What would you choose? Top tier Intel vs. AMD

[badfis1337]

Hello everyone!

 

Without knowing what the PC is used for, what would you choose if these were the options you were presented:

 

Choice 1: i9 10900k

Choice 2: R9 3900XT

Choice 3: Wait til Zen 3 successor of R9 3900X

 

Please include why you made your decision. Please refrain from simple "because I like AMD" or "because I prefer Intel" type of answers.

 

Let's create a discussion!

 

 

[SFFDesigns]

I would choose 3 if you have a system already or don't need one soon! 

[BobVonBob]

If you can wait for Zen 3, wait for Zen 3. Otherwise the 3900xt blows the 10900k out of the water.

[Moonzy]

Ignoring the price and everything since it's a gift, would love an Intel system just so I could play games on it and overclock it

 

I've had fun overclocking my friend's 9600k, not so much on my 3900x though

 

But if I wanted to do work on it I would still pick AMD because of the better multicore perf (that's why I got it in the first place)

[Jurrunio]

8 minutes ago, badfis1337 said:

Without knowing what the PC is used for

I choose to keep the money until it's decided, otherwise the answers will look something like this

8 minutes ago, badfis1337 said:

simple "because I like AMD" or "because I prefer Intel" type of answers.

 

[vortextech77]

I would choose Option 3. AMD is really starting to get ahead of Intel, and it's more of an all rounder CPU. AMD Ryzen is good for gaming and great for productivity. 

[MrBrightSyde]

I would choose to wait for Zen 3 and see what it's performance is and at what prices. You might save money that way, if you already have a system. I would only get the 10900k if you need every single last frame in gaming. Get the 3900XT for overall usage as it's $50 cheaper ($479 vs $529) while only being a few frames behind in gaming, and completely blows the 10900k when it comes to multi-threaded tasks like editing and streaming.

 

If we wanted to be objective, the 3900XT would be the best choice overall if you need a CPU now, even if all you are doing is gaming since it's cheaper. If you can wait for Zen 3, wait for Zen 3 since they will have better performance for cheaper prices.

 

[wall03]

12 minutes ago, badfis1337 said:

Without knowing what the PC is used for

Thats hard.

 

if it is a strictly gaming PC, Intel. Except I am biased at AMD, but

13 minutes ago, badfis1337 said:

"because I like AMD" or "because I prefer Intel" is not allowed

 

[Mateyyy]

18 minutes ago, badfis1337 said:

Choice 2: R9 3900XT

3950X*

 

I'd probably go with option 2 for a daily system, since the 3950X is a lot more well rounded, but I'd love to have some fun overclocking a 10900K.

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

19 minutes ago, badfis1337 said:

-snip-

Warning, Un-popular opinion:

 

If price was not an issue, I would go for the 10900k. I'm at the part of my life where I just want rock solid reliability and zero fuss. Just looking at the dozens of threads where people have built Ryzen machines and can't even get them to post, yea no thanks. I don't want to deal with that sort of stuff. I just want a machine that just works no matter what sort of memory or add-in cards I throw at it. Because that's the sort of user I am. 

 

I've said this probably more than a dozen times; but I would not feel comfortable recommending my family or friends to get a Ryzen system because of how finicky that platform can be. 

[DotzHyper]

18 minutes ago, badfis1337 said:

Hello everyone!

 

Without knowing what the PC is used for, what would you choose if these were the options you were presented:

 

Choice 1: i9 10900k

Choice 2: R9 3900XT

Choice 3: Wait til Zen 3 successor of R9 3900X

 

Please include why you made your decision. Please refrain from simple "because I like AMD" or "because I prefer Intel" type of answers.

 

Let's create a discussion!

 

 

I'd definitely wait so that I can refrain from upgrading for as long as possible. Also, you never know what future technologies can hold.

[Mister Woof]

13 minutes ago, BobVonBob said:

If you can wait for Zen 3, wait for Zen 3. Otherwise the 3900xt blows the 10900k out of the water.

Unless he's gaming.

[BobVonBob]

Just now, Mister Woof said:

Unless he's gaming.

Even in gaming, the 3900 XT is pretty much even in single threaded performance, and as games get more heavily multi-threaded the gap is only going to grow larger.

[BobVonBob]

Deleted

Edited August 11, 2020 by BobVonBob
Why did it double post? Hmmm...

[Mister Woof]

6 minutes ago, BobVonBob said:

Even in gaming, the 3900 XT is pretty much even in single threaded performance, and as games get more heavily multi-threaded the gap is only going to grow larger.

In synthetics.

 

In real world gaming, the intel chips outperform the AMD chips. If you can't be objective about this, then you're biased.

AMD chips will outperform in decompression and various other tasks, especially thread heavy tasks.

But when unconstrained by graphics cards, a highly clocked Intel chip will perform better than any Ryzen chip at gaming.

 

I'd argue that as graphics cards become more powerful, Intel's lead over Ryzen will grow even farther, not the other way around.

[BobVonBob]

2 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

In synthetics.

 

In real world gaming, the intel chips outperform the AMD chips. If you can't be objective about this, then you're biased.

 

AMD chips will outperform in decompression and various other tasks, especially thread heavy tasks.

But when unconstrained by graphics cards, a highly clocked Intel chip will perform better than any Ryzen chip at gaming.

Yes the 10900k is better at gaming, but it's not so much better that I would suggest it over a chip that's better at everything else. The question asked "without knowing what the PC is used for", so I gave an answer for the best all-around top end chip.

[Mister Woof]

9 minutes ago, BobVonBob said:

Yes the 10900k is better at gaming, but it's not so much better that I would suggest it over a chip that's better at everything else. The question asked "without knowing what the PC is used for", so I gave an answer for the best all-around top end chip.

Neither would I, which is why I liked the other posts in this thread that recommended waiting.

But I also didn't make outrageous blanket statements.

 

Ryzen 3000 can't even beat a 3 year old competitor's product at gaming. I'd hardly call that "blows X newer version out of the water." where the forum's demographic highly leans towards gaming.

 

If anything, I'd say the performance benefits from Ryzen lean closer to the exception, not the rule.

 

That said, things cost money, and I wouldn't recommend paying $300 that current 10600k's are going for right now.

[xg32]

1 hour ago, badfis1337 said:

Hello everyone!

 

Without knowing what the PC is used for, what would you choose if these were the options you were presented:

 

Choice 1: i9 10900k

Choice 2: R9 3900XT

Choice 3: Wait til Zen 3 successor of R9 3900X

 

Please include why you made your decision. Please refrain from simple "because I like AMD" or "because I prefer Intel" type of answers.

 

Let's create a discussion!

 

 

any discussion will likely descend into something toxic, but to make it simple, personally i'd have 0% chance of going with option 2, 3900xt isn't as fast as the 10900k for gaming, and it won't be as fast as zen 3.

 

Now as for option 1 and 3

 

option 1: fastest gaming cpu by about 10%~ assuming max oc on both ram and cpu on the 10900k and 3900x, 325w power draw , but if i had to build now this is what i'd go with since the 10700k seems to be a lower bin (i don't really need the extra 2 cores, but the higher bin is what i'd aim for), there's also a chance a 5.1 10900k with a 4.9~ ring oc will match zen 3 in gaming.

 

option 3: personally i'm waiting for the 16core, expecting it to finally beat out intel in game, no compromises

As an intel owner, zen 3 will be good, and the gen after that is 1st gen ddr5, i'm not touching that. intel's doomed for 2 years, perfect time to upgrade is zen 3.

[jones177]

I went with a i9 10900k because the R9 3900XT may not be capable of doing what I want to do.

Because the R9 3900XT exists means that there is a very good chance that AMD will take the gaming crown with Zen 3.

If one can get a Cinebench R15 single core score of 250 I will buy.

 

[Mister Woof]

3 minutes ago, jones177 said:

I went with a i9 10900k because the R9 3900XT may not be capable of doing what I want to do.

Because the R9 3900XT exists means that there is a very good chance that AMD will take the gaming crown with Zen 3.

If one can get a Cinebench R15 single core score of 250 I will buy.

 

Also needs to overcome the slower inter ccx latency issues to beat Intel.

 

Hoping the new architecture does it

[Quinnell]

I've always run Intel, but honestly I am definitely considering an AMD processor for my next CPU upgrade if they keep this up.

[Guest]

I'm a hobbyist. 

 

Both.

[HardStroke]

3 hours ago, badfis1337 said:

Hello everyone!

 

Without knowing what the PC is used for, what would you choose if these were the options you were presented:

 

Choice 1: i9 10900k

Choice 2: R9 3900XT

Choice 3: Wait til Zen 3 successor of R9 3900X

 

Please include why you made your decision. Please refrain from simple "because I like AMD" or "because I prefer Intel" type of answers.

 

Let's create a discussion!

 

 

if the pc is mainly for gaming and a bit of editing i would go for the 10900k for every single frame.

overclock it to 5.2ghz with a custom loop, 64gb of high speed ram, a 2080 ti and a maximus apex board.

 

without knowing the uses, choice 3 is pretty much obvious...

[gloop]

If I had to buy today, a 10900K because nearly every single task I do is single threaded. 

[A1200]

i9 because I am an Intel Fanboi