3 ms·
0% for the Ryzen 7 in games, 2% for the Ryzen 5s. In applications 2% and 4%. Might differ a bit with a different benchmark selection, but that's the gist. 10% h
by onli 6y ago
0% for the Ryzen 7 in games, 2% for the Ryzen 5s. In applications 2% and 4%. Might differ a bit with a different benchmark selection, but that's the gist. 10% higher price for that is already bad.
> These XT processors increase it a little more at the same price point.
Only for the Ryzen 5s (and the 3600XT could come out a bit better looking). For the Ryzen 7s the price point is not the same, you have to factor in the cooler you have to buy now. That will make the offer even less attractive.
- Nursie 6y ago>0% for the Ryzen 7 in games The CPU is less and less relevant for gaming. The reviews I've seen put it out ahead consistently but only by a 1-2fps. And as you say, a few percent in applications. If you want those couple of percent then you'll pay a 10% higher price for it. Disproportionate but to me it's still a great value processor. And also for me the price would be the same - AMD's wraith cooler was noisy and I ditched it ASAP on both the 3700X and 3800X we have in the house here. They're in boxes in the attic so pretty much have negative value.
- onli 6y ago> The CPU is less and less relevant for gaming I wouldn't say that. We had a couple of very cpu heavy game releases recently, and with new console generations that usually makes a jump. And you can get a bigger performance jump in games - with Intel. > The reviews I've seen put it out ahead consistently but only by a 1-2fp Right, rounds down to 0%. > Disproportionate but to me it's still a great value processor. No, by definition it's not a great value anymore if you pay that much more for that small gain, if you have equally fast alternatives after a minimal overclock. You could have sold the Wraith cooler :) But that's a valid argument, for some the cooler inclusion or non-inclusion does not matter. AMD won't do that change without a reason. They probably feel they are in the position for that now. They boosted the stock cooler importance for Zen 1 (that thing was great) gaining goodwill, then made it worse, now start to remove it completely. The infinite circle of corporate attention and customer focus in action.
- Nursie 6y ago>And you can get a bigger performance jump in games - with Intel. Which intel product is more capable than a 3700X at a lower price than a 3800X?
- onli 6y agoIn games the 10600K[0]. And the 10400(F) is equally fast[1]. Outside of games the 3800X wins against those two, though the 10600K could keep up with it a bit better if we would look at its overclocked results. [0]: https://www.pc-kombo.com/de/benchmark/games/cpu/compare?ids%5B%5D=Intel+Core+i5-10600K&ids%5B%5D=AMD+Ryzen+7+3800X https://www.pc-kombo.com/de/benchmark/games/cpu/compare?ids%... [1]: https://www.pc-kombo.com/de/benchmark/games/cpu/compare?ids[]=Intel+Core+i5-10400F&ids[]=AMD+Ryzen+7+3800X https://www.pc-kombo.com/de/benchmark/games/cpu/compare?ids[...
- Nursie 6y ago> In games the 10600K[0]. And the 10400(F) 2 fewer cores, that's a far worse deal.
- onli 6y agoDoesn't matter, if it's faster.
- Nursie 6y agoThat's highly debatable. It matters to me, I do a lot of parallel software builds. Two more cores makes a difference. If you only game, that's one thing. I don't.
- onli 6y agoNo, that's not debatable. I was specifically talking about gaming, and mentioned in all my comments specifically what performance category I'm talking about when making performance claims.