3 ms·
The Intel i9 is about 1/3 slower than the ryzen 9. It also costs more and uses more power. Intel cpus are such bad value right now its insane.
by Polylactic_acid 6y ago
The Intel i9 is about 1/3 slower than the ryzen 9. It also costs more and uses more power. Intel cpus are such bad value right now its insane.
- misanthropian00 6y agoI cannot afford $1000+ CPUs, but can you link to a review that actually shows this? I just read an anandtech review that compares AMD and Intel and I am not seeing that at all. In fact it looks like Intel still has a lead on single threaded performance which is really pathetic at this point. Maybe AMD should start firing and reorganizing too. I also am not thrilled with the engineering logic of bimodality and other compromises that AMD seems to have made in their engineering to beat Intel on core count. As a purist I hate these sorts of shortcuts. On that alone I would favor Intel. History shows that they tend to go for engineering purity over shotgun approaches, but of course that sort of corporate culture can change at any time. There is something to say for engineering elegance and purity over meaningless benchmarks.
- Polylactic_acid 6y agoIntel has the tiniest advantage in single threaded which results in close to 0 noticeable improvement. Having double the cores on your cpu results in a massive noticeable improvement. When performing CPU intensive tasks like compiling code, AV1 encoding, etc, its all about core count. AMD also manages to have so much greater performance with a lower power consumption.
- vondur 6y agoNo doubt that their CPU's are missing on the price/peformance ratio, but for gaming, Intel can certainly crank out the FPS. I'm all AMD now, I cant believe what a great machine my Ryzen 3900x is. I was just suprised out how much performance they've been able to wring out the 14nm++++ process. It's only going to get worse for them before it gets better.