INTEL because I use it
7 replies
massive L bro.. Intel stinks
6 replies
name checks out
dont care didnt ask
plus ur a liquid fan
3 replies
inb4 Intel is better than AMD
16 replies
intel less performance for 4x the price xD
15 replies
14 replies
13 replies
5 replies
2 replies
5 replies
Svenska pojke?
26 replies
AMD is better now ? what ???
22 replies
yes AMD 7 nm chips while intel is stuck at 14 nm. AMD cheaper CPUs with more cores.
20 replies
the cores are irrelevant, if the game doesnt support that much. the new i9 9900KS has all 8 cores at 5 Ghz
17 replies
future games will obviously support more cores. People used to say that you don't need more than four cores too. low cores / thread don't age well, never have.
14 replies
No they wont. People have been saying "games will start supporting more cores" for literally a decade. It's not going to happen. To this day beyond 4 cores for gaming is pointless. My 5.5 year old 4790k still performs about 90% as well as a 3950x lmao.
12 replies
6 cores is already pretty standard. you are extremely naive if you think future games won't adjust for this but go ahead and waste your money. it mainly took long to adjust because of Intel's dominance but now the situation looks very different
10 replies
So explain why for the past 12 years people have been spouting this bullshit and it still hasn't changed a bit?
People thought that because of 8 core chips in next gen consoles, PC games would also start also utilizing more cores. But it hasn't happened. If you limit a 9900k to use 4 cores only you still get 95% of the framerate in every game. 6+ cores has been mainstream for 3 years now, so where is your evidence? Can you provide a single game?
9 replies
BFV. there.
cpus aren't the bottleneck for most games, so of course fps don't increase much. but most of those are old games that started development like five years ago and most engine focused on few cores, but games adjust to the hardware available, so that trend has changed.
but go on and buy some shitty 4 or 6 core/threads cpu and watch it age like shit
2 replies
1 reply
yeah it's very likely that PS5 will have 8+ threads and even older cpus like the AMD 1600 have that.
yea gl with that, games cant jump from 1 core to 16 in 1 moment, just compere games from kinda 10 years ago when i3 2/4 was much better then 8 cores amd fx, but what happend in 2020? that amd fx that was worse then i3 of that generation is better then i5 of that generation in modern games, that would happend again, maybe no in 2021 or 2022 but sooner or later games would support more cores
why would you overpay for cpu that may run 5ghz but require amazing cooling for that that wont be much better in games and would be way worse in overall perfomance?
i9 9900k in price = r9 3900x, so you pay for cpu that have 8/16 or you might take 12/24 that would be way better overall and a bit worse in games(i bet 1000$ that if you play in r9 3900x and i9900k you wont even guess where is intel cuz in games there is no difference between 150 and 160 fps or 300 - 330
4 replies
3 replies
yea fx had weird system woudnt call that 8 cores, also it's better then just 4 cores, kinda 4/8, but still main point that back then i3-5>>>>>>>>>>fx but as of now same cpus fx>i3-5, so more core more future proof, and for me cpu is most useless part in computer for gaming if you not streaming or using some prof software, just buy some cheap used(cpu is kinda most consistent part so you can ez buy used ones) i5-r5(depends on a price) i bought mine r5 1600 just for 80$, and it's probably best price perfomance cpu right now, you need invest in gpu-ssd-monitor for gaming, my 1600 is enough for gaming and i wont feel any big difference in gaming even if i take 9900k, but better gpu is amazing, ssd for games too, fuck that hdd gta5 loading for years, right now with ssd it's so fucking good
2 replies
1 reply
it depends on video setting, i guess you know with some settings pentium = 9900k?
for me quallity of video >>> fps(ofc if it already over 100)
1600 can perform 100+ fps almost in every game enough for 90-99% of "gamers" , you just need better gpu
so with that 2080 can provide you way better video quallity then just fps
For me i guess good cpu need only for pro gamers and thats all
Just 3 years ago quad cores were still king. The i5 7600K was destroying the Ryzen 1600. By the end of 2019 it was a complete 180 and the i5 was struggling to keep up. 2020 and beyond it will only get worse for low thread count CPUs. Why do you think Intel suddenly upped the game increased the core count on their desktop parts? Its not a charity. The next generation from Intel is rumored to have hyperthreading across the board, just like AMD.
kek 8 cores in 2020.
ayymd
I use intel, but I think that today AMD is the most benefic option. Intel was better a few years ago imo.
i had intel and amd, both are great in what they offer so i guess i donc really care as long as they give me what i want...
pentium for life
2 replies
pentium meaning intel?
1 reply
Either that or just swears by retro games.
Out of the 7 PC's ive had so far 3 have been intel and 4 amd :()
Nowadays AMD CPUs are leading in the competition. Unfortunately, I can't say it about the Radeon series. Probably, in the next generation CPUs, Intel will take 1st place one again.
8 replies
I think it will be longer than that for Intel to catch up if we talk multi-core, right now Intel doesn't even offer PCI Express 4 and AMD is suggesting they have more coming soon.
But regardless - it is great that AMD has been able to step up and now we finally have real competition again. It means choice, lower prices and faster development rather than Intel just overpricing their stuff and giving us new "generations" now and then.
Now if the rumors are right and AMD comes with a high end GPU in the summer and Nvidia also bring a new generation, then that is where I build my next PC.
7 replies
I guess AMD has no enough power and resources to develop equally innovative new graphics cards and processors at the same time, hence they have to choose either first or second. AMD Radeon is very inferior to Nvidia, while processors from AMD far ahead of Intel. A couple of years ago it was the other way around
6 replies
4 replies
AMD may be dominating in the minds of many IT enthusiasts, but their market share is far from domination - the latest figures I have seen are 20% market share for AMD.
3 replies
2 replies
For sure, but not dominating yet. Intel has insane amount of money*, so would expect that AMD will have a hard time getting close to even 50% as Intel can afford to compete on price in a very aggressive way.
I hope that AMD can keep it up. I like what they are doing, especially since they stopped just throwing higher voltage at their chips and started doing things more efficiently. Something I think they learned from ATI.
*In December Intel bought an AI chip startup for $2 billion, at the time that was the same as 5% of AMD's net worth.
1 reply
I don't think that is the reason. I see two possible reasons that we do not yet have the new high AMD GPU's, possibly it could be a combination of the two.
One is that that there is limited 7 nm production capacity, so AMD are focusing on where production brings the most growth in market share which I am sure is what they really want to build. Market share means a better shot at making the next generations profitable.
And two - they want to see what Nvidia is bringing to the table with their next gen that is, supposedly, to arrive sometime this summer. I can imagine both parties not liking the though of putting out their new wonders only to have their thunder stolen by their competitor.
Intel because of direct Autodesk 3D programs optimalization.
Intel fan boy but AMD is better right now and that’s what I’m using (3950X)
3 replies
“optimized as good currently for gaming” what the fuck are you talking about
2 replies
1 reply
it's not about optimized for gaming it's about games cant properly run in 12+cores, just compere amd and intel in prof software that should be in games too, but it's not that ez to make games run good in all cores, so better cpu for gaming is that cpu that have better cores(not more) 5ghz>4,6 but the difference is not that big and +10 fps not worth that price that intel want for cpu
Intel has always been better than AMD only poor people say AMD is better
11 replies
- OKoptimistic
- facts
> pick one
8 replies
2 replies
expected from USA
not expected from Canada, thought you guys had brains.
1 reply
Who is gonna defend AMD after they claimed the 3900x could get 4.6 ghz on all cores but when testing was done you would be lucky to get 4.4 on one core. Blatantly lie and for some reason AMD fanboys never mention this
4 replies
? I don't remember them saying that link plz
1 reply
1 reply
+1
Intel
If all you're doing is playing csgo then youll get a better performance. If youre all about saving money and hyper threading/multitasking then sure buy AMD
5 replies
That’s not true. AMD has better FPS in CS now but whatever.
3 replies
2 replies
3950X
1 reply
youtu.be/PT0EUXRGMjo?t=783
Once again, intel is better for gaming. If you want to edit videos, stream and do all this other stuff then you might want AMD otherwise intel is still superior for gaming performance
youtu.be/w0doPJbvrrY?t=394
AMD cause i do more than only playing games and they have shown that their price/quality is better as intels at the moment. im not really a fan of any of these 2 tho, i just am a amd user cause its better for me.
3 replies
2 replies
I currently use Intel because I built my PC a year before Ryzen 3 came out, and before I'd even heard the rumours it could be competitive.
I like to think I'm not married to Intel and could use AMD one day, maybe for my next build in 2 years or so, but when basically all I do is game then I don't really care about high core counts that would help with other stuff, Intel CPUs merge better with Nvidia GPUs I think and the price differences really aren't that bad as Intel are having to drop prices now.
Once Intel gets 10nm and 7nm working (which they will) then it's actually a fair fight.
amd cuz i have it
AMD due to pricing.
AMD for price to performance, Intel for better performance all round
AMD cuz i have extremely high iq (and also cuz i rendering like lots of shit).
Intel is still superior for gaming. I know AMD fangays dont like it when I point it out but it's true. They simply have better single core performance which is far more important for performance in games, 9900k beats 3950x in almost every gaming benchmark. . And when intel finally releases 10nm it's going to be an even bigger difference despite AMD being on 5nm by that point probably.
8 replies
there is no difference between 100 and 110 fps OMEGALUL
but difference in 150-200$ for that is way to big just for few extra fps, fps per dollar amd >>>> intel
Games doesnt require amazing cpu that why u can still play on 10 years old cpu i7 2600k, if you have extra money just take 2080ti or even 2x2080ti and but amazing screen 4k buy few ssd for games, but dont invest in useless +10 fps OMEGALUL
here in ukraine difference between 3700x and 9900k is 250$ difference in game perfomance 5-10%(you wont even feel the difference)
for that money you can buy better gpu like upgrage 2070 super in 2080 super, or upgrade 2060 super in 2070 super and buy 1tb ssd it's way bigger difference then between 9900k and 3700x
"They simply have better single core performance"
No they dont: cgdirector.com/cinebench-r20-scores-upda..
5 replies
There is actually. The difference is up to 20% in games like Rise of the tomb raider. Its ridiculous.
Why would I buy an inferior CPU?
4 replies
3 replies
AMD only if poor
Intel, never had issues with mine. I have used amd before in the past.
I have a ryzen 7 1700. But, depending on how good intel 10th gen is i might switch idk. Ryzen is fine for me
7 replies
just update to ryzen 4000 when they drop (if you have an x370 mobo)
6 replies
Maybe. I do more than game, I wanna see how many cores intel are gonna offer in comparison to AMD
5 replies
99% 10 core 20 thread (judging by past trends and leaks)
4 replies
If they can get it down to around $400-$600 that might be the move tbh
3 replies
Why? For 400-600$ you can get the R9 3900X with 12 cores which will still be faster than the Intel 10 core.
And you can use it on your old motherboard.
1 reply
AMD sucks pp at gaming. Ryzen 3rd gen is a huge improvement for AMD, but surely intel won't let them catch up even more. I'll wait, I'm not biased to one platform
Anyone that follows news knows that AMD is the way to go.
I have had Intel for so many years, but im finally glad that they are exposed.. Hope AMD will do the same to Nvidia..
My next Processor will be a AMD and also GPU.. My 2 1080 and i7 8700K will last me a bit longer so ill wait a while.
I got r9 3900X and it's amazing (yeah I know Intel is better when you run CS:GO but). I'm running some heavy calculation faster than ever on it.
Btw does someone know why my r9 isn't at 100% load while playing CS:GO? all of cores aint even running at their max freq (4.6 GHz). Is that because I'm using GTX1070?
3 replies
Cause AMD is intentionally slowing their clock speeds and voltage to make their cpus last longer cause it's shit. And you would be lucky to get 1 core at 4.4. AMD blatant marketing tricksters
1 reply
I mean, when I run other apps it boosts up to 4.6 GHz (single-thread) or ~3.8 GHz (multi-thread) as designed, I know it's how AMD's CPUs handle thermal problems. But when playing CS:GO cores run at 2.7 - 4.0 GHz. I think my GPU isn't just good enough? Still I'm happy with 350 - 400+ FPS with my PC though.
of course it isn't being pressed to 100%, CSGO can barely push a 4 core to 100% on a good day. as for why it's not running at 4.6, that's because 4.6 is the single tread boost. In case of csgo it's probably running at its 4 core boost clock (I believe it's 4.2 or 4.15)
3rd world poor guys - amd
1st world experts - intel
Amd dpc latency? Horrible.
All of audio engineers are using intel processor.
Amd is never used by experts
4 replies
3 replies
Nah amd still has bad dpc latency go check about it
2 replies
1 reply
Ok
Intel's CPUs have better single-core performance which is highly beneficial for gaming, but I think that everyone can agree that Ryzen CPUs are the undisputed kings when it comes to all-rounders for its price, hence why CPUs like the 3600 are used waaay more than i5s nowadays
1 reply
"Intel's CPUs have better single-core performance"
No: cgdirector.com/cinebench-r20-scores-upda..
intel in 2020
OMEGALUL
Just watch some Linus Tech Tips videos, he got the answar
None, I use Intel at work and AMD at home.
I don't really have a side. I pick the product that performs well and has value. In the current state of CPU's I would personally go (as in purchase) AMD. Back in maybe 2010 (prob not exact year), I built my first actual gaming PC with a 3770K. During that time the 3770K was cheaper and actually better than pretty much all of AMD's bulldozer series and the multiple iterations that had of that design. Today, I just don't see a real purpose of buying for example a 8700K over a 3600 or a 9900k over a 3700x due to the pretty significant price differences for pretty minor performance differences.
It is important to note that AMD is on 7nm while intel is still at 14nm++++++++++++ since like 6000 or 7000 series. AMD is performing at about on par with a node twice it's size in single core workloads. Which is honestly kind of embarrassing. This means that Intel should be able to bring some pretty industry changing performance at 10nm in the future. At the end of the day, 7nm or 14nm doesn't matter, price and performance does.
AMD, even apple is showing signs of switching to it, currently ahead of intel in techonology and security.
amd ofc
Intel is better for overclocking (better temps and fps increase) but shitty value. So I stuck with an i7-9700K. Also some AMD coolers can be a pain in the ass to mount compared to an Intel mounting
2 replies
1 reply
oh no no no no
im a fanboy of getting the most value for money, and right now the most value for money is amd
been using intel for years switched to amd did not regret so far
intel
3 replies
AMD because it's better.
I was team Intel until AMD were better
Nothing else
its 2020, people who still think intel > amd are delusional fanboys
3 replies
what?
names chekout
strong name to post content ratio
