Am I looking at benchmarks the wrong way?

Well across the board although I doubt anyone said "largely superior" means way more than gaming at 1080P using a 2080TI and an i3 CPU ...
 
AMD's Zen1+ had an IPC and frequency deficit.

My advice is to look at the new 7nm CPUs unless you are cash strapped or looking for great deals on R7 2700. if you are looking for an APU wait. The 7nm APUs (Ryzen 4XXX parts) should be announced soon.
 
Last edited:
I doubt you are looking at it the wrong way. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people at Microcenter say that the Ryzen 3000's are better than Intel CPU's across the board. They seem unaware or largely ignore the gaming advantage or specific advantages Intel may hold at certain price points. I think the issue is that people look at benchmarks and if they see the bulk of scores favoring one product, they make a blanket conclusion that said product is just better than the other. They do not dwell on the details or even acknowledge that a given task may favor one or the other. I think people see that AMD's Ryzen 3000 series is close enough on the gaming front and faster everywhere else, so they conclude that all Ryzen's are better than all Intel CPU's.

This simply isn't accurate though. The 9400F vs. the 3400G was something I tested and surprisingly, I found the 9400F was better in the vast majority of cases. Now, the 3400G is cheaper and the APU part of it is undoubtedly faster, but as a budget gaming CPU with a discreet card, the 9400F is faster hands down. When you look at a 3700X vs. a 9900K, it isn't so cut and dry either. The latter is more expensive, but in our tests the 9900K was faster than the Ryzen 7 3700X the vast majority of the time. Yet, that's not what one would conclude listening to people speak on the subject. If you compare the 3900X to the Core i9 9900K, the 3900X is the clear winner in most people's minds. However, if all you do is play games, Intel still has an advantage, albeit a small one. This often gets ignored by the general public.

I think people glance at the reviews and the data points, reach a conclusion and call it a day. Often, when you dive into the details with one of these people you'll find that they don't really know the data. They'll reference a review or something and if you read it, you'll probably find that their opinions or conclusions are only vaguely supported. That is, XYZ is faster most of the time, but doesn't take into account a great many variables. On the other hand, if I'm asked a question about what someone should buy and I know they don't have the knowledge to really get into the weeds on the subject, I'll probably just tell them to buy a Ryzen 7 3700X. They may erroneously conclude that the 3000 series is better in every way than XYZ Intel, based on what I said, but they won't know why I said that. They'll just parot the recommendation plus whatever justification I gave for it as best as they can recall it.

For example: Many will conclude that the Ryzen 9 3950X is better than Intel's Core i9 10980XE. Is it? Well that depends on how you look at it. You can certainly make many arguments for why the 3950X is the better buy. I certainly have done so. But being a better buy doesn't actually make it the better product. Looking at raw performance data, the Intel is often faster at stock speeds. If you look at the data, the Intel doesn't even win by enough to justify its cost increase. If you can handle cooling it and overclock the Core i9 10980XE far enough, it's a better performer in nearly every test you can throw at it. Plus, it comes with the advantages offered by being an HEDT part. But, again, raw performance and overclocked performance do not necessarily make for a good buy. The Intel Core i9 10980XE is super expensive, rare as hen's teeth, runs hot as hell and pulls considerably more power than the Ryzen 9 3950X does.

So, with all the data points beyond raw performance, I think most would conclude the Ryzen 9 3950X is better and the 10980XE isn't even worth considering as a viable purchase option. And to that, I'd generally agree.

if you are looking at CPU's, understand that prior to the Ryzen 3000 series, AMD was only superior if it had a core count advantage. It was also often better for the money, providing more bang for your buck. AMD's strength lied in giving you upwards of twice as many cores for the same money as their Intel counterparts. This also allowed AMD an advantage in some multi-threaded workloads. It wasn't until the 3000 series that AMD really had an advantage in most cases. Do keep in mind that all of the lower end AMD CPU's with onboard APU's are based on the Zen+ architecture and are 3000 series Ryzens in name only.
 
Dan_D sum it up well but if I may add, it's the buyer's responsibility to understand their use case and analyze the data provided. It's easy to get swayed one way or another on the internet.
You may also request tips from educated users like this forum for sure but make sure you include all the information needed.

I mean, what do you do with your computer ? (Gaming, Virtual machines, streaming, editing... etc.) There's a good thread somewhere here in the builds sub forum (I think) that will give you hints.
There's no such thing as one PC to rule them all with all the variables ($$$ budget is a main starting point...).

Cheers !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top