I5 or i7?
-
Read and weep…well look anyway.
And
That is My 3600x @ 85% to i9-9900s 100%
And for good measure R20 Multi Core
So your benchmarks more or less confirm what I said? You system in the results panel is consistently ~75% of the high-end Intel chips, except in multi-core where it’s closer to 60%.
At roughly half the cost it might be the better value, but in CPU / GPU terms 90% of the cost tends to lie in the last 10% of performance. In other words, they know those people who absolutely want the edge are willing to pay the extra to get every last clock cycle they can. Sounds like a good business model to me. When the 10xxx series Intel chips come out in the near future I have a feeling AMD will once again be sitting around scratching their heads on how to keep up. But that’s just my opinion.
-
I would kind of like to see your Cinebench scores… Everything I have seen puts the 3600x within 5% of the 3600 at 25% more cost. And the 3600 is roughly on par with Intel’s 8700, or the I5-9600 in single-core performance. Nowhere even remotely close to the I9 series (Except maybe the 39xx series). The only Ryzen I have seen that outperforms the I9’s in a comparable chip competition is the R9 3900x. Which costs more than the 9900k - there goes the “Intel is overpriced” argument.
If you plan to use it for anything other than gaming, the i7 will likely be of benefit. Otherwise, the i5 is the much better deal.
100% Agree. The only AMD chip that’s remotely interesting to me is the 3600 (non x) due to it’s price / perf.
-
5700 xt is ok. Of course waiting a week or two at least for models from other companies is better than buying straight up AMD reference, due to the cooler.
It doesn’t bother me so much, because I’ve had years and years of basically gaming laptops as portable workhorses and those always sound like jet engines.Performance wise it’s pretty good too, but nothing really exceptional. Again, this is most likely due to AMD basically gouging the market the way they can - not by raising prices, but by separating their products and building up marketing around those.
I fully expect more powerful models soon as well as lower class ones.The drivers are kinda bad in my opinion. I’ve forgotten how this is a problem with new gpus, but with amd more than nvidia. It’s worth noting though, i know professionally rendering engineers who send monthly bug reports to both amd and nvidia
on various issues. So this is a question of time.All in all - a solid product, good performance, ok price. Some of the features like freesync and enchanced sync plus anti-lag work really well when they do, but this is driver side story.
Amd is in a good position for next year though, considering that both next gen consoles are entirely amd. This means lots of optimization in their favour.
Xbox specifically will have lots of titles which are availiable on pc as well, perhaps not so much with Sony, as their policies are different. But this means you’re good to go for some years to come if you wish to play any other games.@Lukas
I would hold out for a bit or get something like 1060 or those rx 480-490 one.
Cannot say anything about DX12 specifically, as this is still a very narrow field, but eh Microsoft is really set on the path of shooting themselves in the foot.
Vulkan is where the advantage for both cpus and gpus for AMD lay. I’m not much of an expert in this, but work closely with those who are.The thing with something like 1060 - you can play whatever you want, on high settings at 1080p to this day, and probably for at least two more years.
Same for amd equivalent cards. This is actually a pretty serious issue business wise for both players, and once cpu+gpu packages will arrive on the market it will be even tighter.
Raytracing is a thing now largely due to this. Most of us already have hardware that is good enough, which means that ridiculous prices of both nvidia and intel are kind of a neccessity for their investors.
I don’t see how this would change in the future for the better, especially considering pressures from streaming and arm architecture.In general the conversations about “having an edge” puzzle me. There is only so much time a person can invest into any hobby unless its something that earns you money.
I find people are more reasonable about it when they are considering investment into an actual work tool.
But paying a substantial amount of money simply to have 10% more fps (not to mention those will be locked either way) seems a little weird. Or a hobby in itself.I hope all of the above does not make me sound like a fan of either company or side, in this instance amd.
There are lots of things I’m a fan of, BMS among them. But I can’t really bring myself to be a fan of a large corporation, or their policies.
What’s left is to try and pick your way through whatever moments of choice remain, without becoming a victim of corporate marketing.Still I’d say we have some pretty interesting 5 years ahead, considering all the potential almost tectonic shifts on this market.
It’s weird, but right now AMD looks like they have better chances to survive than Intel, due to them being much much smaller and not owning production lines.
The software wing of Intel alone (something like 15000 people) is bigger than AMD! This makes it very hard for them to turn around on the spot. And soon everyone will need to, once x86 will start dying for real. -
This post is deleted! -
So your benchmarks more or less confirm what I said? You system in the results panel is consistently ~75% of the high-end Intel chips, except in multi-core where it’s closer to 60%.
Hay BK, is there something wrong with your math. Since when is 204 75% of 222. In my world its 92% That’s Single core performance.
Then we have Multi-Core. My 6 core 1725 against a 8 core i9 9900s 2172 is 79.4%
Cinebench R20 Single core for good measure, R5-3600x 487, i9-9900k 519 that’s 93.83%
So when you say “more or less” I think numbers are definitely on the side of “less”.
At roughly half the cost it might be the better value, but in CPU / GPU terms 90% of the cost tends to lie in the last 10% of performance. In other words, they know those people who absolutely want the edge are willing to pay the extra to get every last clock cycle they can. Sounds like a good business model to me. When the 10xxx series Intel chips come out in the near future I have a feeling AMD will once again be sitting around scratching their heads on how to keep up. But that’s just my opinion.
And your allowed to have an opinion.
I like the “scratching their heads” comment. it really qualifies the opinion.PS: lets look at those percentages again 92%, 79% & 97%.
-
I’m sorry , did you want me to compare my $390 6 core R5 3600x against Intel’s $1,948 12 core i9-7920x Skylake.
Thats 108.7% in single core. And finally you have a win with 61.5% in multi core.
$390 is 20% if the i9-7920s $1948 for 61.5% of potential work done.
Do you want me to redo those numbers using the $790 Ryzen 9 3900x ?
So I think I have substantially debunked your “more or less” posts.
:tjacked:
-
Hay BK, is there something wrong with your math. Since when is 204 75% of 222. In my world its 92% That’s Single core performance.
And I thought Intel had resolved all their math bugs and focused on security bugs !!
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=swapgs-spectre-impact#=1 -
As an AMD user myself, and an AMD fan, Shadow just remember synthetic benchmarks do not equate to gaming performance. That said Jackals i9 9000 would still wipe the floor in gaming against AMD in single threaded game BMS included. Although the price to performance vs AMD right now is not worth it, it still the best gaming CPU out there and it turbos all the way to 5Ghz which amd nee to be at atleast 4.8Ghz to match the gaming or single threaded performance. AMDs IPC clock for clock is actually better but gaming performance does show otherwise.
Wurm,
I think you might have fallen behind the times your self. Have a look at whats going down around you.
You know I just cant do it any more, with words like “just remember synthetic benchmarks do not equate to gaming performance” AND “would still wipe the floor in gaming against AMD in single threaded” bullder dash.
I think its time you handed your AMD CPU in and go back a Pentium Pro.You have been listening to propaganda for so long that your regurgitating the same repetitive blah blah.
Gods sake man stand up for your CPU, don’t cower any longer. Be brave. Be strong, Down with the Intel tyrant.
-
And I thought Intel had resolved all their math bugs and focused on security bugs !!
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=swapgs-spectre-impact#=1You right Viper, something just doesn’t add-up concerning Intel’s security bugs. They seem to be breeding or multiplying like ……bugs :shocked:
Deep man :hippie:
Time for my meds.
-
And here I am still being very happy with my ancient i7 3770…
-
Do you actually read anything that they say when they discuss how those numbers are generated on the main screen, or you just push the little button and get excited like most consumers?
:tjacked:
You got this part right at least. The thread was about i5 vs i7. At least I tried to add something constructive to the actual question…
-
even more happier with my more ancient i7 2600k.
[emoji38]Chasing ms (milliseconds) here… And spending wildly… [emoji38] nor to mention mine is bigger and my dad has a spaceship… :rofl:
Yeap amd made a strong come back.
Lower prices, high performance, ideal money to performance ratio for the customer.
Intel even IF faster is killer expensive. No point to waste money for something you will never use actually, talking for the average user and gamer.Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T818A using Tapatalk
-
The question is, if average user and gamer rather needs strong and well supported CPU (with additional 5 cores “in reserve”), or 12, 16 (?) rather weaker (?) cores….
I have nothing against AMD and bigger corporation is bigger criminal for myself
OK, my friend just posted his new 3700X CPU-Z benchmark….well he seems to have 3 point more then my cpu, but his procesor is 50% more expensive, than was mine three months ago…
-
Well the 9600k is cheaper and clocks faster…
Hmmm
AMD must fight those too…
Maybe the reason why still didn’t do the boom…
As i see those 9600k are still selling…Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T818A using Tapatalk
-
The question is, if average user and gamer rather needs strong and well supported CPU (with additional 5 cores “in reserve”), or 12, 16 (?) rather weaker (?) cores….
Well the 9600k is cheaper and clocks faster…
Hmmm
AMD must fight those too…
Maybe the reason why still didn’t do the boom…
As i see those 9600k are still selling…Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T818A using Tapatalk
I thought the question was i5 or i7? Perhaps the OP should change the thread title since nobody actually wants to answer their question.
-
Lets Roll with it, Since I was actually challenged to post my results.
I thought the question was i5 or i7? Perhaps the OP should change the thread title since nobody actually wants to answer their question.
That question was answered long ago.
From 2013 to mid 2017 I ran with a i5 3570k and was very happy with the work it did. It OC reasonably well, actually OCs better now, on a non gaming Motherboard (GA-Z77X-D3H) good ram (8Gb (2x 4Gb) DDR3-1866 Dual Channel [ARES] F3-1866C9D-8GAB) Windozs 7 on a Samsung 128GB SSD 840 PRO.
I’m actually rebuilding that rig now for my Grandson as His Phenom II 940bw DDR2 rig has shite itself. In a new Case.
So i5 if your on a budget but still good performance if you go for the k versions, Actualy some of the i3 look interesting too.
If you have the cash the i7 is a no brainer. And again with preference to the k versions.
Unlocked & Unblocked.
-
And here I am still being very happy with my ancient i7 3770…
It’s an excellent CPU, I promoted it to run my hackintosh and still serves me well.
-
It’s an excellent CPU, I promoted it to run my hackintosh and still serves me well.
Yes MY MASTER what is your bidding?
Double Integer ? Yes MY MASTER you can count on it .
-
Yes MY MASTER what is your bidding?
Double Integer ? Yes MY MASTER you can count on it .
CLI !
-