$700 Gaming PC

[eira]

10 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

as shown in the video below, the 9100F is VERY close to a 9400F (and the 9400F beats the 2600 completely) when paired with an RTX 2060. In fact in a few games the 9100F is better because of the slightly higher clocks:

 

 

I highly doubt a 4 core i3 performs similarly to a 2600 or a 9400F.. 

I own a 4c/4t CPU myself (afaik it performs similarly to a 9100F) and I couldn't recommend against it enough. I recommend getting at least 6 cores in 2019, 4 cores will not cut it anymore. 

There's absolutely no reason to be recommending 4 core i3s in 2019, especially when a 6 core CPU like a 9400F or a 2600 is in budget.

I don't trust those benchmark videos at all since there's no way to verify its legitimacy and the results are completely unrealistic.

[Stefan Payne]

10 minutes ago, Fred944 said:

This is perfect... It's like I'm getting my baby back... plus a little.

No, its not.

Its a garbage System...

 

4C/4T are already problematic in some games due to 4C/4T.

Its the same shit as back in the day with the Core 2 Duo vs. Core 2 Quad.

Or back in the day with Athlon 64 3700+ vs x2/3800+.

The Athlon X2 was released in around 2005.

ANd now look how it looked 2008:

https://store.steampowered.com/app/15100/Assassins_Creed_Directors_Cut_Edition/

Only ~3 Years later, there were games that didn't run on the, at that time for games, faster 3700+...

 

In German we'd say that the 9100F is enough from "12 bis Mittag", wich translates to "from 12 to lunch". Meaning its old now...

It might look fast right now - in some games, but its really not worth the money!

 

Its basically the same thing you had before!

And with Intel, you have NO UPGRADE PATH!

 

Why the heck would you want the same stuff a couple of years later, when you can get something much better for just a bit more???

 

PS: next Month, 7nm Ryzen will be released wich is much faster than anything AMD has right now. In Multi Thrad a 6 Core Ryzen 3600 seems to be equal to the 2700X. And Single Thread its much better...

 

[jerubedo]

7 minutes ago, Herman Mcpootis said:

it's not an upgrade from the 6500

It's the same architecture and the 6500 only boosts to 3.6GHz. The 9100F boosts to 4.2GHz. That's a big upgrade, about 15%.

 

12 minutes ago, Herman Mcpootis said:

the 7600K was stuttering in titles with just card that performs similarly to the 1660ti while the 1600 was much smoother.

I did say there are a few titles. The point of that article was obviously to point that out and yet they only found 3 examples. Still, the vast majority of games overall, including very new releases, favor the 9100F for averages and lows over the 1600. 

[Jurrunio]

2 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

I did say there are a few titles. The point of that article was obviously to point that out and yet they only found 3 examples. Still, the vast majority of games overall, including very new releases, favor the 9100F for averages and lows over the 1600. 

Hey I'm here, mind answering my argument?

[Stefan Payne]

5 minutes ago, XR6 said:

I highly doubt a 4 core i3 performs similarly to a 2600 or a 9400F.. 

yeah, that would make the 9400F a totally pointless product, if the 9100 would be similar to the 9400. Who would need/want the 9400??

Nobody.

and Intel wouldn't have done a 9400 either as they can get more money with the old 4C Die...

5 minutes ago, XR6 said:

I own a 4c/4t CPU myself (afaik it performs similarly to a 9100F) and I couldn't recommend against it enough. I recommend getting at least 6 cores in 2019, 4 cores will not cut it anymore. 

Yeah, absolutely!
IF you already have a 4 Core and you're happy with it, great. 
But we're talking about buying new.

An Intel CPU.

And with Intel there was no point in the last 10 years where it would make sense to upgrade ever because only 2 Generations per Socket...

Ivy Bridge would have been a great Upgrade on LGA1156, replacing an i5-750. But the Sockets were changed for whatever reason so it wasn't a good upgrade...

 

5 minutes ago, XR6 said:

There's absolutely no reason to be recommending 4 core i3s in 2019, especially when a 6 core CPU like a 9400F or a 2600 is in budget.

Absolutely!

And Benchmarks are only part of the story!

And they can also be misleading or even lie, if you don't interpret it right.

 

And with high fps, wich that probably is, what you're measuring is the latency of the CPU, not the Power it has.

You need to have a more demanding, lower FPS situation to really measure the computing power.

But 100fps+ is a Latency Test. And here the older 4 Core Dies are a bit better.

 

That DOES NOT MEAN that they are better in the long run!

On the contrary. It means the Benchmark is misleading and feigns performance that isn't really there because its the Latency that is measured...

5 minutes ago, XR6 said:

I don't trust those benchmark videos at all since there's no way to verify its legitimacy and the results are completely unrealistic.

I agree.

They mislead people and show performance that isn't there.

Because we're talking at 100fps or more...

[eira]

8 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

It's the same architecture and the 6500 only boosts to 3.6GHz. The 9100F boosts to 4.2GHz. That's a big upgrade, about 15%.

That's not how it works.. A 0.6GHz clock speed increase will not give you a 15% upgrade.

I reckon you'd fit in very well at the Intel marketing department because at this point you're just promoting Intel, you're not actually backing up your arguments.

[jerubedo]

1 minute ago, Jurrunio said:

Hey I'm here, mind answering my argument?

Sorry, as per usual the same 5 people are ganging up on me, so it's hard to keep track of everyone. NJ Tech constantly skews data towards favoring AMD. They even had a video showing the 2600 beating the 9400F across the board, which as we all know, based on professional reviews between Tom's and Hardware Unboxed (50 games between the two of them), that's not true. The 9400F was shown to win on every benchmark site.

 

All of the other YouTubers have the 8100 trading blows with the 2600 (and so the 15% gain on the 9100F pushes it to win in almost every game).

[jerubedo]

3 minutes ago, XR6 said:

That's not how it works.. A 0.6GHz clock speed increase will not give you a 15% upgrade.

What you've just said makes me think you'd fit in very well at the Intel marketing department.

Clocks (and IPC) are what matter most in games, so getting 15% higher clocks in games that favor clocks would certainly translate to 15% gains. See here:

 

 

As you can see, the gains are roughly 10-15% in most of these games!

[Jurrunio]

4 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

Sorry, as per usual the same 5 people are ganging up on me, so it's hard to keep track of everyone. NJ Tech constantly skews data towards favoring AMD. They even had a video showing the 2600 beating the 9400F across the board, which as we all know, based on professional reviews between Tom's and Hardware Unboxed (50 games between the two of them), that's not true. The 9400F was shown to win on every benchmark site.

yeah but what about the 9100F? That's the subject here

 

5 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

All of the other YouTubers have the 8100 trading blows with the 2600 (and so the 15% gain on the 9100F pushes it to win in almost every game).

You know, I'd rather not be so cruel to even Intel when I've battered it so much, but you asked for this

[Fred944]

Everyone, I've made my choice and looked at all of the data posted... and some of my own research... Thank you all, but I like the build I chose.

[Stefan Payne]

4 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

It's the same architecture and the 6500 only boosts to 3.6GHz. The 9100F boosts to 4.2GHz. That's a big upgrade, about 15%.

The 9400 would be a bigger upgrade as it has +50% cores.

Only 15% more after 4 Years is a joke...

Or are you saying that an Athlon 64/4000+ would have been awesome in 2007???

oh wait, Core 2 Duo was there...

4 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

I did say there are a few titles.

So you do admit that you know that there are already situations where the 4C/4T CPU you are recommending here is not enough.

So you willingly recommended  @Fred944 a CPU you know is already struggling, instead of a slightly more expensive one that has some "reserves for the Future".

4 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

The point of that article was obviously to point that out and yet they only found 3 examples. Still, the vast majority of games overall, including very new releases, favor the 9100F for averages and lows over the 1600. 

 

Why are you recommending a CPU where you know that its already struggling?? Don't you think that @Fred944 might regret listening to you and your advise, when the Games he wants to play are stuttering and run pretty bad, because he only has 4 Cores??

And then he might see that they might run a bit better on the 1600 he originally wanted...

 

And then he also sees that there is a newer AMD Chip that he could also have put on the Board he was originally intending on using, wich totally annihilated everything that was available at the time of purchase...

 

Yeah, no. That's not good advise.

 

YOU are making the same claims that people did back in the day when they said that the Q9550 was not worth it and the E8600 was all he ever needed...

Feels like Deja-Vu...

Oh and that was the same when the first Dual Cores were released as well. See above the Assasin's Creed Link...

[Vejnemojnen]

Slightly off the record/topik, but last week i had two requests for recommending sub600USD gaming PCs solely from new, store purchased &assembled partz.

 

I went with these 

Asrock b450m Pro4

Ryzen1600 (nice thing apart from being ~30 EUR cheaper than 2600, was it also has a better cooler, wraith spire..) 

2*8 GB patriot viper 4 3200 mhz dual channel rams 

Asrock rx570 phantomgaming x VGA 

Bq System power 9 400w psu 

Patriot burst 240GB ssd

Wd ezex blue 1tb HDD 

Bitfenix neos case or fractal focus g. 

 

This package was probably the best i was able to offer, which is roughly 600USD with assembly by the store. With 27% VAT in my country and the poor, abysmal exchange ratios, it's a fairly fine pack for fhd 60Hz gaming. 

 

If the op would choose 75Hz, he would save quite a lot of money. He should just get a rx580 card and a decent 400-450w psu along with some sub100€ monitor and there wouldnt be problems with esport games. 

 

Imho 

 

Oh and there's upgrade potential for the upcoming ryzen generations later... 

[jerubedo]

3 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

yeah but what about the 9100F? That's the subject here

 

You know, I'd rather not be so cruel to even Intel when I've battered it so much, but you asked for this

Yep, that is the video I was talking about! As you can see the 8100 trades blows. It wins in 4 games and loses in 4 games. 

[Stefan Payne]

5 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

Yep, that is the video I was talking about! As you can see the 8100 trades blows. It wins in 4 games and loses in 4 games. 

But where it wins its totally irrelevant. What are we talking about? 150fps vs. 125fps? Both are well playable.

But where the i3 loses it counts as it drops under 60fps! That is more important than high fps...

[jerubedo]

3 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

So you do admit that you know that there are already situations where the 4C/4T CPU you are recommending here is not enough. 

So you willingly recommended  @Fred944 a CPU you know is already struggling, instead of a slightly more expensive one that has some "reserves for the Future".

Having ~1-3% of all games "struggle" hardly qualifies as struggling. In the VAST majority of games, including brand new AAA ones, it does fine, stutter free. I can also point out games in which the 1600 stutters. No one CPU can run every single game perfectly. There are even cases where the 9900K does worse than the 9700K because of negative scaling with hyperthreading (which happens).

 

7 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

when the Games he wants to play are stuttering and run pretty bad, because he only has 4 Cores??

Oh yeah? What about when people recommend the Ryzen 3 1200 for gaming? You people don't complain then. It's a 4c/4t part as well. No one says a thing because it's Ryzen.

[Daniel Z.]

5 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

Yep, that is the video I was talking about! As you can see the 8100 trades blows. It wins in 4 games and loses in 4 games. 

Yeah but the 9100F has a much worse upgrade path, will become obsolete much sooner, isn’t really an upgrade from the 6500, and is already much worse in any non-gaming task.

[Daniel Z.]

Just now, Stefan Payne said:

But where it wins its totally irrelevant. What are we talking about? 150fps vs. 125fps? Both are well playable.

But where the i3 loses it counts as it drops under 60fps! That is more important than high fps...

Completely agree, I play on a 4 core i5 and a GTX 1660. It’s not the best experience, certainly not what I would pay 700 TODAY for. It’s like buying years old performing tech for today’s prices.

[jerubedo]

4 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

But where it wins its totally irrelevant. What are we talking about? 150fps vs. 125fps? Both are well playable.

No, in all but the first game, they are ALL under 144 FPS, making it completely relevant for 144Hz monitors. 

 

5 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

But where the i3 loses it counts as it drops under 60fps! That is more important than high fps...

There are no drops below 60 in that video. Even the R3 1200 can pull 60- FPS or more. Hell, even the FX 6300 can. 

[Jurrunio]

5 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

Yep, that is the video I was talking about! As you can see the 8100 trades blows. It wins in 4 games and loses in 4 games. 

10% win for Intel in Project Cars 2, 20% lose for Intel in Kingdom Come Deliverance, 20% lose for Intel in AC:Origins, tied in GTA 5, 10% win in Arma 3, 20% lose in Witcher 3, equal in Far Cry 5 (720p for some reason), 15% lose in Battlefield 1. You still call it trades blows? Now the 9100F is faster than the 8100, but with an all core turbo of 3.8GHz it's only 0.2GHz or 5.56% faster than the 8100 with all its cores used. Beating the 2600? Nope, far from it.

[Jurrunio]

7 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

Oh yeah? What about when people recommend the Ryzen 3 1200 for gaming? You people don't complain then. It's a 4c/4t part as well. No one says a thing because it's Ryzen.

R3 1200 is dirt cheap at only $65 each... It's about 60% of what the 8100 and 9100F costs.

[Stefan Payne]

3 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

Having ~1-3% of all games "struggle" hardly qualifies as struggling.

Yes, it does.
Because it shows the direction its going.

Same as back in the day with the 2 Cores and so.

Its the same argument as back in the day...

3 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

In the VAST majority of games, including brand new AAA ones, it does fine, stutter free.

So does the 1600.

You're saying?

 

The difference is that the 1600 has +50% cores and 3 times the Threads (=SMT2 on)

3 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

I can also point out games in which the 1600 stutters.

And wich ones might that be?
The ones that run like shit on all Systems, that are Single Threaded??

3 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

No one CPU can run every single game perfectly.

No but you are recommending a CPU that's basically the same as his old rig, that doesn't offer any noticable/significant increase over the old one he had while there are better options for just a little bit more!

And there is also the upgradability to consider, wich is non existant on Intel. While there is something interesting coming from AMD.

 

3 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

There are even cases where the 9900K does worse than the 9700K because of negative scaling with hyperthreading (which happens).

Nobody is talking about that.

We're talking about 100-150€ CPUs.

Not 500€ CPUs.

 

3 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

Oh yeah? What about when people recommend the Ryzen 3 1200 for gaming? You people don't complain then. It's a 4c/4t part as well. No one says a thing because it's Ryzen.

Apples <-> Oranges.

Ryzen 1200 -> https://geizhals.de/amd-ryzen-3-1200-yd1200bbaebox-a1663145.html#offerlist  - 59€ at the time writing this Posting

 

Your i3-9100F: https://geizhals.de/intel-core-i3-9100f-bx80684i39100f-a2056671.html - 99€ at time of writing this post.

So almost 70% more for the 9100F!

THAT makes a big difference!

And that's what you miss -> the Price of the Chip.

[jerubedo]

Just now, Jurrunio said:

tied in GTA 5

Did you watch the whole segment? It completely edged out the 2600, especially towards the end by a large amount.

 

2 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

equal in Far Cry 5

This was not equal, it was ahead by about 5%.

 

4 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

You still call it trades blows?

Yes. 4 games for the 8100, 4 for the 2600.

 

4 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

Now the 9100F is faster than the 8100, but with an all core turbo of 3.8GHz

It's 4.2GHz, not 3.8GHz.

[Stefan Payne]

4 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

No, in all but the first game, they are ALL under 144 FPS, making it completely relevant for 144Hz monitors. 

You mean the 144Hz Monitors that support Freesync??

Why would you get a screen that doesn't support Freesync, especially since there isn't really any additional cost.

4 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

There are no drops below 60 in that video. Even the R3 1200 can pull 60- FPS or more. Hell, even the FX 6300 can. 

In AC: Origins there are some Dips below 60fps with the i3-9100.

And if the R3-1200 can pull 60fps or more or even the 6300, why aren't you recommending those?
Why stick with the 9100???

Especially since the 1200 is only 60% of the 9100...

[jerubedo]

2 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Yes, it does.
Because it shows the direction its going.

Nope. That's where recent games come in. You all keep pointing to the same exact 5-8 games released over the course of the last 5 years. The most recent games do not display this behavior.

 

3 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

So does the 1600.

You're saying?

Right, they both don't stutter much. Now for averages! The 9100F wins.

 

4 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Nobody is talking about that.

We're talking about 100-150€ CPUs.

Not 500€ CPUs.

The point was that no CPU can perform the best in all games. Every CPU has its own flaws that you can see in the same 1-3% of games.

 

5 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Apples <-> Oranges.

Ryzen 1200 -> https://geizhals.de/amd-ryzen-3-1200-yd1200bbaebox-a1663145.html#offerlist  - 59€ at the time writing this Posting

 

Your i3-9100F: https://geizhals.de/intel-core-i3-9100f-bx80684i39100f-a2056671.html - 99€ at time of writing this post.

So almost 70% more for the 9100F!

THAT makes a big difference!

Yeah, and $99 is 50% cheaper than the cost of the 2600 and the 9400F. The cold hard fact is that you don't make these huge arguments about 4c/4t with Ryzen. 

[trevb0t]

As a note to upgradeability on the i3 9100F

If OP were to go in on a lower cost Z390 MOBO, there would always be an easy upgrade path to basically anything in the 8th and 9th gen Intel lineup.

A UD isn't a whole lot more than the B365M board listed in @jerubedo's build. This way if the OP wants an easy upgrade a year or 3 years from now, it's as simple as grabbing a 9700K or the likes on a good deal.