Why would you pick Ryzen for gaming?

[unkownhihi]

reposting from pcpartpicker forum because I need the reason as well!

 

pcpartpicker discussion link: https://pcpartpicker.com/forums/topic/362287-why-would-you-pick-ryzen-for-gaming

 

Quote:

"I am honestly wondering why anyone would ever pick any Ryzen cpu for GAMING reasons only. Let me reiterate, if you plan on using it as a work station, or for video editing, I totally understand Ryzen. But for the many many others out there building a strictly gaming pc. It is massively not cost effective for gaming. literally twice the money for much less frames, Especially in 1080p Intel shines, the Frame differences shrink slightly in 2k and 4k. But the vast majority of gamers play in 1080p. Intel current prices for gaming cpus I3-9100f - $75 I5-9400f - $125 I5-9600kf - $195 I7-9700k - $370

So for arguments sake, I'm curious as to why I see most people suggest ryzen to new builders?"

 

Btw new user here, hello everyone!

[TetraSky]

Because no one ever "only" does gaming and its nice to have the headroom to do more for the price, especially if and when games start using multicore more.

 

Also, AMD doesn't have a new vulnerability every week, so there's that. And the upgrade path because they don't require a new socket with every new generation.

 

I'm also not sure where they got that AMD was twice as expensive. It's clearly not and is, in fact, cheaper, all while providing similar results.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

Also in gener for low budget gaming rigs a Ryzen 3 can be a better bang for a buck than a i3, midrange is similar performance, but yes a 10900k or what ever it is is still a better chip. One would also need to look at what a reasonable upgrade is. A 7th gen i5 to a third gen r3 is great, but to a like 10900k is not a reasonable upgrade.

[zeusthemoose]

12 minutes ago, unkownhihi said:

It is massively not cost effective for gaming. literally twice the money for much less frames,

This isn’t true. Basically the same performance in gaming (some have intel higher some have amd higher). Current 9600kf price is 200 and 3600 is 170. So amd gets much better price to performance.

 

but if you look at anything other than gaming, amd is better performance wise.

[unkownhihi]

wow, this forum is active! if y'all don't mind, post these reasonings on pcpartpicker so OP can know as well. Thanks everyone! have a great day.

[Escapenz]

Firstly welcome

 

Secondly, Well for me i always take the gaming thing at face value. Sure right now they may only game but soon they may wish to start youtube or stream, maybe use this pc for studies later on in life or so on. When you start thinking like this ryzen is the smarter pick for 80% if builds

[zeusthemoose]

Just now, BlueScope819 said:

Side note: Did you see Linus gave you a shout out in the WAN show? He spend a good 10 seconds talking specifically about you. You are famous now! (Timestamped for you)

Yeah, fakensa posted it on the parrot gang thread. I had to update my signature to show off, lol. Thanks for showing me though!

[zeusthemoose]

Just now, BlueScope819 said:

I should consider making myself a parrot gang gif, how did you make yours?

You can join on this thread (we’d love to have you!): 

There is a website with a bunch of parrots linked in there so you can choose which you want.

[TetraSky]

3 minutes ago, BlueScope819 said:

I should consider making myself a parrot gang gif, how did you make yours?

Oh Lord, it's spreading.

[zeusthemoose]

Just now, TetraSky said:

Oh Lord, it's spreading.

You should join too! #parrotgang

(I’ll stop taking over this thread now...)

[TetraSky]

1 minute ago, zeusthemoose said:

You should join too! #parrotgang

(I’ll stop taking over this thread now...)

I like my pink cat, thanks.

And really, this thread is long over. There was nothing to discuss here. Just a post from another forum about how wrong they were.

[Tristerin]

Because

[GDRRiley]

the OP of that post really doesn't know what hes talking about. I'd expect him to be a frequent user of userbenchmarks and such.

[FakeNSA]

12 hours ago, TetraSky said:

Oh Lord, it's spreading.

You're welcome!

[Sauron]

13 hours ago, unkownhihi said:

I5-9400f - $125

Not sure where those prices apply but where I live the 9400f costs almost as much as a 3600x which completely creams it. As for the 9100f, anyone buying that for games will get royally screwed over within the next two years - 4c/4t has been barely enough for a while now.

 

At least a ryzen chip can be overclocked - and you get to upgrade to a newer generation without throwing away your motherboard if it becomes necessary.

[GoldenLag]

13 hours ago, unkownhihi said:

Intel current prices for gaming cpus I3-9100f - $75 I5-9400f - $125 I5-9600kf - $195 I7-9700k - $370

So for arguments sake, I'm curious as to why I see most people suggest ryzen to new builders?"

because 3/4th of the options lack the threadcount to be a viable choice in modern gaming for the price they charge. 

 

and the 9700k just got beaten by the 10600k in that regards. 

 

so none of those options is what is considered a "good" choice. Zen is, and will continue to be one of the best options for anyone with a non-massive budget. and in the end, why spend 100$ more on a CPU, when it can be spent on the GPU, which will provide far better gains. 

[dfsgsfa]

1) cost of intel K chips are dumb, you must pair with premium Z chipsets to overclock, while amd side is free

also remember that all intel chip have overheating issue which add extra cost to cooling

 

2) intel is better for game, yea but for how much? 

All benchmarks you see is paired with rtx2080Ti  and yet the diff is only 10- 20fps in 140fps range

so ask yourself first,  

does that fps matters at that range? no>Amd

do you have high(est) end monitor AND top end gpu ?no>Amd

therefore amd cpu even 1st gen ryzen are more than good enough for majority

 

3) ryzen is futureproof enough over intel , no matter how you define it

[Dravinian]

Midrange, 9600kf vs 3600, from what I see it is neck and neck in gaming terms, and the 9600kf is $20 more expensive.

 

At high-end, I think Intel still has a significant advantage in pure gaming terms.  I don't think the 3900x or the 3950x perform that well and if anyone actually buys a 3900xt or a 3950xt I think we should be calling the guys with the straight-jackets and the white van because that is clearly a sign of insanity.

 

I am looking forward to Ryzen 4, I am hoping the core count increases as well as single threaded boosting.

[Chris Pratt]

The only benefit for gaming Intel has over AMD is clocks, and that makes the most difference only on the world thread, i.e. strictly single-core performance. Intel is often better for gaming, but not always, and that breaks down mostly to how much the game relies on the CPU and how well it utilizes multiple cores. The gap is also lessening. The binned Zen 2 chips AMD is selling as XT now can boost to 4.7Ghz. That puts it in striking distance to the best Intel has to offer. At the end of the day, I'd say pure gaming performance between AMD vs Intel is mostly a wash at this point, and for every other computing application, AMD is usually a better choice.

 

That said, I'm still rooting for Intel. The competition AMD has brought to the table has been good for everyone, causing Intel to offer more at better prices, but AMD is starting to lap Intel, and that's not so great. AMD has largely already overtaken the desktop market, and it's looking to do the same with the laptop market next year. Add in the fact that Intel can't seem to get off 14nm to save their lives (more than a little quite literally), and just got dumped by Apple, and I'm starting to actually get a little concerned for their future prospects, unless something changes dramatically, soon. We don't want to end up in the same situation in reverse, where now it's AMD stagnating because they have no real competition anymore.