7 ms·

Its funny how about 4 years ago when I was building my last gaming rig people were saying don't bother with AMD unless you're getting a GPU. Oh how the tables

Its funny how about 4 years ago when I was building my last gaming rig people were saying don't bother with AMD unless you're getting a GPU. Oh how the tables have turned. Speaking of which, time for a new gaming rig...

iamdave 8y ago
Speaking of which, time for a new gaming rig... I had the same thought coming into this thread-what a great time to be in the market for a new machine. I welcome this competition, I want AMD to get better in the CPU game, but will gladly scavenge the spoils of this.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- mey 8y ago
  How do you want them to get better? Single core freq at the top end is the only advantage I believe Intel has at this point. AMD is cheaper, more IO, more cores at roughly equivalent speeds. If you are building a 10k gaming rig, I understand, but in general I don't see why you wouldn't go with AMD unless you need it to be have a better TDP. To that point, I expect Intel to continue to rule the laptop market. Edit: clarified that I don't see Intel not ruling laptop market.
  - piyh 8y ago
    They could look to beat the i5-8400 in gaming perf. Don't really care though since gaming is an afterthought for the ryzen/threadripper plan to own the server market.
    - gamedevs_cancer 8y ago
      Gaming is the only space where intel is has an advantage over ryzen. It's better or as good in the rest of the workflows already
  - mrec 8y ago
    What's holding AMD back on TDP? I'm in the market for a new PC fairly soon - probably SFF desktop rather than laptop, but I'd still prefer to keep fan noise, heat and electricity usage down.
    - gamedevs_cancer 8y ago
      TDP is quite high on ryzen chips, and they auto overclock. The 2nd gen will go as high as it can with safe voltages, provided thermals and power are in check
      - mrec 8y ago
        I understand that it's high, I'm asking why. Are they not interested in the laptop market? Does Intel have some secret sauce they can't replicate?
        theandrewbailey 8y ago
        Likely. AMD uses Global Foundries to fab their CPUs. GF's fabs aren't as advanced as Intels, and ramping up clocks (thus more TDP) is the only way AMD can stay competitive on single thread performance.
        mey 8y ago
        Bigger transistors and more cores. https://youtu.be/ucMQermB9wQ https://youtu.be/ucMQermB9wQ describes this in more detail.
theandrewbailey 8y ago
A 4 year old gaming CPU should still be plenty today. It's great that we're getting more cores, but they aren't much faster than the old ones, and many games haven't figured out how to use more than about 4. GPUs? I have a few hundred old unplayed games on Steam that I'm working through. See you next gen!
- 21 8y ago
  > but they aren't much faster than the old ones Each year the new CPU it's about 20% faster then the old one. After 4 years, it adds up. A top Intel CPU will now deliver twice the same single-thread performance than a 5 year old one of same price.
  - gambiting 8y ago
    That's demonstrably not true. A 4 year old 4790K stands literally right next to 8-th gen CPUs in terms of both single and multiple core performance. A rather large leap happened when the architecture moved to DDR4, but CPU "performance" has hugely stagnated. I don't know where you're getting the 20% from but its definitely not the case in the last 5 years.
    - ed312 8y ago
      As a 4790K owner, I couldn't agree more. I just got around to doing a mild overclock and honestly the chip isn't holding me back even gaming 4k@60fps.
      - AmVess 8y ago
        Same here. I'm going to wait for Zen2 before moving on. 8c/16t at 4.5+ GHz will be a compelling upgrade.
      - elabajaba 8y ago
        4k@60 is GPU bottlenecked, not CPU bottlenecked. It's pushing for 144fps where you'll start to be cpu bottlenecked in eg. Battlefield multiplayer or Assassins Creed. (also having a 4core/8thread cpu helps quite a bit vs 4core/4thread now that games have started pushing CPU limits again, especially with the 1% and 0.1% lows that cause stutter).
BoorishBears 8y ago
If you had a top of the line Intel CPU from 4 years ago, today it'd still be competitive with AMD's top CPUs, at least for gaming. If you had a top of the line AMD CPU from 4 years ago, you'd have a nice toaster. AMD fans have gotten louder than ever (and quieter, heh), but the fact remains, AMD can barely compete at the top end as far as gaming goes. For a short while, AMD had finally met up with Intel at the top end of gaming CPUs (i7 8700k vs Ryzen 7 2700x). Now the i9 9900K clobbers that comparison. And yes, some people will immediately yell no fair because the 9900k will cost up to 200$ more, but if you're building a PC to last years, who cares? My gaming PC has a 4790k that's been running at 4.9 Ghz for over 4 years now. I upgraded the GPU to a newer card, Vega 64 (would have been a 1080ti but all the 38" ultrawides only support Freesync), and that 4 year old CPU isn't a bottleneck yet. Saving 200$ back then would have been the difference between needing a new motherboard, CPU and RAM today, easily a justified investment.
- archi42 8y ago
  I know where you're coming from, I did the same just two gens earlier (i7-2600, r9 290, WQHD) and am quite happy with that. But: That's back then... Today the situation is different, since the two can actually compete.
  - BoorishBears 8y ago
    In what way does the 2700x compete with the 9900k? My whole comment is about how if you’re trying to build a PC that lasts, you’re easily justifying the only drawback, the 200$ increase
- growlist 8y ago
  I game on my FX-8350 with latest titles with no problems.
  - BoorishBears 8y ago
    I mean, technically? I remember a recent review stating whether you could still use an FX chip for modern games and the answer was essentially, technically, if you only play at 1080p, have a very beefy GPU (which will then be gimped by the FX) and are careful with settings. The 7700k was getting almost double the FPS in the same rig... Meanwhile benchmark videos show the 4790k at most 10 FPS of the 7700k in almost every single game tested, and never the difference between playable and never struggling to exceed 60 FPS, even at higher resolutions.

iamdave 8y ago

Speaking of which, time for a new gaming rig... I had the same thought coming into this thread-what a great time to be in the market for a new machine. I welcome this competition, I want AMD to get better in the CPU game, but will gladly scavenge the spoils of this.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mey 8y ago
How do you want them to get better? Single core freq at the top end is the only advantage I believe Intel has at this point. AMD is cheaper, more IO, more cores at roughly equivalent speeds. If you are building a 10k gaming rig, I understand, but in general I don't see why you wouldn't go with AMD unless you need it to be have a better TDP. To that point, I expect Intel to continue to rule the laptop market. Edit: clarified that I don't see Intel not ruling laptop market.
- piyh 8y ago
  They could look to beat the i5-8400 in gaming perf. Don't really care though since gaming is an afterthought for the ryzen/threadripper plan to own the server market.
  - gamedevs_cancer 8y ago
    Gaming is the only space where intel is has an advantage over ryzen. It's better or as good in the rest of the workflows already
- mrec 8y ago
  What's holding AMD back on TDP? I'm in the market for a new PC fairly soon - probably SFF desktop rather than laptop, but I'd still prefer to keep fan noise, heat and electricity usage down.
  - gamedevs_cancer 8y ago
    TDP is quite high on ryzen chips, and they auto overclock. The 2nd gen will go as high as it can with safe voltages, provided thermals and power are in check
    - mrec 8y ago
      I understand that it's high, I'm asking why. Are they not interested in the laptop market? Does Intel have some secret sauce they can't replicate?
      - theandrewbailey 8y ago
        Likely. AMD uses Global Foundries to fab their CPUs. GF's fabs aren't as advanced as Intels, and ramping up clocks (thus more TDP) is the only way AMD can stay competitive on single thread performance.
      - mey 8y ago
        Bigger transistors and more cores. https://youtu.be/ucMQermB9wQ https://youtu.be/ucMQermB9wQ describes this in more detail.

theandrewbailey 8y ago

A 4 year old gaming CPU should still be plenty today. It's great that we're getting more cores, but they aren't much faster than the old ones, and many games haven't figured out how to use more than about 4. GPUs? I have a few hundred old unplayed games on Steam that I'm working through. See you next gen!

21 8y ago
> but they aren't much faster than the old ones Each year the new CPU it's about 20% faster then the old one. After 4 years, it adds up. A top Intel CPU will now deliver twice the same single-thread performance than a 5 year old one of same price.
- gambiting 8y ago
  That's demonstrably not true. A 4 year old 4790K stands literally right next to 8-th gen CPUs in terms of both single and multiple core performance. A rather large leap happened when the architecture moved to DDR4, but CPU "performance" has hugely stagnated. I don't know where you're getting the 20% from but its definitely not the case in the last 5 years.
  - ed312 8y ago
    As a 4790K owner, I couldn't agree more. I just got around to doing a mild overclock and honestly the chip isn't holding me back even gaming 4k@60fps.
    - AmVess 8y ago
      Same here. I'm going to wait for Zen2 before moving on. 8c/16t at 4.5+ GHz will be a compelling upgrade.
    - elabajaba 8y ago
      4k@60 is GPU bottlenecked, not CPU bottlenecked. It's pushing for 144fps where you'll start to be cpu bottlenecked in eg. Battlefield multiplayer or Assassins Creed. (also having a 4core/8thread cpu helps quite a bit vs 4core/4thread now that games have started pushing CPU limits again, especially with the 1% and 0.1% lows that cause stutter).

BoorishBears 8y ago

If you had a top of the line Intel CPU from 4 years ago, today it'd still be competitive with AMD's top CPUs, at least for gaming. If you had a top of the line AMD CPU from 4 years ago, you'd have a nice toaster. AMD fans have gotten louder than ever (and quieter, heh), but the fact remains, AMD can barely compete at the top end as far as gaming goes. For a short while, AMD had finally met up with Intel at the top end of gaming CPUs (i7 8700k vs Ryzen 7 2700x). Now the i9 9900K clobbers that comparison. And yes, some people will immediately yell no fair because the 9900k will cost up to 200$ more, but if you're building a PC to last years, who cares? My gaming PC has a 4790k that's been running at 4.9 Ghz for over 4 years now. I upgraded the GPU to a newer card, Vega 64 (would have been a 1080ti but all the 38" ultrawides only support Freesync), and that 4 year old CPU isn't a bottleneck yet. Saving 200$ back then would have been the difference between needing a new motherboard, CPU and RAM today, easily a justified investment.

archi42 8y ago
I know where you're coming from, I did the same just two gens earlier (i7-2600, r9 290, WQHD) and am quite happy with that. But: That's back then... Today the situation is different, since the two can actually compete.
- BoorishBears 8y ago
  In what way does the 2700x compete with the 9900k? My whole comment is about how if you’re trying to build a PC that lasts, you’re easily justifying the only drawback, the 200$ increase
growlist 8y ago
I game on my FX-8350 with latest titles with no problems.
- BoorishBears 8y ago
  I mean, technically? I remember a recent review stating whether you could still use an FX chip for modern games and the answer was essentially, technically, if you only play at 1080p, have a very beefy GPU (which will then be gimped by the FX) and are careful with settings. The 7700k was getting almost double the FPS in the same rig... Meanwhile benchmark videos show the 4790k at most 10 FPS of the 7700k in almost every single game tested, and never the difference between playable and never struggling to exceed 60 FPS, even at higher resolutions.