LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRead more.Eight cores and eight threads better than six cores and 12 threads?
Read more.Eight cores and eight threads better than six cores and 12 threads?
Hmmm. Bit of an odd one isn't it? The charts show just what good value the 2700X is, as well as its superiority in multi-threaded tasks. If you want the best gaming at all costs then you buy Intel, but not this one :/
Ah you adjusted the value charts, very good. These feel much more representative.
Corky34 (20-11-2018)
Awesome CPU for emulation but at a suck ass price.
What this test shows is how good value AMD 2700X has. If we want to be really honest. even for games if you have limited budget, AMD is to go, as the price difference gives you better graphic card.
And so it is funny, as everybody was expecting AMD to sort out Ryzen 7 2800X to counter-attack. They didn't had to.
The more you live, less you die. More you play, more you die. Isn't it great.
Who buys these CPUs for gaming at 1080p? I am genuinely interested... I am on 21:9 3440x1440 and gaming is 100% GPU dependant. Currently on a 4670K@4.4ALL and 2x980Ti SLI, and the 2700X seems a much smarter upgrade path, especially considering that the motherboards won't change with every single small CPU revision (like COUGH COUGH someone we all know). But still, I am waiting for Zen 2 to see if I make the jump, since my current system is still serving me well for my needs.
It's not about gaming at 1080p, the benchmarks at higher resolutions just show off the graphics card in the system, the lower resolutions show how well the cpu feeds the graphics card in the subsystem.Originally Posted by snowsurfer
As others have noted in the comments, this really does highlight again just how good the AMD 2700X is considering it has a lower IPC compared to Intel offerings. The 9700K just feels like a speed bump minus the HT we've become used to on the i7 range, still oddly better than the i7 8700K with HT. Definitely not liking that pricing, especially considering it also excludes a cooler as well now. Guess that's one way for Intel to recoup the cost of actually using STIM, probably makes them even more profit. Give with one hand, take with the other.
It's a shame the 2600 and 2600X aren't listed on the value page, I'd just be interested as you could easily buy the 2600, a decent mobo and cooler to overclock for the same price as just the Intel 9700K!
I am in need of a new PC/build. But I'm still going to wait for 10th gen.
I wonder how the 9700K compares to the 2700X at list prices. I just got my 9700K for $410, God Bless Microcenter. Still above MSRP though.
Yup, AMD certainly has better value across the board. Will put the Ryzen 5 2600X into the graphs.
Iota (20-11-2018)
Thanks for changing the value/efficiency charts, big improvement I think.
Apart from the 9900k are intel even going to release another CPU with hyperthreading in this 9XXX range?
In the past they've done a top model with locked multiplier, a 9900 non-k as it were, no idea if that's coming in this gen though.
Particularly the Bang4Watt chart, i foolishly attempted to teach myself how AMD and Intel calculated TDP, being that's what the old chart was based on. All i managed to do is remind myself how dumb i am when it comes to math.It was like trying to understand quantum mechanics.
Honestly, those who want higher frame rates. I'd much rather a high frame rate than a higher resolution (not that I have either, but that's where I'd put my money currently).
1080 @ 24" gives you ~96dpi, which is bang on. And 24" is already very big for desktop gaming as you don't want to have to look around the screen. Things are different for couch gaming.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote