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

IdiotInCharge said:
Opinions are literally bias- calling GN 'Intel biased' is a new level, though ;)
Click to expand...

Oh.. if I was only the first to think such a thing, but I am not.

But, as your opinion is literally bias, as you claim all options are.. why are you giving me your bias opinion about my opinion?
 
OrangeKhrush said:
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.
Click to expand...
What are you even talking about? There is no limitation on the hardware at all and no restrictions. You are obviously talking out of your ass.
That "about" percentage is so far off as the pro scene is smaller than that and it's hard to make it to the top.
The 240hz is not "merely spend money on something" as you don't have to be a pro to take advantage of the monitor. Any high competitive player can take advantage of 240hz.
I can easily tell the difference of 120hz, 144hz, 165hz and 240hz from each other. Also I have a custom 270hz monitor and it's possible to buy a custom 300hz monitors now.
Just because you did not see or feel any perceivable difference it doesn't mean others can't.

It depends on the game. Cpu matters with low frame dipping.

You really have no clue about what you are talking about.
 
NWRMidnight said:
How many vulnerabilities and fixes have been put in place since then that possibly effect streaming? How many did GamersNexus have in place when they tested? What streaming conditions did they use, what resoltuion, etc.. there are so many variables that are at play here.

I also have the opinion, just by various pieces GamersNexus has produced, that they are very bias towards Intel. So, it might as well be Intel making that claim, it means about as much to me.
Click to expand...

Really? GN has been pretty good at recommending CPUs based on their performance per dollar. Their "high end gaming machine" uses an Intel CPU for this reason, and I've never seen a lick of bias from them aside from hating RGB.
 
readeh said:
What are you even talking about? There is no limitation on the hardware at all and no restrictions. You are obviously talking out of your ass.
That "about" percentage is so far off as the pro scene is smaller than that and it's hard to make it to the top.
The 240hz is not "merely spend money on something" as you don't have to be a pro to take advantage of the monitor. Any high competitive player can take advantage of 240hz.
I can easily tell the difference of 120hz, 144hz, 165hz and 240hz from each other. Also I have a custom 270hz monitor and it's possible to buy a custom 300hz monitors now.
Just because you did not see or feel any perceivable difference it doesn't mean others can't.

It depends on the game. Cpu matters with low frame dipping.

You really have no clue about what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

Not an iota.
 
GotNoRice said:
And how exactly would that be a "real world test", being that in the "real world" no one cares about trying to match their CPU and GPU brand. Otherwise Nvidia would be in trouble I guess?
Click to expand...
You haven't been reading too many threads around here the past few years, have ya? ;)
 
SvenBent said:
All your points are correct.



I would make that choice anyway. AMD is just not giving an alternative for it and its going to be a long uphill battle on this one due to market share :(
Click to expand...

AMD has, it’s called AOCC. The differences in speed are small though, and no one in their right mind will optimise just for AMD for general apps (or games) with Intel’s install base
 
Snowdog said:
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.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind AMD has not shown three things, two are positive and one is negative for them:

AMD has not used patches applied in benchmarks for Intel security speed cheats
AMD has not pushed ram to e.g. 4933 air cooled like recent LN2 benchies (holy mother of god.. that will really equalize any latency issues due to off-chip MC beyond what I expected)
AMD didn't use MCE which will give Intel a boost (and violate TDP at same time)

So with all that said, I would expect Intel to have practically no advantage anywhere as per some other benchmarks since and what you said in another comment re: benchies... so now they are smothered by more cores in every comparison because other points are moot. Their intel compiler fuckery isn't even saving them anymore with the IPC of Zen2 behind every single calculation...
 
Keljian said:
AMD has, it’s called AOCC. The differences in speed are small though, and no one in their right mind will optimise just for AMD for general apps (or games) with Intel’s install base
Click to expand...

Thank you for updating me. I didn't know they finaly made on.

In this case developers could make 2 .exe' one compilet with ICC and one with AOCC. but im wondering if they have to adjust the code for the different compilers and therefor back to needed effort for improving a small install based :(
 
SvenBent said:
Thank you for updating me. I didn't know they finaly made on.

In this case developers could make 2 .exe' one compilet with ICC and one with AOCC. but im wondering if they have to adjust the code for the different compilers and therefor back to needed effort for improving a small install based :(
Click to expand...

No, you generally don't need to tweak the source. But - even dual compiling and supporting multiple binaries is a hassle. I work on big data crunching libraries, and even with that - ICC is just a couple percent faster on intel processors. Not worth the deployment and support hassle.
We're even less likely to do such things for AMD, of course. But luckily, in my experience it doesn't matter very much at all. Note - I do not currently work in game development. It possible there is a different picture there (but I doubt it).

There was a time when ICC had a bigger lead, and processors in general had less relative oomph so it was more appealing, but that ship has sailed IMO. The general compiler output from the agnostic compilers is quite good.
 
PhaseNoise said:
No, you generally don't need to tweak the source. But - even dual compiling and supporting multiple binaries is a hassle. I work on big data crunching libraries, and even with that - ICC is just a couple percent faster on intel processors. Not worth the deployment and support hassle.
We're even less likely to do such things for AMD, of course. But luckily, in my experience it doesn't matter very much at all. Note - I do not currently work in game development. It possible there is a different picture there (but I doubt it).

There was a time when ICC had a bigger lead, and processors in general had less relative oomph so it was more appealing, but that ship has sailed IMO. The general compiler output from the agnostic compilers is quite good.
Click to expand...

I will honestly admit its been years since i looked into t (Why i missed AMD release a compiler)
but many times I've seen released code for one compuler having to be slightly adjusted for another compiler on the same language making it at hassle to use multi compiling

On the bottom line we seems to agree. Compiler optimzing for intel 80% of markets ( BS numbers) is going to be done way before doing AMD optimization for AMD's 20% of the markets ( Again BS number)

and if intel at the same times has a lot bigger cashflow to investe into developers relationship (education not bribing :D) it just puts AMD at a disadvantage to really show offs its products
 
SvenBent said:
On the bottom line we seems to agree. Compiler optimzing for intel 80% of markets ( BS numbers) is going to be done way before doing AMD optimization for AMD's 20% of the markets ( Again BS number)
Click to expand...

I think you missed the point that PhaseNoise was trying to make. The difference now between a generic compiler and intel’s compiler is very small, a few percent.

Sure more compiler development is always a good thing. But you generally won’t get a magical 20% performance vs a compiler that already does a very solid job.

Good threading conventions is what is needed.
 
Last edited:
Celeryman said:
I like both Intel and AMD, but am rooting for AMD right now. Zen 2 is history repeating itself again. This kind of competition gives Intel the kick in the pants it needs to to actually innovate and be competitive pricewise again. Unless you are a pro gamer, I would argue that those extra couple of frames you *might* get from an overpriced Intel part will not be worth it. Intel, factor price into your statement and there really is no fight. The only other advantage Intel holds right now is Quicksync and some AVX512 workloads. That said, Intel will definitely be a consideration after my Zen 2 upgrade *when* they bring the competition back in both price and performance.

And for all you people that might try to argue that you need a new motherboard to get the gains from Zen 2, you have your head in the sand. This is not the case and has been verified. You get PCIe 4.0 from x570, but that is pretty much it and has a minuscule impact on almost all real world workloads.
Click to expand...

Well, unless you do a 3900X or 3950X, you cannot use those in lower end boards. Power requirements and vrm setup is just not there on lower tier boards.
 
What do you gain my making the same statement in every thread? Literally every person on this forum knows that Intel does better against AMD in lots of game. We know. You pointing it out in every single thread provides nothing to the discussion,

Your posts are literally spam at this point.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Nope, they're just still ahead of AMD in gaming. Maybe someday AMD will catch up to Intel's six year-old architecture :D.
Click to expand...

Of course, Intel hasn't done anything except tweak their 6-year-old architecture either. I see very little reason to spend $500 on a 9900k in light of a $329 3700X. I don't think you'll see 40% more gaming performance for 40% more price. I can't imagine the difference will be +/- 10%.
 
kirbyrj said:
Of course, Intel hasn't done anything except tweak their 6-year-old architecture either. I see very little reason to spend $500 on a 9900k in light of a $329 3700X. I don't think you'll see 40% more gaming performance for 40% more price. I can't imagine the difference will be +/- 10%.
Click to expand...

The 2600 / 2600X are the 'sweet spot' for gaming until these Ryzen 3000-series CPUs hit. If you need higher framerates, Intel has you, and below that, it's a bit of a tossup depending on system budgets and applications.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
But what if I run an AMD GPU next to an Nvidia GPU on my Intel desktop? Next-level enlightenment?

:D
Click to expand...

Then you sound like a crypto-miner which might get you taken outside the city limits and stoned by the general population around here ;).
 
kirbyrj said:
Of course, Intel hasn't done anything except tweak their 6-year-old architecture either. I see very little reason to spend $500 on a 9900k in light of a $329 3700X. I don't think you'll see 40% more gaming performance for 40% more price. I can't imagine the difference will be +/- 10%.
Click to expand...

IdiotInCharge said:
The 2600 / 2600X are the 'sweet spot' for gaming until these Ryzen 3000-series CPUs hit. If you need higher framerates, Intel has you, and below that, it's a bit of a tossup depending on system budgets and applications.
Click to expand...

I think AMD is solid up until around 90-100Hz with the 2700x, iirc from my research, then it starts lagging behind. Given my screen is 60Hz (ugh) and VR 90 I went with a 2700x.

The 3000 series might turn this into a price war with performance basically parity. We’ll see!
 
kirbyrj said:
Then you sound like a crypto-miner which might get you taken outside the city limits and stoned by the general population around here ;).
Click to expand...

Well, the AMD GPU is running three monitors, including a Freesync 4k monitor, while the Nvidia GPU runs the main monitor. I don't waste cycles or power on imaginary money :D.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Nope, they're just still ahead of AMD in gaming. Maybe someday AMD will catch up to Intel's six year-old architecture :D.
Click to expand...

Such a oxymoron comment. AMD builds a brand new architecture, while Intel is stuck on 6 year old architecture, that it's road is at it's end, as Intel really can't squeeze any more out of it, with nothing to offer to take it's place till some time late in 2020. Yet, AMD is using new architecture that is basically still in it's infancy, and has many more refinements and performance increases to come, and you some how think AMD is the loser here. It's amazing how some people's thought process works. Simply amazing.
 
hlfbkd420 said:
We should tell intel that whatever they bring to the party has to be available at retail... IE, In Stock.
Click to expand...
I didn't know Amazon was the only place to buy computer parts.

upload_2019-6-13_12-23-6.png


upload_2019-6-13_12-23-49.png


upload_2019-6-13_12-30-15.png
 
NWRMidnight said:
...and you some how think AMD is the loser here. It's amazing how some people's thought process works. Simply amazing.
Click to expand...

You're going to have to quote me on saying "AMD is the loser here". You're trolling and stating things that I did not say.


[hint: you won't find the quote]
 
IdiotInCharge said:
You're going to have to quote me on saying "AMD is the loser here". You're trolling and stating things that I did not say.


[hint: you won't find the quote]
Click to expand...

Stop being coy. Just because you didn't out right say it, your statement implies the same thing. Otherwise, why make such a statement?
 
NWRMidnight said:
Stop being coy. Just because you didn't out right say it, your statement implies the same thing. Otherwise, why make such a statement? So who's trolling?
Click to expand...

Being coy about what? I didn't state it because I didn't intend to state it. Also, please take your personal issues elsewhere. That is trolling.
 
Given Intel and AMD's recent product results, Intel should be careful what they wish for. Meh, they'd probably just move the goalposts anyways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top