Curious about current processor scene.

[Queen Chrysalis]

Consider the following:  A ryzen 5 2600 with a b350  can be board can be overclocked to outperform an i7 8700 on a b360 board, and the former can be had for $220 on newegg, even less at microcenter, while the latter would cost about $370.

Why are people still buying the 8700 non-k?  Or the 8400 for that matter?

 

EDIT:  I don't mean to sound like a fanboy, I really have tried to justify intel systems to myself in build designs, but it seems all lines of logic for a reasonable, budget-optimized system point back to AMD.  And budget optimization should apply to any system under $2500, otherwise you are sacrificing performance that could be had elsewhere.

[DrMacintosh]

Some people want the IPC, but normal people go with Ryzen if it is an option. 

 

That and Quicksync are Intel's only advantages. They lose everywhere else. 

[Rainbow Dash]

Non-k is just cheaper, and it already has great performance with turbo. I mean it's not like everyone likes overclocking.

[Queen Chrysalis]

2 minutes ago, Rainbow Dash said:

Non-k is just cheaper, and it already has great performance with turbo. I mean it's not like everyone likes overclocking.

Says you miss speedy, also, the 2600 is with a b350 is way cheaper.

[Crunchy Dragon]

8700 non-K is equal to 8700K at stock speeds in performance, which is more or less a first for Intel.

[PlayStation 2]

Not everyone is interested in overclocking.

People really seem to forget that.

 

Oh, also better RAM compatibility.

[Queen Chrysalis]

Just now, Dan Castellaneta said:

Not everyone is interested in overclocking.

People really seem to forget that.

 

Oh, also better RAM compatibility.

I suppose, but overclocking has never been easier.  Modern BIOS will hold your hand to the point that its literally free performance, especially when AMD's stock cooler is designed to handle medium OCs.  Also, almost nobody is buying a320 boards, so people seem interested in overclocking.  

[PlayStation 2]

Just now, Queen Chrysalis said:

I suppose, but overclocking has never been easier.  Modern BIOS will hold your hand to the point that its literally free performance, especially when AMD's stock cooler is designed to handle medium OCs.  Also, almost nobody is buying a320 boards, so people seem interested in overclocking.  

Well, A320 boards are also barebones as fuck and are barely any cheaper than a decent B350 board, so there's that.

[Crunchy Dragon]

Just now, Queen Chrysalis said:

I suppose, but overclocking has never been easier.  Modern BIOS will hold your hand to the point that its literally free performance, especially when AMD's stock cooler is designed to handle medium OCs.  Also, almost nobody is buying a320 boards, so people seem interested in overclocking.  

A320 also has very few features compared to B350, and are lower end boards in general.

For a gaming rig, you want quality hardware. It just so happens that B350 has the VRMs people are looking for(in most cases, MSI's aren't known to be the best) while coming with overclocking support.

[Queen Chrysalis]

1 minute ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Well, A320 boards are also barebones as fuck and are barely any cheaper than a decent B350 board, so there's that.

 

1 minute ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

A320 also has very few features compared to B350, and are lower end boards in general.

For a gaming rig, you want quality hardware. It just so happens that B350 has the VRMs people are looking for(in most cases, MSI's aren't known to be the best) while coming with overclocking support.

Right, But the Pro4 is easily the most popular b350 board out there and there is an a320 variant with the same hardware and VRMs.  What you are saying is not necessarily wrong, it just troubles me that people seem to make suboptimal purchases for illogical reasons with these types of things when optimizing a parts list has never been easier.

[Jurrunio]

16 minutes ago, Queen Chrysalis said:

A ryzen 5 2600 with a b350  can be board can be overclocked to outperform an i7 8700 on a b360 board

proof? None of the reviews I can find so far supports this. They all suggest 2600X to be anywhere from the same as 8700, to 15% slower, when overclocked

[PlayStation 2]

1 minute ago, Queen Chrysalis said:

 

Right, But the Pro4 is easily the most popular b350 board out there and there is an a320 variant with the same hardware and VRMs.  What you are saying is not necessarily wrong, it just troubles me that people seem to make suboptimal purchases for illogical reasons with these types of things when optimizing a parts list has never been easier.

Not everyone is buying the Pro4, though. I have an ASRock AB350M that serves me just fine.

Remember, there's more than three motherboards in existence for AM4 and people also have different needs.

[Crunchy Dragon]

Just now, Queen Chrysalis said:

Right, But the Pro4 is easily the most popular b350 board out there and there is an a320 variant with the same hardware and VRMs.  What you are saying is not necessarily wrong, it just troubles me that people seem to make suboptimal purchases for illogical reasons with these types of things when optimizing a parts list has never been easier.

Pro4 also comes in ATX

 

Some people just aren't that literate in PC building, I've seen people through 7700Ks into B250 boards with AIOs before.

[Yoinkerman]

some people want it easy, it's not like the intel is bad

[Queen Chrysalis]

Just now, Jurrunio said:

proof? None of the reviews I can find so far supports this. They all suggest 2600X to be anywhere from the same as 8700, to 15% slower, when overclocked

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-8700-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-2600/3940vs3955

 

The stock scores for the 8700 are lower than the OC scores for the 2600.  The OC scores for the 8700 are irrelevant because you need a z370 board, and at that point you should either be getting an 8600k or an 8700k.

[PlayStation 2]

1 minute ago, Queen Chrysalis said:

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-8700-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-2600/3940vs3955

 

The stock scores for the 8700 are lower than the OC scores for the 2600.  The OC scores for the 8700 are irrelevant because you need a z370 board, and at that point you should either be getting an 8600k or an 8700k.

1. Just one benchmark.

2. OC'd to a full 1GHz more?

[Queen Chrysalis]

Just now, Yoinkerman said:

some people want it easy, it's not like the intel is bad

Right, but its expensive.  I suppose its OK if you have cash to burn, but according to some philosophers, no one does.

[Queen Chrysalis]

1 minute ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

1. Just one benchmark.

2. OC'd to a full 1GHz more?

1. UB is a comprehensive collection of millions of benchmarks form users everywhere.

2. What's wrong with that?

[PlayStation 2]

Just now, Queen Chrysalis said:

UB is a comprehensive collection of millions of benchmarks form users everywhere.

Random numbers from many people who did a benchmark doesn't tell me what I would want to know, namely how it performs in various applications that aren't just straight benchmarking tools.

[Crunchy Dragon]

Just now, Queen Chrysalis said:

UB is a comprehensive collection of millions of benchmarks form users everywhere.

What he's saying is that Userbenchmark only runs the same benchmark, it's not like comparing multiple benchmarks such as Cinebench, 3DMark, AIda64, 7-Zip, etc where you get a more broad range of performance differences between them.

[Queen Chrysalis]

Just now, Crunchy Dragon said:

What he's saying is that Userbenchmark only runs the same benchmark, it's not like comparing multiple benchmarks such as Cinebench, 3DMark, AIda64, 7-Zip, etc where you get a more broad range of performance differences between them.

I suppose.  Technically, its 3 benchmarks, though.  But I guarantee cinebench will prefer the OC'd 2600.

[Jurrunio]

2 minutes ago, Queen Chrysalis said:

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-8700-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-2600/3940vs3955

 

The stock scores for the 8700 are lower than the OC scores for the 2600.  The OC scores for the 8700 are irrelevant because you need a z370 board, and at that point you should either be getting an 8600k or an 8700k.

Are we on the same site?

 

Also, 8700 is far less affected by cheap low frequency memory than 2600x. Ryzen will lose if you go cheap for some 16GB 2400MHz DDR4

[Crunchy Dragon]

Just now, Queen Chrysalis said:

I suppose.  Technically, its 3 benchmarks, though.  But I guarantee cinebench will prefer the OC'd 2600.

Oh yeah, definitely. Even an overclocked 1600 does brilliantly in Cinebench(I speak from experience).

[Yoinkerman]

3 minutes ago, Queen Chrysalis said:

Right, but its expensive.  I suppose its OK if you have cash to burn, but according to some philosophers, no one does.

i mean i guess but i'd definitely recommend an intel to someone who isn't that computer savvy and just wants a good gaming computer without fuss

[Queen Chrysalis]

1 minute ago, Jurrunio said:

Are we on the same site?

 

Also, 8700 is far less affected by cheap low frequency memory than 2600x. Ryzen will lose if you go cheap for some 16GB 2400MHz DDR4

I am comparing the 2600s OC to the 8700 at base, due to it needing a more expensive mobo to OC while the 2600 can do so on a $50 b350.  The fact that performance at base is still even that close when one chip is about half the price of the other should be shocking.