Intel challenges AMD: “Come beat us in Real World gaming”

This isn't totally true anymore. You have hundreds of thousands of people emulating twitch heroes like shroud who is most likely running a 9900K paired with a 240hz 1080P monitor. I play competitive games at 1080P 144hz as well, about to get a 1440P 144hz panel for everything else. I can't stand gaming on my 4k monitor unless it's something I'm playing with a controller (GTA V, TW3, Dragon Quest XI, etc).... I can't stand anything under 100FPS when I'm controlling the game with a mouse anymore..

I realize the difference between even a 4790k and 9900k in many games is marginal, but people want those extra frames... I may try out a 240hz panel myself soon.

so yeah I'll be spending $500 on my next CPU and still gaming at 1080P :p
rly do think 240hz is in the overkill area, would be suprised if a pro gamer actually need that fast screen :p

who would buy intel with zen 2, as it looks right now. not me! u get a 12 core that looks like it can compete with their shitty cheap ass tim 9900k furnace. intel have been fleecing ppl for far too long now with new motherboards all the time and "hedt" +++ now their hedt platform just looks like a bad joke and it's not even that old, obsolete, sure. realized im on "hedt" platform but at the time it was prety cheap.
 
You still never explained why in your fictional convoluted scenario any gamer would feel the need to use an Intel IGP just because they have an Intel CPU, and how that has anything to do with "real world gaming". I guess it's just fun to make random stuff up so you can say "Intel loses" ;)

I didn't make up anything, Intel made the challenge to AMD, so they should nut up or shut up
 
I didn't make up anything, Intel made the challenge to AMD, so they should nut up or shut up

Which part of the challenge mandated the use of an Intel IGP?

That wasn't what Intel challenged anyone to, it was your post:

AMD should challenge intel to a real world test

Intel gets its CPU, chipset, and the fastest Intel graphics.

AMD gets its CPU, chipset, and the fastest AMD graphics.

We can see who comes out on top?
 
Last edited:
So will Intel system have full security updates done/bios, etc? Same with AMD?

I know Intel is like swiss cheese but they need to have em patched. I would say that they will probably be close enough that it won't matter. Now what price
difference will there be that will be a good question. Also will the AMD have more cores to do other things with as well.
 
Intel has multiple security issues so they double down on the one thing - gaming- and decide to fire shots at AMD for having a slower chip.

It's like Intel is the desert dying of thirst and dehydration and bragging about how much sand it has.
 
Intel enters competition room with an 8809G... "See, we're better than the AMD iGPU!"

Well, they are... if AMD were willing to put HBM on their own APU...

So, in real world gaming? The experience will be identical.

Gotta see the frametimes. I think AMD will have made up enough ground here for it to not matter above 8.3ms (120FPS sustained) or thereabouts, but Intel might still be faster here.
 
You can smell the desperation. I am going to tell my CEO that gaming is all that matters and see if I keep my job

If you worked at a gaming company and wouldn't shut up about Cinebench, don't you think you'd get the same result?

AMD is harping on gaming, where they've been behind and where shipping more cores makes no difference- and gaming is the most stressful thing most consumers do that is even remotely 'time sensitive'.
 
Probably haven't taken the crown, but a 3600/X is great value if it can match a 9600/9700 in gaming, and plop it on a cheap matx B450 board.

Hopefully this sets a new baseline for CPUs moving forward, similar to how Intel made quad cores the current baseline for gaming CPUs today.
 
If it matches the 9900k, two things come to mind.

1) Congrats AMD on not letting off the pedal.
2) Sunny Cove, which I can only assume is the next pet project of jim keller aka the CPU kingpin is coming out quite close to the availability of this....quite interesting how this will play out.
 
2) Sunny Cove, which I can only assume is the next pet project of jim keller aka the CPU kingpin is coming out quite close to the availability of this....quite interesting how this will play out.

Sunny Cove won't compete on the desktop market- it's for ultrabooks and other thin and lights, where AMD is noncompetitive. Basically, we won't see an Ice Lake vs. Zen 2 matchup on equal footing until late this year or perhaps next year. Intel has more 14nm parts that will match up with Zen 2 on the desktop first.
 
Sunny Cove won't compete on the desktop market- it's for ultrabooks and other thin and lights, where AMD is noncompetitive. Basically, we won't see an Ice Lake vs. Zen 2 matchup on equal footing until late this year or perhaps next year. Intel has more 14nm parts that will match up with Zen 2 on the desktop first.

I doubt you will see anything 10nm from Intel for Desktop, 7nm is likely where they will focus for desktop as the process should be better suited with EUV. AMD likely will have the advantage for a few years.
 
I doubt you will see anything 10nm from Intel for Desktop, 7nm is likely where they will focus for desktop as the process should be better suited with EUV. AMD likely will have the advantage for a few years.

It's possible, but we can't really know. I don't have a problem with either so long as they iterate the uarch.
 
If you worked at a gaming company and wouldn't shut up about Cinebench, don't you think you'd get the same result?

AMD is harping on gaming, where they've been behind and where shipping more cores makes no difference- and gaming is the most stressful thing most consumers do that is even remotely 'time sensitive'.


So you don't think that gaming developers have real jobs?

Let's see

CEO and directors will have some kind of business or chartered accounting qualifications or law as the job is very financial and legal orientated.

The legal teams
Finances
Programmers

In fact little of the job is gaming and of course compute is needed in making the code.

So yes it will get you fired
 
we won't see an Ice Lake vs. Zen 2 matchup on equal footing until late this year or perhaps next year.

Definitely not seeing it in the next 12 months. Maybe 2020 4Q. Otherwise we would've seen something that makes people say something similar to "wait for zen2" to upgrade.
 
Gotta see the frametimes. I think AMD will have made up enough ground here for it to not matter above 8.3ms (120FPS sustained) or thereabouts, but Intel might still be faster here.

I don't understand the obsession with frametimes.

Aren't frame times just 1/framerate? If so, everything you can see by looking at the frametime, you can also see by looking at the framerate.
 
Hasn’t AMD already beat them in real world gaming?

Seems like AMD has a comparable product at a better price point. Arguably better in my view.

That’s as real world as it gets.

Intel can wave its epeen all over but why would I buy their chip verses AMD at this point? The speed increase of what intel is offering isn’t enough to justify their price tag.

Numbers on paper are great but I like numbers in my bank account.

AND wins for me.
 
Intel pushing gaming as the lifeline is just the saddest thing ever. The market shift had AMD outselling Intel because the game is negligible in 90% of cases and AMD has great value, for one the stock fans are amazingly good which saves money not needing to budget or plan a build for 3rd party cooling. I eluded to the fact in my country closed loop cooling units are expensive, I'm also an ITX fan and some chassis don't do well with closed loops making a plug and go solution better and cheaper.


But sure if I really care about 5ghz the 9900k makes sense for 500 dollars.
 
Which is important, because both Intel's and Nvidia's encoders are better than the ones on AMD GPUs- and AMD refuses to ship a GPU with anything that has more than four cores.

If they were using the AMD VCE encoder why is the 9900k dropping frames????????? doesn't make any sense.
Are they using a Nvidia/Intel and AMD/AMD combo???
I was under the impression that they are using CPU encoding since I haven't seen a "slow" preset when messing around with video encoding (I encode all of the time using Handbrake and Vidcoder), only "quality" "balanced", and "performance" with AMD VCE.
 
It's usually better to keep quiet than reveal your desperation.

Gaming was just about the only Win Intel had over Ryzen 2000 series.

Now from what we see so far, it looks like Ryzen 3000 equals Intel at the one thing that still had some enthusiasts using Intel.

If this holds in 3rd party testing, Ryzen 3000 just crushes Intel on the desktop, where Intel were already losing the DIY desktop market to Ryzen 2000.

Intel just has to hope it takes AMD a while to release it's 7nm APU, so they can at least maintain most of the laptop share for a while longer.
 
^^Did you mean to type Wintel :)

(A classic from Apple users back in the PowerPC days)
 
As I see it the CPU in 2019 is mostly irrelevant to gaming performance.

Something like 97% of all systems are going to be GPU limited long before they ever see slowdowns due to their CPU

So, in real world gaming? The experience will be identical.
Almost all tbs and rts are CPU bound.
Civilization CPU turn time is an example of the former and any paradox interactive game (HOI4, Stellaris, Crusader Kings, EU4) are examples of the later.
MMO also tend to be CPU bound when PVP or Raiding.

Theses are my personal use cases and why gaming CPU still matters.
 
Alright, so, really the problem isn't with frame rate vs frame time, the problem is with reporting a single value for minimum framerates (or maximum frametime) rather than the distribution of the values.

This distribution could just as easily be presented as framerate as it can with frametime.

Frametime analysis just gives us a better way to present the same data, and really allows for issues to be revealed and communicated.

Given that AMD has changed their CPU architecture in ways that could affect gaming, it's important that we dig into the details to verify their marketing claims versus Intel.
 
Intel just has to hope it takes AMD a while to release it's 7nm APU, so they can at least maintain most of the laptop share for a while longer.

As much as I'd love to see a competitive AMD APU (and I f*cking mean it), AMD is still likely a generation or two behind Intel.

While Intel hasn't done much with Skylake on the desktop, they've wrung quite a bit of efficiency out of it on their mobile parts, and the first Sunny Cove systems appear to continue that trend. AMD's first efforts were... disappointing.
 
rly do think 240hz is in the overkill area, would be suprised if a pro gamer actually need that fast screen :p
It's not that they "need" it, but any advantage in lowering latency will help. 240hz is definitely a better feeling than 144hz when it comes down to mouse feeling and flicks. Your aim will improve with lower latency/higher Hz and even if it's only 10-15% that could be the difference in winning.
 
It's not that they "need" it, but any advantage in lowering latency will help. 240hz is definitely a better feeling than 144hz when it comes down to mouse feeling and flicks. Your aim will improve with lower latency/higher Hz and even if it's only 10-15% that could be the difference in winning.

which is why "pro" gaming is rule bound, they limit it to 120hz so that hardware is not the limitation but the individual, about 95% of gamers are not "pro" and the need for 240hz is merely a spend money on something. 60 to 120hz was major, 120 to 144hz I had no real perceivable difference.

And in the end AMD or Intel its normally going to be a Graphics card limitation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikeo
like this
Intel wins by 1% and jumps around saying see, it destroys AMD. OMG it just owned those games!
 
I think the best thing out of E3 is that if both next gen consoles are using AMD with 8+ core count CPUs, maybe when console games are ported to PC they will finally make use of 8-16 threads.
 
Intel wins by 1% and jumps around saying see, it destroys AMD. OMG it just owned those games!

That's... literally what AMD was saying, so fair's fair?

Exactly games are always optimised for Intel processors not just in general but in every aspect.

Well, let's hope they aren't optimized for Bulldozer :eek:

AMD should be optimizing their hardware for the software available. They're a decade late.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aQi
like this
That's... literally what AMD was saying, so fair's fair?



Well, let's hope they aren't optimized for Bulldozer :eek:

AMD should be optimizing their hardware for the software available. They're a decade late.
AMD can't say that. Until it happens they are the underdog. But Intel needs to have ALL the 1000 security flaw and whatever else patched, then we can see. AMD patched as well.
 
I think the best thing out of E3 is that if both next gen consoles are using AMD with 8+ core count CPUs, maybe when console games are ported to PC they will finally make use of 8-16 threads.

That's what we said last time- and the consoles had low-power tablet cores, so if games needed CPU, they had to split the work up. Now with Zen2 cores, they have many times the single core performance, and there'll be less need to multi-thread...
 
That's what we said last time- and the consoles had low-power tablet cores, so if games needed CPU, they had to split the work up. Now with Zen2 cores, they have many times the single core performance, and there'll be less need to multi-thread...

Yeah, I think last gen the extra cores were just used if someone wanted to dual window Netflix or TV while gaming.
 
Yeah, I think last gen the extra cores were just used if someone wanted to dual window Netflix or TV while gaming.

They were used, don't get me wrong- they were far more powerful than the Power-based trash used in the PS3 and Xbox 360- but even at the time they also paled in comparison with what was available on the desktop. Not that there was literally any reasonably-priced alternative.
 
Back
Top