Read more.Combative comments claim that the Ryzen 3000 series won't catch up to the Core i9-9900K.
Read more.Combative comments claim that the Ryzen 3000 series won't catch up to the Core i9-9900K.
Good grief.
Wow, Intel descending to the sort of cogent and logical discourse of a bloke outside a pub who's just been humiliated and fancies a fight.
"Real world" gaming generally involves limited budgets where a better value CPU allows an upgrade to the far more important GPU component. Perhaps both companies would like to remember that when launching their next gen chips...
So a 6 core chip at under £200 isn't decent value then? Cos that is what a Ryzen 3600 is looking like and works in plenty of motherboards already available and consumes 65 watts?
Don't really know what else AMD could do to satisfy people - they aren't on a level withNV for gpu's yet
Old puter - still good enuff till I save some pennies!
Because intel definitely shows real world performance and certainly wouldn't promote unfair benchmarks gimping amd performance to compete with their 9000 series. Frankly, even if intel mostly inches ahead, AMD still seem like a better buy for zen 2 because it smashes them in both value and productivity. Particularly since you will likely want to run other programs in the background or if you want to stream. We will have to wait for real world benchmarks of course, but intel will actually need to release those 10nm desktop CPUs to actually be tempting for most.
I love this.
*mortal kombat theme tune*
Ken Watanabe: "Let them fight"
Let us remember that Intel are by and far ahead in the level of improper benchmarking and hamstringing the competition to the point they had to pay for it to be redone.
But yes, if it is real world gaming then they need to take the most common price ranges and do it in that. 9900k is by and far not real world the same way a 3950x or 3900x is not. This will be i5/i7 versus r5/r7 frankly.
Agree with the comments above. All AMD need to do is show two systems, one Intel, and one AMD but with the money saved spent on a faster GPU, then see which is faster in real-world gaming...
It's about time we did some hypothetical building at scan/retailer of your choice for given price points, see who can come up with the best real-world gaming build.
They must being doing something right to have Intel publicly offering them out, 3-4 years ago people would've been shocked if Intel even bothered to mention a new AMD CPU release.
I'd say with the advent of credit through paypal etc that around £1000 is a decent bracket. Anything lower and we move into low end budget builds and anything higher tends towards high end builds not normally in scope of most gamers pockets.
I know I'm planning £1k for my next build
They should reply to this publically and state given it's 'real world', a budget (or budgets) should be set , with budgets and benchmarks dictated by a neutral 3rd party which they should both agree on beforehand and let Intel respond to their challenge.
To be honest, I think Intel kinda shot themselves in the foot, the industry support shows Zen 2 is going to be a winner, else they won't be backing it so heavily.
Intel starting to look even more desperate, not to mention comparing with lower priced LAST GEN AMD lol... sad thing is the less tech savvy user will take notice of them.
Anybody who is tech savvy can see how dodgy Intel's 'information' is and how much of a relative bargain AMD is for the performance it gives. Ryzen 3 is an improvement over it's current offerings and according to AMD, better than ryzen 2 in gaming too so all I see here is a company that has no other way to fight AMD than trying to make out they're 'better' to the non techy people.
All because AMD said Intel's Dad throws like a girl...
Strawb77 (20-06-2019)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)