9100f vs 1600AF - I am surprised and impressed.

[Vejnemojnen]

I know 1600AF is kind of best bargain right now. Though I always thought, that the little 9100F can beat 2600-1600AF in gaming, this seems to be not the case.

 

These are gaming results. Of course the "productivity" benchmarks are much better for 1600AF. At this point, I would rather recommend 6c12t CPU, even with "weaker" 1c1t performance, as opposed to 4c4t CPU-s. Especially that more and more games seem to benefit from the additional cores.

 

I am aware, that for older games, the 9100f might be better, but, on the long run, I don't think it's a good option.

[anticeon]

1600 AF not available in all country. while intel CPU always easy to get in every country in the world. 

[Vejnemojnen]

1 minute ago, anticeon said:

1600 AF not available in all country. while intel CPU always easy to get in every country in the world. 

well, in my country, both are available, but..

 

9100F costs like ~ 70 euros, whereas 1600AF is ~90-95euros. So, there is some price difference.

 

But if you compare 9400f vs. 1600AF: the former is ~145euro, therefore, the 1600AF still sounds like a value option. I must admit, I underestimated AMD.

[Jurrunio]

Tbh 1600AF for the consumer market is just AMD's shout to Intel that "yes, we can make the 2600 even cheaper to put your 9400F in a more difficult place"