AMD or Intel

[Ristic100]

So im planning to get a new computer and im not sure if should go for the amd ryzen 7 3800x or the i9 9900k whats the best choise for gaming here?

[bellabichon]

That depends on a couple of things. First off, do you have a budget in mind? AMD is usually a lot better value, but if you're planning to spend used car amounts of money on a PC, value probably isn't your top concern. Second, are you planning to do just gaming, or could you see yourself doing some productivity work in the future (video/photo editing, CAD, etc)?

[merco]

If you're really just gaming on it intel is still the better choice, however amd is much better value. If you go intel you pay a lot more for slightly better fps.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Ristic100 said:

So im planning to get a new computer and im not sure if should go for the amd ryzen 7 3800x or the i9 9900k whats the best choise for gaming here?

Neither. The 3700X over the 3800X unless you can get it for the same price. The 9900K isn't worth it unless you plan on gaming at 1080p with a high refresh rate monitor and a 2080S/2080 ti.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, merco said:

If you're really just gaming on it intel is still the better choice, however amd is much better value. If you go intel you pay a lot more for slightly better fps.

Not really as it depends on the resolution and gpu. Once you move to 1440p or above the gap is minimal.

[merco]

1 minute ago, lee32uk said:

minimal

minimal slightly tomato tomato

[Jimkirk363]

I say AMD, thats because i'm an AMD Fanboy lol.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, merco said:

minimal slightly tomato tomato

What ?

[bellabichon]

8 minutes ago, merco said:

minimal slightly tomato tomato

Eh, not really. "Slightly" gives the impression that there will be a noticeable edge over the other in performance. "Minimal" acknowledges that the difference might not even be noticeable. 

[merco]

5 minutes ago, lee32uk said:

What ?

It seems like you stopped reading after the first sentence. We are both saying the same thing and you say not really for some reason...

[merco]

1 minute ago, bellabichon said:

Eh, not really. "Slightly" gives the impression that there will be a noticeable edge over the other in performance. "Minimal" acknowledges that the difference might not even be noticeable. 

Well let me put it this way, if you have infinite money and you do nothing but gaming on that PC, would you buy AMD?

[bellabichon]

1 minute ago, merco said:

Well let me put it this way, if you have infinite money and you do nothing but gaming on that PC, would you buy AMD?

No, if I had infinite money, I wouldn't buy an AMD CPU. I would be on a plane to the headquarters of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation so we can find a solution to climate change.

 

See? That's not realistic, nor relevant. The point is, even if you had infinite money, why would you spend hundreds of dollars more for something that's going to equal approximately the same performance?

[merco]

12 minutes ago, bellabichon said:

The point is

Fine let us again ignore that I said the AMD CPU is better value. 

 

Let me take a less extreme very simple example. Let's assume AMD= 100 FPS Intel = 120 FPS; In this case Intel would win by 20% do you think you would notice the difference between 100 and 120 fps? Probably not. Is 20% better still approximately the same? Not really. We could argue semantics all you like but at the end of the day intel is slightly faster, and AMD is much better value, I feel like I'm repeating myself though. 

 

30 minutes ago, bellabichon said:

That's not realistic, nor relevant

I was just making an extreme example here to illustrate a point, If you want to spend 500€ instead of 300€ for 20% more fps in some games (even if it is on average more like 2-3% the argument still stands) then you basically wasted 200€ for a slight improvement. But some people don't care about 200€. They could have used those 200€ to fight global warming I guess, donate it somewhere. Not that it would take you very far, but that's beside the point isn't it?    

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, merco said:

It seems like you stopped reading after the first sentence. We are both saying the same thing and you say not really for some reason...

The first sentence you said that Intel is still the better choice if you are just gaming ? That is what I was commenting on, as it isn't a cut and dry thing. Not disagreeing with the rest of your statement. 

[merco]

2 minutes ago, lee32uk said:

The first sentence you said that Intel is still the better choice if you are just gaming ? That is what I was commenting on, as it isn't a cut and dry thing. Not disagreeing with the rest of your statement

I guess I chose my words poorly, by better choice I mean better raw gaming performance. 

If I pull up a random vs video https://youtu.be/jbBg2h47nIg?t=619

 

All I see is intel faster or same speed. Seems pretty cut and dry to me. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, merco said:

I guess I chose my words poorly, by better choice I mean better raw gaming performance. 

If I pull up a random vs video https://youtu.be/jbBg2h47nIg?t=619

 

All I see is intel faster or same speed. Seems pretty cut and dry to me. 

Which is why I said it depends on the gpu and resolution. For all we know the op might be running a mid range gpu like a 5700XT. So then the gap isn't there. Or if he is gaming at 4K with a 2080 ti the same applies. 

[merco]

26 minutes ago, lee32uk said:

Which is why I said it depends on the gpu and resolution. For all we know the op might be running a mid range gpu like a 5700XT. So then the gap isn't there. Or if he is gaming at 4K with a 2080 ti the same applies

You're right I was looking at 4K and it doesn't make much of a difference there. Thanks for clarifying that's pretty interesting, I never really looked at those numbers before. So if I understand it right the GPU becomes a bottleneck at some point? Looking at the video I posted earlier, the 9900k seems to beat the 3800x pretty consistently in 1440p, but weaker GPUs would push the same FPS regardless?

[Guest]

8 hours ago, merco said:

You're right I was looking at 4K and it doesn't make much of a difference there. Thanks for clarifying that's pretty interesting, I never really looked at those numbers before. So if I understand it right the GPU becomes a bottleneck at some point? Looking at the video I posted earlier, the 9900k seems to beat the 3800x pretty consistently in 1440p, but weaker GPUs would push the same FPS regardless?

This article probably explains it better. A few years old but the principle is still the same.

 

https://www.techspot.com/news/68407-tackling-subject-gpu-bottlenecking-cpu-gaming-benchmarks-using.html

[BobbyPdue]

12 hours ago, Ristic100 said:

So im planning to get a new computer and im not sure if should go for the amd ryzen 7 3800x or the i9 9900k whats the best choise for gaming here?

I think right now it's worth waiting until the end of the year before buying anything new.  There is a chance new CPUs and GPUs will be announced and the beginning of a new generation is the time to buy.  You'll get a larger difference in performance and you won't get buyers remorse if new products come out a month after you put your computer together.  There is the risk of new products not coming out for 12 months or longer though.  

 

1 hour ago, lee32uk said:

the 9900k seems to beat the 3800x pretty consistently in 1440p, but weaker GPUs would push the same FPS regardless?

The thing with these benchmarks is they use the 2080 ti.  GPUs will get more powerful in the future and if the difference in performance is significant your CPU might end up being the bottle neck again if you upgrade your GPU and keep your CPU.   

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, BobbyPdue said:

The thing with these benchmarks is they use the 2080 ti.  GPUs will get more powerful in the future and if the difference in performance is significant your CPU might end up being the bottle neck again if you upgrade your GPU and keep your CPU.   

Same happens with cpu's otherwise an i7 2600K would be as fast as a 9900K.

[BobbyPdue]

1 minute ago, lee32uk said:

Same happens with cpu's otherwise an i7 2600K would be as fast as a 9900K.

I'm not sure what you mean with your comparison.  

 

The 1080 performance shows the difference in CPUs when they are the bottleneck.  Once GPUs get significantly more powerful there will be a larger difference in performance at higher resolutions.  

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, BobbyPdue said:

I'm not sure what you mean with your comparison.  

 

The 1080 performance shows the difference in CPUs when they are the bottleneck.  Once GPUs get significantly more powerful there will be a larger difference in performance at higher resolutions.  

You are basically saying that gpu's are getting more powerful, but ignoring that fact that cpu's are also getting faster with each new generation. Go look at some 4K gaming benchmarks with a 2080 ti and you will see that even a lower end cpu can keep up with a 9900K.