Jump to content

Ryzen 3rd Gen vs Intel 9th Gen

Varus

to the OP. really unless your friend is going to be pairing this with a rtx 2080 ti or rtx titan and playing at 4k then I would advise going Ryzen at the moment, and even then the only thing intel has it their 9900k as a performance crown, anything less go Ryzen. I like my i7 8700k based system, at the time it was better for my main use (gaming) but If i were building today Intel is just to far behind on price to performance. Intel needs to really from the top down cut ~25% off their entire line's msrp to compete. 

 

Honestly I don't think in 2-3 years the 9900k will even be outperforming a Ryzen 9 3900x or even a Ryzen 7 3700x as games have been moving towards more and more core useage. 

 

Your friend in that price range would probably be best served by the R5 3600 if they are willing to overclock and dial things in with some fast RAM, or if only going out the box then a R5 3600x. note AMD is rubbish at binning chips so a 3600 might actually with proper overclocking end up outperforming a 3600x it really is the wild west of silicone lottery with AMD 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, hello_there_123 said:

That wasn,t the point of matter , you said that it didnt have a cache at all which was clearly false. 

Yup, ill take that. 

11 minutes ago, hello_there_123 said:

The ex920 isnt perfect by any means, but the sustained writes. Due tl the lager SLC cache does help it a lot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, hello_there_123 said:

The comment i linked , and this benchmarks seem to show otherwise... 

 

https://www.tweaktown.com/articles/8792/corsair-force-mp510-nvme-ssd-review-corsairs-fastest/index2.html

Damn, the benchmark i saw must have been flawed them. It should have a very large SLC cache to read to. 

 

Thanks for the info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The Torrent said:

My problem that benchmarks are quick and to the point?

 

how is thst a problem?

The problem is like I mentioned in my other post is that the userbenchmark isn't actually a benchmark. It mainly just collects system information and runs a few quick tests that were not even accurate when I tried it out.

 

Benchmarks are not quick. They take time to run and you have to run them mulitiple times and average the results. A lot of these reviewers spend hours, if not days running benchmarks and analyzing the data. It would be much faster to watch a couple reviews and look at the charts then to actually do the testing yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×