Should i go amd or i7 9700k

[Hopes11]

I wanted to go amd ryzen 7 2700x but one of my buddy told me to go intel cpu becueas amd cpu don't last long and are just bad all around i looked around youtube amd saw that the amd is just as good as intel and amd is cheaper so help plz thanks 

[Ankerson]

6 minutes ago, Hopes11 said:

I wanted to go amd ryzen 7 2700x but one of my buddy told me to go intel cpu becueas amd cpu don't last long and are just bad all around i looked around youtube amd saw that the amd is just as good as intel and amd is cheaper so help plz thanks 

 

The CPU's last just as long, or will outlast the rest of the system normally.

 

What is it that you want to do, gaming?

 

What games and screen resolution?

 

What Graphics card are you thinking about?

 

Just as good as Intel is debatable, at gaming no they are not, at some productivity apps that are ported for AMD, yes.

 

At 4K they are close, but at 1080P and 1440P Intel is better except for very few games that are ported for AMD.

 

 

 

 

[mxk]

10 minutes ago, Hopes11 said:

I wanted to go amd ryzen 7 2700x but one of my buddy told me to go intel cpu becueas amd cpu don't last long and are just bad all around i looked around youtube amd saw that the amd is just as good as intel and amd is cheaper so help plz thanks 

Your friend is feeding you shit

 

It really depends on what you're doing, but AMD is overall better value then Intel.

[TempestCatto]

The only reason I'd say choose AMD over Intel right now is because of Ryzen 3000 this year. You have an actual upgrade path (as long as you have the right motherboard). Intel is better than AMD for gaming really, but when you take into account the upgrade path you get with AMD, it almost doesn't make much sense to go team blue (at least not right now). Your friend confuses me. They really mustn't be your friend if they're trying to get you to spend more money when you could just as well build a comparable and capable team red machine. Ultimately you spend your money on what you want. But you may consider a new friend if they really think cpu's have a life span (I mean anything really does, but there's plenty of computers from the early days that work just fine. Plus there are AMD systems like mine on my profile. Bet that one will blow their Mack Weldon's off).

[MadmanRB]

I say go AMD, sure AMDs gaming performance isnt as good as Intels but often times they do come close:

 

Honestly there is no reason not to go AMD right now, its really undercutting intel hard in a lot of areas.

Intel is only like 5-10 % faster in gaming if you see these benchmarks, this is the first time AMD has come this close to intel in a long time.

Not beating it but still undercutting by a large margin.

[Ankerson]

1 hour ago, MadmanRB said:

I say go AMD, sure AMDs gaming performance isnt as good as Intels but often times they do come close:

 

Honestly there is no reason not to go AMD right now, its really undercutting intel hard in a lot of areas.

Intel is only like 5-10 % faster in gaming if you see these benchmarks, this is the first time AMD has come this close to intel in a long time.

Not beating it but still undercutting by a large margin.

 

 

In reality the difference is normally like having the next level up graphics card, especially at 1080P.

 

That can be rather large.

 

Also at 1080P the 2700X will bottleneck the RTX 2080, GTX 1080Ti and above.

 

The difference is rather large as you can see in the video you posted.

 

We don't know what the OP is planning build wise, what games they will be playing or at what resolution and or the GPU he is planning on getting.

 

 

[JoostinOnline]

2 hours ago, Hopes11 said:

I wanted to go amd ryzen 7 2700x but one of my buddy told me to go intel cpu becueas amd cpu don't last long and are just bad all around

That was once (mostly) true, but AMD has been killing it the past two years in the CPU market. That being said, I doubt either of those CPU's are the right fit. While they absolutely have their uses, the 9700k and 2700x are mostly bought by people who just see expensive as better. As other people have asked, you need to tell us what kind of system you're building and what it's for if you want a solid recommendation.

[Hopes11]

10 hours ago, mxk. said:

Your friend is feeding you shit

 

It really depends on what you're doing, but AMD is overall better value then Intel.

I want to be able to stream my games to twitch

And do my 1080 and maybe higher then that from time to time 

[mxk]

Just now, Hopes11 said:

I want to be able to stream my games to twitch

And do my 1080 and maybe higher then that from time to time 

The CPU that you need for streaming and gaming is the 8700k (or 8700) and better, which costs considerably more than a Ryzen 5 2600 which can stream 1080p. You may not get as high of FPS when streaming, but it'll hit your wallet way less than an 8700k.

[Hopes11]

10 hours ago, mxk. said:

Your friend is feeding you shit

 

It really depends on what you're doing, but AMD is overall better value then Intel.

That why i wanted to go with amd

[MadmanRB]

8 hours ago, Ankerson said:

In reality the difference is normally like having the next level up graphics card, especially at 1080P.

 

That can be rather large.

 

Also at 1080P the 2700X will bottleneck the RTX 2080, GTX 1080Ti and above.

 

Eh hard to say about the bottleneck as most videos i have seen pair the GTX1080ti and the Ryzen 7 2700X dont state the refresh rate of the monitor, what BIOS revision of the motherboard they use, what memory they have, etc.

This is why I really wish reviewers would compare frame rates over the time of the processor and not just on first launch, they just take the info from a video 3 years ago and not give the older processor another chance.

This way we can eliminate the bottleneck claims and perhaps make the results more even.

BIOS revisions happen, driver revisions happen, to say that the 2700X will bottleneck is baseless unless you have proper data collection and driver updates.

Heck those issues might have been fixed over the last year.

I know on my case i have seen my Ryzen 7 1700 go from not so great at gaming to being actually quite decent at it via bios revisions.

Sure i changed the hardware around a bit but its certainly better now than launch.

I actually feel some of AMD's fine wine approach might have slipped into their processors a bit

[Ankerson]

13 minutes ago, MadmanRB said:

 

Eh hard to say about the bottleneck as most videos i have seen pair the GTX1080ti and the Ryzen 7 2700X dont state the refresh rate of the monitor, what BIOS revision of the motherboard they use, what memory they have, etc.

This is why I really wish reviewers would compare frame rates over the time of the processor and not just on first launch, they just take the info from a video 3 years ago and not give the older processor another chance.

This way we can eliminate the bottleneck claims and perhaps make the results more even.

BIOS revisions happen, driver revisions happen, to say that the 2700X will bottleneck is baseless unless you have proper data collection

 

EVERY single review, that's all of them.

 

Looking at the latest video comparisons, the ones that show the frame rates, percentages etc. (The AMD slanted ones don't show it however)

 

Things like facts and reality don't seem to matter for some reason.

 

Anyhow, it really doesn't matter, since the GTX 1080Ti was released AMD hasn't been able to keep up with it at 1080P. The 2080 is about equal to the 1080TI, not even talking about the 2080Ti....

 

There is no way around it, no way out of it and nothing you can do.

 

IT IS A VERY WELL KNOWN PROBLEM.

 

 

[trevb0t]

The general consensus I've seen is that AMD doesn't deliver quite as well at single core performance, which is what MOST games operate on. It does however excel in multi core performance, which is what you'll be utilizing when you run software in the background to record and stream game footage, operate your cameras/mics etc.

 

There are fine Intel options for these tasks, but they cost an arm and a leg, where a Ryzen 5 2600 (6 cores, 12 threads, 3.4ghz, overclockable.) only costs $165ish currently, comes with a copy of The Division 2 ($60 value, and it's fun) can pull off the same task for less than half the price. The 2700X will be even more proficient with 2 extra cores, 4 extra threads, and base clock of 3.7ghz.

 

The longevity stigma with AMD has long since been disproved. For old generation stuff, that may have had a good basis, but at the value for performance here you are gonna be plenty happy with a Ryzen.

[MadmanRB]

What are your resources?

Saying something and not actually referring to actual results is not proof

[Ankerson]

1 minute ago, MadmanRB said:

What are your resources?

Saying something and not actually referring to actual results is not proof

Google is your friend.

 

Don't have to look very hard.

[MadmanRB]

Ah the avoid and evade tactic, cant pull up the results on your own?

Too afraid of being proven wrong?

The burden of proof is on you, you make the claim back it up!

[Ankerson]

4 minutes ago, MadmanRB said:

Ah the avoid and evade tactic, cant pull up the results on your own?

Too afraid of being proven wrong?

The burden of proof is on you, you make the claim back it up!

 

You AMD guys are funny, I will give you that. LOL 

[MadmanRB]

Uh huh so its that game.

Look I am no AMD fanboy but at the same time I am not afraid to suggest them as a alternative especially now that the Ryzen series is out.

And why would you have a 2080Ti for 1080p?

Honestly?

[Ankerson]

6 minutes ago, MadmanRB said:

Uh huh so its that game.

Look I am no AMD fanboy but at the same time I am not afraid to suggest them as a alternative especially now that the Ryzen series is out.

And why would you have a 2080Ti for 1080p?

Honestly?

 

Anyone with any since wouldn't do that with any CPU.

 

Yes, AMD has come a long way in the few years, much better than the past few decades before that.

 

If the people are playing at 1080P and want you use one of the higher end GPU's Intel is better.

 

At 1440P and above it doesn't matter as much now.

 

 

[MadmanRB]

I mean a bottleneck makes sense if you are using a 2080Ti for 1080p, but the result would be the same for intel as 1080p isnt going to make the 2080Ti start pushing itself.

Its undercutting the GPU's ability to perform and if you are spending $2000 on a GPU and $120 on a monitor of course there is going to be a mismatch

[TempestCatto]

54 minutes ago, MadmanRB said:

 

Eh hard to say about the bottleneck as most videos i have seen pair the GTX1080ti and the Ryzen 7 2700X dont state the refresh rate of the monitor, what BIOS revision of the motherboard they use, what memory they have, etc.

This is why I really wish reviewers would compare frame rates over the time of the processor and not just on first launch, they just take the info from a video 3 years ago and not give the older processor another chance.

This way we can eliminate the bottleneck claims and perhaps make the results more even.

BIOS revisions happen, driver revisions happen, to say that the 2700X will bottleneck is baseless unless you have proper data collection and driver updates.

Heck those issues might have been fixed over the last year.

I know on my case i have seen my Ryzen 7 1700 go from not so great at gaming to being actually quite decent at it via bios revisions.

Sure i changed the hardware around a bit but its certainly better now than launch.

I actually feel some of AMD's fine wine approach might have slipped into their processors a bit

IIRC AMD has been known to have shit tier products at launch, but over time they become very comparable and end up being just as good as Intel's offerings of the times because AMD works to revise and correct all the shit they get wrong. They become a better value over time as you see performance gains as they push out updates. 

[Ankerson]

8 minutes ago, MadmanRB said:

I mean a bottleneck makes sense if you are using a 2080Ti for 1080p, but the result would be the same for intel as 1080p isnt going to make the 2080Ti start pushing itself.

Its undercutting the GPU's ability to perform and if you are spending $2000 on a GPU and $120 on a monitor of course there is going to be a mismatch

 

Really it started once the GTX 1080Ti came out, you need a powerful CPU to keep up with it at 1080P.

 

Now that the RTX 2080 is out and is close to the GTX 1080Ti performance wise that was added to the list.

 

This is for 1080P though, at 1440P it doesn't matter that much as AMD can keep up at 1440P as it puts more on the GPU than 1080P.

[MadmanRB]

But on a card like the 2080Ti 1440p should be no trouble, its more than powerful enough to make up for any potential bottleneck from the CPU unless we are talking about a intel pentium or something.

Plus there are other factors to consider, if the game is CPU bound or GPU bound.

That can make loads of difference.

[Ankerson]

11 minutes ago, MadmanRB said:

But on a card like the 2080Ti 1440p should be no trouble, its more than powerful enough to make up for any potential bottleneck from the CPU unless we are talking about a intel pentium or something.

Plus there are other factors to consider, if the game is CPU bound or GPU bound.

That can make loads of difference.

 

Even at 1440P you still need to pair the CPU with the 2080Ti or there will be bottlenecks, it is that powerful.

 

The high end CPU's from AMD and Intel.

 

 

[Princess Luna]

why not explain what you need from a CPU so we can advise you what's the best purchase?