Intel i5 9600k beats AMD Ryzen 7 2700x in 11 games in this review. LINK: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i5-9600k/13.html Intel is just better at high 144-240 Hz gaming.
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Intel vs AMD for gaming?
- Thread starter Jeff G
- Start date
Intel i5 9600k beats AMD Ryzen 7 2700x in 11 games in this review. LINK: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i5-9600k/13.html Intel is just better at high 144-240 Hz gaming.
Links?
Heres one.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/14605/the-and-ryzen-3700x-3900x-review-raising-the-bar/14
Results will vary by title due to various factors. But if you are looking to get every fps out of your GPU, in most cases, an intel chip will be better in average and the 95%/1% (basing things off 1% lows alone is a bit myopic IMO). Just compare a 9900k to any ryzen 3. If you want to add $ to it, a 9700k supports that thinking in the anand tests linked... and is cheaper than a 3900x.
Here are two more: https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3489-amd-ryzen-5-3600-cpu-review-benchmarks-vs-intel
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/15.html
Anyway, to be clear, AMD has absolutely caught up to intel in gaming to the point where an average joe would be hard pressed to see a difference (only by benchmarking in many cases). That said if you really wanted to squeeze every fps out of your gpu and play at 1080p, say for high fps/hz gaming, the intel is, is many cases, the same or better. Adding AMD's value proposition is another story. I get it, but performance wise Intel tends to win it more often than not, cost be damned... and in some, rare cases, is better. It depends how you frame it... what is equal?? Core and thread count? Cost? Overall fps with cost and core count be damned?? The latter is what I was saying. Value proposition wasnt part of my original reply. I figured that original post covered all the bases but.. I guess not.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2000
They're both excellent platforms right now, so either is a good choice. The only issue with AMD is their usual new product AGESA/BIOS issues. It took 6 months for my Zen 1 glitches to be corrected, and Zen 2 users are still going through the pain. Once you get things sorted, Ryzens are great. Intel is simpler to get going and they run great too. Prices are similar since while equivalent Ryzen CPUs are on average a little cheaper, you need higher-end more expensive RAM to optimize performance. I'll be updating my Team Red B450 AM4 rig with a 3600X now that Microcenter dropped the price to $200 and pop my RX 570 back in. Right now I'm playing with a 3200G APU which runs nice CPU-wise at 4 GHz but the graphics performance is weak.
iirc, they are both behind in IPC. Zen to zen+ there wasnt a big uptick in IPC.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2000
Correct, a small IPC uptick for Zen +, but a substantial increase for Zen 2. Zen 2 is very close to Intel IPC-wise. And yes, original Ryzens had a "Haswell" like IPC which was a significant improvement for AMD.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2014
I'm confused, are you agreeing or arguing with what I stated ? I'm seeing 300mhz-500mhz extra on Intel side on those charts + core count means nothing if the games don't use the extra threads - and for the games that do use them the FPS are stacked much closer. I'm not an AMD or Intel fanboy, simply stating conclusions drawn from a ton of different reviews, AMD flat out wins (at least with Ryzen 3) if both are at the same speed (even better if the game can use all cores) and Intel wins in every other category. My original point stands.
Here's the 3700x keeping up with the 9700k in most games even though the turbo it's 500mhz lower :
True. But that's the crux of it though, right?
At stock the clocks arent the same. Youd have to LOWER a 9700k's stock clocks to reach the maximum speeds of the 37/3900x. I cant say I find that (running a cpu below its stock speeds) fair unless you are trying to compare IPC and matching another. If a user overclocks, that gap can expand considering most ryzen 3 top out at 4.2-4.3ghz (their boost) whereas on the Intel side they can go from 4.9-5.1ghz. Note, talking all cores/threads. If you want to go single or dual core boost, the song remains the same, right? A 3700x for example...3.6(base), 4.0?(all core boost), 4.4(single core boost) and a 9700k...3.6(base), 4.6(all core boost), 4.9(single core). A 9600k is cheaper by ~$100 and hangs (rarely beats) with the higher c/t chips until a game can use more threads.
But overclock them both (for the sake of Overclockers.com, lol) and you're looking at a ~700mhz difference. At 1080p high hz/fps gaming that is significant when every fps counts.
You are right, what I quoted. However nobody underclocks their CPU intentionally. So unless it's an IPC discussion, I dont find that truth worth anything. AFAIK, thus is a performance discussion outside of what freeagent just asked (you quoted wingy).
EDIT: That vid... 8:30... smack me if that isnt what I've been saying throughout?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2013
- Location
- Holed up in Branford, CT
Uh, that is one game lol..... Why don't you check out some real tech channels on YouTube that benchmark literally dozens of games using cpu's at a similar price point. Direct competitors.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2014
This is why I said in my 1st post that Intel wins in clock speed and would win in most benches BUT IMHO AMD wins overall because the difference is minimal but the price (pound for pound) is much better - so the argument comes down to average user vs enthusiast, those who can afford it and those who can't.
It depends on your goals and budget like always. If you want every last fps, intel will bring that to you out of the box, but for a premium. If you overclock, that premium shrinks as the performance delta increases. It will never make it the better bang for the buck, but bang for the buck isnt everyone's better.
Edit: you make a good point about average user and enthusiast... this is overclockers.com so I'd like to think we have the mindset an enthusiast instead of the average consumer. If you take cost of the cpu out of the situation and just showed people images of results I gaming without labeling anything, what do you think people would pick? Better is faster until budget comes along. To me, the intel chip is better as it performs better. Price to performance ratio is a different discussion.
Edit2: like Dave said, to get the latest chipset board (z390 to x570) the latter on average costs more. The memory... 3600/3733 vs ~3200 for optimal results. It shrinks that cpu cost advantage down. Also, you can go with z370 board to save a few more dollars if you are going to dig into x470 or some b350 potato boards.
Edit: you make a good point about average user and enthusiast... this is overclockers.com so I'd like to think we have the mindset an enthusiast instead of the average consumer. If you take cost of the cpu out of the situation and just showed people images of results I gaming without labeling anything, what do you think people would pick? Better is faster until budget comes along. To me, the intel chip is better as it performs better. Price to performance ratio is a different discussion.
Edit2: like Dave said, to get the latest chipset board (z390 to x570) the latter on average costs more. The memory... 3600/3733 vs ~3200 for optimal results. It shrinks that cpu cost advantage down. Also, you can go with z370 board to save a few more dollars if you are going to dig into x470 or some b350 potato boards.
Last edited:
Well, if you want a 3rd gen 8 core, your gonna spend. If you want a good X570 board, your gonna spend.. and then if you want good ram, your gonna spend. There isn't a ton of savings by going with AMD over Intel. Now if you are willing to buy low to mid range older chipset boards, along with last gen CPU, then yes, you can save a lot of money by going with AMD. But if you have a fast older gen Intel, you might not need to do that if you don't need all the cores. That is where I am. But I want a new computer to play with, and can go either way. Its a good time to be a consumer right now. I wouldn't mind a 9600K, I know it would smack my 3770K around like a Ryzen would, and I have all the CFM, so I am confident in a 5ghz+ oc once I get used to it.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2000
You keep repeating that AMD's price is much better, but this is not true. The price difference is minimal between AMD and Intel systems. You provided a comparison between the Intel i7-9700K and Ryzen 7 3700X - at my Microcenter the i7-9700K is actually $20 cheaper than the 3700X. Plus it's generally accepted that Ryzens need higher-end memory to maximize performance. So AMD is actually more pricey for that comparison but it's really an irrelevant small amount when total system cost is considered. Again, I'm not a fan of either, I like both and right now you can go either way and be very happy IMO.
Strip the dollar signs away and look at graphs without any labels. Now.... which is the 'better' CPU? A cpu doesnt become better because its cheaper... it's just cheaper. It can become a better buy, but a better buy is also different than simply better, right? A better 'buy' is a qualifier for cost, but not performance. It requires clarity for that understanding. You all (chris first) brought up cost when it wasnt a talking point of mine.
"That depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is".
"That depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is".
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2014
My current CPU+mobo+memory (sig) cost ~$500, I looked Intel up at the time and i would have spent ~$600 for corresponding spec/quality [emoji29] i used the video of a 9700k because I couldnt find a 9900k - but comparing apples to apples, here the 3700x costs $310, the 9700k $350 and the 9900k $450. Considering performance between the 2 for the average user SHOULD go for the 3700x and not look twice. The enthusiast would go for the 9900k for the minimal performance gains. My original point stands *shrug*
There it is again... what is apples to apples, really? Core/thread count? Price? Performance results and then lift the curtain??
The endless debate.
Edit: for all intents and purposes, 6c/6t cpu is fine for 'the average user'. This compares to a 9600k. An 8c/8t cpu is fine for enthusiasts, a 9700k. Extra cores and threads are of no benefit if they cannot be used. What that looks like in 3-4 years, who knows...but we dont see maybe a title or two scale with more than 6c today. Hell in several titles performance is slower with HT/SMT.
The endless debate.
Edit: for all intents and purposes, 6c/6t cpu is fine for 'the average user'. This compares to a 9600k. An 8c/8t cpu is fine for enthusiasts, a 9700k. Extra cores and threads are of no benefit if they cannot be used. What that looks like in 3-4 years, who knows...but we dont see maybe a title or two scale with more than 6c today. Hell in several titles performance is slower with HT/SMT.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2000
Following your "logic", the AMD enthusiast would go for the 3900X over the 3700X for minimal performance gain. And even going with your prices, the extra $40 "saved" on the 3700X would likely be spent on better memory. You're acting as if you need to be rich to afford an extra $40 over a $1,000 + gaming system build. Today you can go either way for a very similarly priced rig and with either AMD or Intel get virtually identical performance. There's no reason to debate when both options are excellent!
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2014
Not rich, richER - at the prices around here, the cheapest 3900x I can get my hands around here is ~$475, which is a massive jump from the 3700x $310. But we were comparing AMD to Intel, and (again) if I have to pick between a 3700x $310 and a 9900k for $450 for gaming (even at high refresh rates) when comparing relative performance... I would think, as I said in my 1st post, only enthusiasts/rich people would want to afford the massive premium for a few extra FPS.
I do 100% agree that both side are excellent, if we don't bring price into the argument... If price comparisons around here were as small as where you live I would probably agree with your point - but they aren't, so I don't
Which takes us right back to the argument of what's best for whom ? In what capacity are we to judge this if this discussion is to go any further ? If we remove price from the equation like ED asked, then as I stated in my 1st post, Intel beats most benchmarks by dint of clock speed.Similar threads
