Why is AMD the Budget Option for Gamers?

[Mahoney]

21 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Bottlenecking is one of the biggest "fearmongering" talking point in PC-build/gaming. 

 

bottlenecking is highly dependant on game and resolution, and just about every game the GPU take precident over the CPU. which is why its prefferably to spend extra on the GPU over the CPU. 

 

Ryzen remains cost effective in a build up untill the 1200-1400$ mark. 

It can barely fully utilize a 1070 @ 1080p

The 8600k is fully maxing the gpu while the 2600x is having trouble doing that. They should have almost the same frames yet there's still 5-10% difference.

1st gen was already bottlenecking a 1080ti

https://www.legitreviews.com/cpu-bottleneck-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-tested-on-amd-ryzen-versus-intel-kaby-lake_192585

And even AMD marketed it for productivity - lets remember during Vega presentation they even used the 7700k to show it's performance

Intel's just better for gaming

[GoldenLag]

Just now, Mahoney said:

And even AMD marketed it for productivity - lets remember during Vega presentation they even used the 7700k to show it's performance

Intel's just better for gaming

For a large majority of games yes.

 

Have i said otherwise?

1 minute ago, Mahoney said:

can barely fully utilize a 1070 @ 1080p



The 8600k is fully maxing the gpu while the 2600x is having trouble doing that. They should have almost the same frames yet there's still 5-10% difference.

Remember me mentioning bottleneck "fearmongering"

 

There will allways be a bottleneck

 

Either it being CPU or GPU. And the nature of games being graphical means you should probably spend your money in favor of a GPU.

 

Thats all im saying.

[Mahoney]

9 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

For a large majority of games yes.

 

Have i said otherwise?

Remember me mentioning bottleneck "fearmongering"

 

There will allways be a bottleneck

 

Either it being CPU or GPU. And the nature of games being graphical means you should probably spend your money in favor of a GPU.

 

Thats all im saying.

But it shouldn't be especially for a newer cpu like the 2700x. I really hope the 3000 does a lot and i mean a lot better than this

[JoostinOnline]

Honestly this whole thread feels like it violates the community standards, but it's LMG staff and rules are pretty flexible there. I can't imagine this thread would stay unlocked if it was a new user though.

[Kitsan]

3 minutes ago, Mahoney said:

But it shouldn't be especially for a newer cpu like the 2700x. I really hope the 3000 does a lot and i mean a lot better than this

You do understand games are usually optimized for a platform?

 

Ghost recon wild-lands for example can work better on the AMD platform:

 

 

[GoldenLag]

6 minutes ago, Mahoney said:

But it shouldn't be especially for a newer cpu like the 2700x. I really hope the 3000 does a lot and i mean a lot better than this

i mean..... the 2700x was never a great CPU choice for gaming at the budget tier you would be picking it up....

 

there is a reason why in a budget build AMD stops being relevant past 1400$. simply because you dont get a better GPU and you start spending money on a better CPU. 

 

i mean the 1400$ build usually packs a 2600 + good OC board + cooling + 2080 + some nice bits, iirc.

 

there is a reason why i stop at 1400$ with AMD, because their offering dont honestly (in gaming) offer their worth at the pricetier above it

[Mahoney]

2 minutes ago, remus243 said:

You do understand games are usually optimized for a platform?

 

Ghost recon wild-lands for example can work better on the AMD platform:

 

 

At 1440p the  gtx 1080 is the bottleneck but if you replace it with a Vega7/2080 or the 2080ti we'd be seeing a difference. Also we're talking about Wildlands here did u see 1080ti benchmarks of it at 1080p ?

 

 

[Kitsan]

If it was the GPU that was the bottleneck then all the FPS would be the same. A bottleneck is a constraining resource that limits the rest of the system.

[LightParticle]

Well, maybe in terms of price perspective is for "poor" people but thank god he did not said it's for "cheap" people...

[Emily Young]

7 hours ago, Mahoney said:

 

hm...

Please tell me you did benchmarks with dual channel to come to that conclusion because there's a ton of benchmarks out there that prove there's big gains when you go with Dual over Single. I mean almost everybody advises Dual over Single.

 

 

edit:

I mean c'mon it's painfully obvious there are gains

That second video basically says what I've said as far as gaming goes - You'd be hard-pressed to see much difference under normal gameplay, and in my testing on two very CPU-hungry titles at 1080p using a Core i5 8400 and RTX 2060, it's 7% in Shadow of the Tomb Raider and 6% in CSGO. If that sounds like a lot, it's really not - That equates to 91 FPS (6 FPS delta) and 353 FPS (20 FPS delta). Not what I would call a "big difference" at these frame rates.

 

As the second video says, most titles will not see results that vary by that much, unless you're specifically looking for them (Watch Dogs 2 in that first video is a particularly egregious outlier due to bad optimization). Productivity on the other hand definitely does benefit directly and greatly from the extra memory bandwidth.

[overttt]

Simple answer is No. 
 

All the parts and variables to this "yes or no" question is much more complex then a simple yes or no answer. I'll try to keep this short. 
 

Cost of AMD vs Intel

 

Keep in mind, majority of the wealthy people tend to not splurge frivolously on things things*** (based on what I've seen and according to a quick google search to back my claim)

 

So currently, Intel's i9-9900k beats AMD's R7 2700x by ~20% in terms of performance across the board but at almost double the price. Keep in mind the 2700x is more than capable of alongside the best GPU's on the market without bottlenecking the system.

 

A simpler way to look at it is that though yes a wealthy individual can just drop cash on an Intel chip and get marginally better performance compared to its AMD counterpart but most Wealthy*** people are more wise with their money and wont necessarily mind getting the slightly less performing but still overall super capable AMD counterpart but you know just like everything. Those balls to the wall wealthy people that plan to game in 4k 144hz with your RTX 2080ti's in SLI then sure you might pick the Intel i9-9900k but this is in my honest opinion is the only way I can justify dropping $500+ on a CPU when there are more competitive FPS/$ alternatives.

 

***Keyword is wealthy, not "rich" or "new money. There's a difference and its not an argument I want to get into at the moment"***

 

 

[MeatFeastMan]

10 minutes ago, overttt said:

Simple answer is No. 
 

All the parts and variables to this "yes or no" question is much more complex then a simple yes or no answer. I'll try to keep this short. 
 

Cost of AMD vs Intel

 

Keep in mind, majority of the wealthy people tend to not splurge frivolously on things things*** (based on what I've seen and according to a quick google search to back my claim)

 

So currently, Intel's i9-9900k beats AMD's R7 2700x by ~20% in terms of performance across the board but at almost double the price. Keep in mind the 2700x is more than capable of alongside the best GPU's on the market without bottlenecking the system.

 

A simpler way to look at it is that though yes a wealthy individual can just drop cash on an Intel chip and get marginally better performance compared to its AMD counterpart but most Wealthy*** people are more wise with their money and wont necessarily mind getting the slightly less performing but still overall super capable AMD counterpart but you know just like everything. Those balls to the wall wealthy people that plan to game in 4k 144hz with your RTX 2080ti's in SLI then sure you might pick the Intel i9-9900k but this is in my honest opinion is the only way I can justify dropping $500+ on a CPU when there are more competitive FPS/$ alternatives.

 

***Keyword is wealthy, not "rich" or "new money. There's a difference and its not an argument I want to get into at the moment"***

 

 

This was exactly what I said earlier. People don't always spend all their money because it is there to spend. There are a solid group of people that choose the most REASONABLE option (Which at the high end is indeed the 2700x rather than the 9900k) rather than the outright best option. Why spend more than you need to...

[justpoet]

It will be interesting to see what happens to the performance advantage people are used to seeing on Intel once the new mitigations for the memory controller based speculative processing exploits go into place.  Much like the original spectre/meltdown had patches that hurt all CPU performance, this will likely do similar to intel again…but only intel as the others didn't have similar vulnerabilities from trying to get a performance edge there.  This one is actually more serious too, since all it takes is getting somebody to run some javascript in a web browser to take advantage of.

[Kitsan]

Im glad they changed the title of this thread/video on youtube, it's actually a very good piece of content if anyone hasn't had chance to view it yet and it shouldn't be overshadowed by hyperbole reactions to certain words.

[justpoet]

@GabenJr An aside for this.  Obviously on Windows, team green has the video card thing down right now.  Is that also the case on Linux (aka, have their drivers matured enough now), or is the AMD side better or more competitive due to being more open source friendly on Linux?

[williamcll]

Being a World of Tanks player I've decided to switch to R7 2700X instead of an intel for my upcoming build plan since the price to performance is a lot better. Recent patches have made multicore rendering a lot better, beating the 8700k while being cheaper.

[Mahoney]

14 hours ago, GabenJr said:

That second video basically says what I've said as far as gaming goes - You'd be hard-pressed to see much difference under normal gameplay, and in my testing on two very CPU-hungry titles at 1080p using a Core i5 8400 and RTX 2060, it's 7% in Shadow of the Tomb Raider and 6% in CSGO. If that sounds like a lot, it's really not - That equates to 91 FPS (6 FPS delta) and 353 FPS (20 FPS delta). Not what I would call a "big difference" at these frame rates.

 

As the second video says, most titles will not see results that vary by that much, unless you're specifically looking for them (Watch Dogs 2 in that first video is a particularly egregious outlier due to bad optimization). Productivity on the other hand definitely does benefit directly and greatly from the extra memory bandwidth.

And yet you still crippled the intel rigs and made AMD look way better than they are

[Kitsan]

11 minutes ago, Mahoney said:

And yet you still crippled the intel rigs and made AMD look way better than they are

There does seem to be some bias toward AMD in that respect, not sure what the agenda is as im not sure they would miss this normally.

 

#AMDsponsorgate?

[Hiya!]

The title changed..wow

[Bradjm]

How did you oc the ryzen 2600 on an Asus a320 mb ?

 

At least that's what the partpicker list showed towards the end of the video

 

 

[Blademaster91]

2 hours ago, remus243 said:

There does seem to be some bias toward AMD in that respect, not sure what the agenda is as im not sure they would miss this normally.

 

#AMDsponsorgate?

If AMD sponsored the video they wouldn't have been very happy about the title, unless thats why LTT changed it.

[Emily Young]

6 hours ago, Mahoney said:

And yet you still crippled the intel rigs and made AMD look way better than they are

Yeah, I did straight up forget to change to dual channel on the adjusted Intel build. That was my bad. I really don't know how that's "crippling" anything though considering the performance difference is so minimal, but sure, whatever you say. Even if it were a full 7% performance improvement across the board (which it is not), they're still within 5% of each other on value, so it doesn't really make much sense to argue about this unless you have an axe to grind since the fact that they're so close was the entire point of our conclusion. You can do the math yourself on the numbers we showed if you want.

 

I'm not going to dedicate any more time to this one, so if it makes you happy, sure, you got me, I totally crippled the Intel build because AMD couldn't possibly have similar value prop otherwise.

 

5 hours ago, Bradjm said:

How did you oc the ryzen 2600 on an Asus a320 mb ?

 

At least that's what the partpicker list showed towards the end of the video

That was an adjusted AMD build for price comparison against the adjusted Intel build once we dropped the OC requirement.

[Tristerin]

Turns out taking my screenshot was worth

[Velcade]

1 hour ago, Tristerin said:

Turns out taking my screenshot was worth

 

This isn't really a surprise.  The title wasn't going to last long...

 

 

What surprises me is your use of Day Theme

[Tristerin]

1 hour ago, Velcade said:

This isn't really a surprise.  The title wasn't going to last long...

 

 

What surprises me is your use of Day Theme

Im one of those - if it aint broke don't fix it people haha

 

My cell phone is a gen 1 smartphone from 2010/2011?  But @$24 a month grandfathered for life of phone...unlimited 3g/texts/calls...cant do it!