AMD is leading from INTEL

MLG_No_Scope

Respectable
May 23, 2017
412
0
1,960
This is a no brainer now. Intel has no idea what they are doing and stagnation in the development part. their 14 nanometer chips are out of stock where the sales are jumping the market out the roof with price tags, i mean come on. i am not prepared to spend 500 bucks on a regular i7 cpu. not even mention the new i9 ( :( ).

on AMD the other hand is now catching up to intel and even overtaking intel with their development. also they are focusing on spectre and meltdown protection. also the price of the AMD compared to intel is very confident. an ryzen 5 for around 150 a 200 bucks is quite good :D

So correct me if i am wrong or let me know what you think, but i think AMD has finally shown INTEL their deserved punishment: Checkmate.
 
Solution
the i5-8400 is about $199 on amazon...

the r5-2600X is $209....(few are buying less CPU than these even for basic gaming systems in my opinion, or, at least they should not be...)

Which leads in gaming in vast majority of games, currently?

Here are BF5 results, where the 2600X is down some 40% to the 8700K in min/avg framerates...(although the 8400 is not shown, it generally was right around 7700K levels in other games, itself an 22 month old processor design leading AMD's flagship 2700X by 29%, btw in min frame rates); the previous champ, the R5-1600, is down 50%...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAsyo8gIyys&t=476s

If someone chooses to increase the lead by opting for 8500,8600, 8700, clear thru the K-Variants, or the 8086K, that...
Yes, INTEL needed competition to do something and finally they are releasing 8 cores/16 threads to mainstream but still AMD has more catch up to do, they are behinde when it comes to both frequency and IPC. Also RAM is a problem, the IMC needs a bit more working, if intel keeps this road amd with zen3 (Ryzen 5000 or 6000) will overtake intel as performance but right now intel is still better in some aspects. For me AMD and their CCX technology had a performance impact in what i do and i needed a monolith structure cpu for best results.
 
the i5-8400 is about $199 on amazon...

the r5-2600X is $209....(few are buying less CPU than these even for basic gaming systems in my opinion, or, at least they should not be...)

Which leads in gaming in vast majority of games, currently?

Here are BF5 results, where the 2600X is down some 40% to the 8700K in min/avg framerates...(although the 8400 is not shown, it generally was right around 7700K levels in other games, itself an 22 month old processor design leading AMD's flagship 2700X by 29%, btw in min frame rates); the previous champ, the R5-1600, is down 50%...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAsyo8gIyys&t=476s

If someone chooses to increase the lead by opting for 8500,8600, 8700, clear thru the K-Variants, or the 8086K, that is their choice and cost/value analysis to do/weigh/decide upon...

But, this whole 'Intel is doomed now!' mantra seems a tad...premature; when they can even match Intel's flagship from two generations ago in gaming in something other than AOTS , ...I will notice...

Until then, it is safe to say AMD offers 6500 gaming performance....from three years ago....; the 6700K's results are still essentially unmatched by anything beginning with R5 /R7...or Threadripper. It's entry level, a nice budget rig, sorry to say.
 
Solution
Aug 27, 2018
38
0
40


All these 1080p benchmarks are funny to me. I have not had a 1080p monitor in years. Buy a $400 8700k (or 9900k@$600) and run it on a $200 monitor. Sounds like a plan. I understand it shows how much better a processor is at running low resolutions, but how is that an indication of how it benefits the consumer as 2k-4k is more widely adopted?

On a side note I have no idea why I am continuing this thread. The title is click-bait.