMarks PC systems benchmark? pcbenchmarks.net/fastest-desktop.html Is it because Intel just has MUCH better general compatibility with OS, software and games? Uhm, yes.
2019-07-21 02:34
Compatibility with game ? Os ?
2019-07-21 02:42
You realise this list doesn’t make sens right ?
2019-07-21 02:47
#71
 | 
United Kingdom aight_bet 
so what you're saying is that intel is better in everything even rendering editing and compiling.
2019-07-21 10:12
I have ryzen 5 2600 and rx580, no problems at all for 9 months now. I bought r5 2600 at half a price of i5-8600 which is pretty equal in terms of performance, and got the best rx580 (nitro) at 30 dollars lower than standard 1060, it depends on your budget, and yes from what people say AMD has fixed the heating problems
2019-07-21 01:28
#38
 | 
Europe Nomarosa 
Both are great. Just go with whatever is cheaper in your country.
2019-07-21 01:39
intel incel
2019-07-21 02:26
#44
 | 
United States n3h 
AMD is catching up but I feel like INTEL will be coming back with something big soon. Then again by the time intel releases 7nm cpu's AMD will already be releasing 6/5nm cpu's.
2019-07-21 02:33
I’m gonna try out amd for my next build, it will save me some money and hopefully it will perform well
2019-07-21 02:33
If you want to support the company supporting the most cs:go esport scene, then go for Intel. If not, idk
2019-07-21 02:33
Depending on your budget, grab a Ryzen 3700X or Ryzen 3600X (3600 if you're comfortable overclocking it). Make sure you also buy fast enough RAM, and if purchasing an older X470/B450/X370 motherboard, make sure it either has support for the new generation (I think MSI is releasing some) or has a bios flashback feature allowing you to flash the bios without a CPU. Anyone saying Intel is better is a massive Intel fanboy. But don't take my, or their word for it, read some reviews.
2019-07-21 03:00
i only buy amd because its cheaper))
2019-07-21 03:12
#64
 | 
Croatia mds818 
you have to be realistic in some points, take for example newest/currently strongest intel and amd cpu, now be realistic for how many years that cpu is going to be legit.. 10, if not 15? In 10 years countless stuff is going to change and the money you put in the cpu just wont be worth it..
2019-07-21 04:10
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here exactly, the CPU's I suggested are not the strongest at all, they are in the sweet spot for price/performance for gamers. AMD currently have a significant performance and price/performance advantage over Intel, the only reason to choose Intel right now is if you are a fanboy and have significant disposable income. I'm still using my I7 3770K from over 7 years ago, it's starting to struggle as is to be expected, 15 years is highly unlikely for any CPU ever, even post Moore's law.
2019-07-21 10:03
#74
 | 
Croatia mds818 
all i'm trying to say is if you buy "overpowered" or best cpu right now, it wont be any use of it if you take average gpu for example, there's no point in making a build which has one great part and other average because eventually you will have to change other parts and it wont be worth it really... then goes the compactibility etc... I don't know cpus which you listed and their performance, but I know that I have 5yo build and it was great "average" build back then and right now all parts are slowly outdated, still good for any game but not perfect for the newest games(ie nfs 2015)... i5 4440 and r7 260x 8gb ram, if I put i7 I'd now have a good cpu and terrible gpu...
2019-07-21 10:36
Well I completely disagree, it's great to buy a good CPU and upgrade the GPU in the middle of the systems life. I made a build 7 years ago with an Nvidia GTX 660 and an I7 3770k. When the GTX 1060 6gb came out, 4 years after I built the PC, I put one of those in and it's been a perfect match. I plan on a new build next year after 8 years total system life. I've done this with my last 3 builds and it's worked perfectly every time as the GPU is the first to become obsolete regardless of how high end you buy and it's also the easiest to replace. Regardless of any of this, I'm not sure why you would make this comment in response to mine considering the fact that the CPU's I suggested are not top end anyway, and as I said, are in the sweet spot for price/performance (especially the R5 3600 if he overclocks it).
2019-07-21 14:50
#87
 | 
Croatia mds818 
well as said I dont know specs of amd cpus etc im making a point in general, from your example.. you have 7yo build for xyz price and after that you had to pay xyz for new gpu, I paid my build ~800euros and after 5 years it's still working great but as said getting outdated.. I can invest another 1000 and have it for next 5 years or so etc.. I know a guy who paid his build 5000 euros and now roughly 4-5 years later it's worth around 1500..
2019-07-21 18:48
Do you plan on using the system you have for another 3 years without any upgrades? You say it's working great, but a 5 year old graphics card is actually terrible now, really terrible. A 1060 6gb was a small investment and the returns have been well worth it, if I'd used your logic I'd be playing on an old i5 and a gtx 660, all for the sake of saving 50euro on the i7 and being too cheap to upgrade the graphics card when it definitely needed it (regardless of the choice of CPU in the initial purchase). If you'd spent an extra 50 euro on an i7 when you built yours, you could've bought a cheap 1080 earlier this year and it'd still be a very strong system, it wouldn't be feeling outdated at all for probably a few more years. Instead, now you either have to play on a sluggish system or spend a tonne of money building a new one. A ridiculous $5k example is not representative of what spending up to a few hundred dollars extra and actually buying in the price/performance sweet spot will get you, there is always diminishing returns for top of the line products and they're never worth it. If you paid ~800 euros, in my opinion you should've paid ~850 and your system would be feeling much less dated now. A simple graphics card upgrade and it'd feel like a whole new system. Your friend would've bought the R9 3900X in this example, and paid well over double the price of an R5 3600 for relatively minimal gaming performance gains. You would buy a 3400G and save a tiny bit of money for a relatively huge performance hit. A better informed person would buy in the sweet spot and pick up a 3600 or if they want some extra and have the money, a 3700X. It's odd to make a comment like that when you don't know the specs btw. Anyone buying a lesser CPU than a 3600 is doing it simply because they don't have the money for something better, not for any other reason. If the OP can't afford, it he won't buy it regardless. imo if he can't afford a 3600 he should save the money and keep using the system he has.
2019-07-22 00:59
#91
 | 
Croatia mds818 
I don't know, maybe I might buy one more pc once maybe I won't ever buy it again, I'm not really that interested in games anymore tbh If I wanted to buy i7 5 years ago it would be extra 100+$ and more and i5 back then was way over the average cpus and amd was not an option at all back then because they were terrible. Dude, you're talking about new cpus and I'm saying that he has 4-5yo old setup, if you were informed you wouldn't give me the new cpus when i'm talking about 5yo ones, even more you wouldn't suggest me an amd if you knew that they were melting from overheating back then, and we're talking about the person who is in IT business for past 15 years so trust me, he does know what's he doing and buying(and I'd doubt if you even had a pc 15 years ago) so either roll back the years and give proper argument or don't comment at all because we're talking about amd x intel and not why should someone buy amd if he can't afford intel
2019-07-22 01:12
I've been building my own PC's for over 20 years, I've been using PC's for 30. I never suggested an AMD for 5 years ago, I said an i7 would've been a better option and I made a very clear argument as to why. "we're talking about amd x intel and not why should someone buy amd if he can't afford intel" I haven't said anything about 'affording Intel', in fact I haven't even mentioned a current Intel processor, not once, they aren't worth considering right now regardless of the price point. I addressed that in my initial comment. Further to that, you admitted yourself that you know nothing about the current AMD offerings, have you considered that maybe you are the one who shouldn't be commenting on a thread about AMD vs Intel when you know nothing about one entire side of the argument (or both). I also never said your friend didn't know what he was doing when he wasted all that money. People often do it just to have the best of the best, which is fine but the small performance gains are just not worth it for most people. Hell I once bought an ATI radeon 4870x2, it was insanely expensive, but I had the money and it was fun for me to own a dual core graphics card. I think if I was stuck using your outdated PC I wouldn't be interested in PC gaming either, you really should've bought an i7 and upgraded your graphics card earlier this year. i5 was not 'way over the average', some people were justifying i5's by saying that the extra threads of an i7 didn't help for gaming, or that an i5 was enough for gaming. They have been proven very wrong.
2019-07-22 01:43
#96
 | 
Croatia mds818 
Dude, my setup is not worrying me about gaming, I just don't see passion in games anymore, I'm used to games that are from early-mid 2000s, I tried gta v imo it sucks, I tried fortnite imo it sucks, I tried far cry 3 and 4 it sucks, tried assasin's creed after ezio and altair stories, imo they suck.. it's not about pc or performance it's about other stuff which is hard to explain in short words.. "Your friend would've bought the R9 3900X in this example, and paid well over double the price of an R5 3600 for relatively minimal gaming performance gains." yes, maybe if we're talking about today, but back then 5 years ago amd was literally not an option, intel could put up prices high up as much as they want even more than they do now+ consider the fact that prices are not the same in every country..(in croatia's case it's without a doubt more expensive) I know that i7 would be a better option back then but you need to understand that I paid 800 euros for the pc, if I put i7 it would be 900, if i added something else or did some minor upgrade would be easy 1000 and the fact is that back then avg salary was 500 euros.. and I paid i5 over 200 euros , To give you an example of "average" pc back then, in 2008 or so I bought a pc with dual core amd 2.6ghz(idk exactly which model) cpu, 9600GT 512mb and 2gb of ram(later upgraded to 4gb), that setup could run apb,crysis, dayz and pretty much nearly every game for next 6 or so years, my friends(most of them or a lot of them) couldn't even start those games or if they could they would either play on 20fps or remove every single graphic object to play on 40.. that was the average pc back then and it was from 2008-2014, in 2014 I bought new setup
2019-07-22 01:57
Why do you keep talking about AMD 5 years ago? It's irrelevant. Nobody, anywhere, ever is or was saying that anyone should've bought AMD 5 years ago. Personally, I haven't built with them for about 15 years. I'm talking about today because that is what's relevant to the topic and helpful to the OP. I used the AMD processors in my example because they are what I suggested to the OP in my initial comment. If you had asked me for advice back then, I would've suggested that you wait a few months and save a little more money to be able to afford the i7, no other upgrades, just the processor. It would've been worth it. That is also what I would suggest to the OP if he can't afford a 3600 now, especially considering he's looking to replace a system which is essentially fine. Going lower does not make economic sense in the long term. Sure, it's slightly cheaper right now, but you won't get the same enjoyable life out of the parts. Things are slightly more complicated now that graphics card prices have ballooned due to mining and memory cost but the same principals apply.
2019-07-22 02:25
#99
 | 
Croatia mds818 
Because I'm talking about the builds in general which can last, yes I know and I agree that right now amd is pretty damn good but my point is that whatever if you buy intel or amd they won't be a mistake, the whole thread(posted by the author) is how newest best amd cpu is better than best intel's cpu and my point was that it's not worth to buy the best cpu in the market(regardless if its amd or intel) when you have to balance out your cpu with your gpu and other stuff+the fact that the prices are going to drop in the couple of years(as taken from example 5000 build going down to 1500) But back then I had different reasons to upgrade my pc, it was not really out of being extremly outdated, I had to upgrade because I put so many mods on samp that my pc(or any other infact) couldn't handle it and it was more exhausting to run my samp of 20+gb(normal one is 3.7) than gta v.., and obviously going from dual core 2.6 from 2008 to quad core 3.1 from 2013/14 idk would solve the problem.. same thing goes for gpu, also buying i7 back then would be like buying i9 now..
2019-07-22 02:31
And btw, there is a guy just below my comment #54 who is suggesting 3900x or 9900k, perhaps your initial response would have been better suited to his comment considering he's actually suggesting 'top of the line' hardware and I'm only suggesting mid/mid-high range.
2019-07-22 02:30
#100
 | 
Croatia mds818 
maybe, looking up at the thread again perhaps I missed something but my whole point which I was making was that it's better to buy mid/high cpu(regardless of intel/(amd) than to buy the best cpu and later regretting it...
2019-07-22 02:33
And if you glance at the AMD offerings, you'll see that is exactly what I'm recommending to the OP. Which is why, as I said in #67, your response to me made no sense. AMD not only has better overall performance right now, but it also has better price/performance, which is why I recommend AMD. As I said, you will see Intel fanboys say all kinds of things, but any neutral can see that AMD is a far better option right now.
2019-07-22 02:44
#102
 | 
Croatia mds818 
I know that(as said I dont know the specs in details but I know that they're better atm), but my whole point is that if you buy a 2000$ cpu then you should also get a 1500 or 2000$ gpu and not the 200$ one, that's the point of balance and "average" gaming pcs... unless you want to buy all the best parts and watch them drop on the price...
2019-07-22 03:00
at least here the 3900x costs the same as 9900k, its better for csgo but overall around 5% slower in gaming though you get 12 cores with the 3900x which is great, its more future proof and it doesnt require 999 patches for all the vulnerabilities like some old homeless junkie on rehab
2019-07-21 03:08
#57
 | 
Denmark Ritsuryo 
has been using intel for years unless something dramatically changes i wont switch to amd most of the time intel gives me higher and constant framerates and ive been using them for years and never had issue with it, when ryzen 1 came out i build one for my mate and were having some issues with amd and dont want to try it again.
2019-07-21 03:51
#93
 | 
Canada TheHDisnow 
well those issues were fixed later, and it's not like intel doesn't have them (X299 flashbacks anyone?)
2019-07-22 01:16
AMD has just earlier this month launched a whole new generation of CPU's and also GPU's. On the CPU side it looks really good for AMD Ithink, they are on par with Intel in single-core and offer more cores and multi-core performance than Intel at lower prices. AMD is also the only platform with PCI E 4.0, but that is currently not so relevant. I think AMD looks like the clearly best choice and give it a few months there will be many more with actual experience so then it will be clear if there is issues.
2019-07-21 04:00
#63
 | 
Croatia mds818 
couple of years ago amd indeed had such issues but apparently they're very good now, however I have 5yo old setup with i5 and got zero issues, I don't see a point in switching to amd if intel is giving me a secured and good cpu
2019-07-21 04:07
amd still trash.
2019-07-21 09:56
#68
 | 
Bulgaria Amerikana 
i9
2019-07-21 10:04
#70
 | 
Slovakia TweakZz 
I prefer AMD i have intel in past now i AMD Cpu with AMD Gpu and is much better then Intel for me
2019-07-21 10:10
Intel + Nvidia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AMD
2019-07-21 10:12
intel all the way
2019-07-21 10:39
If u have cash Intel. If u don't have cash ... save up to buy Intel. I will never buy AMD again. And only bought it in the past when I wasn't working yet and no cashies.
2019-07-21 10:43
#79
 | 
Kyrgyzstan Peksi 
If you are on a budget go amd, if not go intel. Intel is better in games, but amd is way cheaper.
2019-07-21 10:44
intel gave me no reasons to change , i would go with intel+nvidia
2019-07-21 11:27
#82
frozen | 
Czech Republic potruss 
I have 5 years old AMD with stock cooler and it doesnt overheat at all. Now all the new AMD cores are on the same level as their intel equivalents, just cheaper so there is absolutly no reason to buy intels rn. And you dont need to go with AMD GPU since they are worse then nVidia. Just buy a high freq. RAM, it makes AMD cores run better
2019-07-21 11:31
#92
 | 
United States jay_320 
9900k and 3900x trade blows. 3900x blows it away if you do anything multi-threaded. 9900k wins in *most* games although CSGO is actually oddly a game AMD is really close to Intel in. I bought a 3900x. At this point I'll take the 5% average gaming drop. The GPU has a way larger effect on what I do day to day then worrying about an 8 or 12 core that are both pushing GPU limits at 1440p.
2019-07-22 01:16
I have been stress testing my cpu to see how hot it gets under 100% load with a program called Prime95. There is a feature in bios called Cool and Quiet. When i disable that the max temp i get is 75. Otherwise, when it is enabled it rises to 81-82. The highest temp it gets is 82 in summer with a room temperature and this is the most extreme situation, when playing BF1 it stays on 60-65 degrees. So actually yes AMD is not that bad at cooling. Ryzen 3 2200G with stock cooler btw.
2019-07-22 01:27
Rating-o-meter
NEXT MATCH
0.77
Help GTR perform and have a chance to win a package for your team
Boost his rating with
Runtime Nutrition
20% on everything at
Click here to have a chance to win
BOOST
BOOST
BOOST
Login or register to add your comment to the discussion.