Comprehensive Core i9-10900K Review Leaked: Suggests Intel Option Formidable

[kirbyrj]

This whole topic came about because of talk that AMD was faster at games and/or Intel is only faster at "1080P", both which are false. I have nothing more to add.

And the responses were directed toward your "look at my $10,000 in hardware and if you don't spend like I do you're not a gaming enthusiast" type of posts. Congratulations you have an expensive hobby! I play games on my computer. I wouldn't spend more than $1,500 on computer parts just for gaming. Conversely, I spend probably about $10,000 a year playing golf where the average person buys a set at a garage sale and plays once a year in tournaments usually with copious amounts of alcohol. I don't look down on those people. They just have different priorities.

 

[Vega]

Clearly showing Intel has quite a lead over AMD in both max game performance and 0.1% and 1% lows.

 

[Fleat]

While I mostly agree with the sentiment that Intel is still top dog for gaming, I'd argue that simply buying the top binned SKU isn't [H]ard. Being [H]ard has always been a mindset of getting the most out of what we got, IMO.

We both joined [H]ardforum in 2004, and back then dropping an Athlon XP-M 2500+ (Barton), a $75 mobile CPU, into a desktop motherboard then overclocking the shit out of it was irrefutably [H]ard. Shortly thereafter, we were talking about unlocking vertex shaders and pipes in GeForce 6800, X1800 GTO, and more than I can remember. None of these were flagship parts. So yes, to a degree being [H]ard is also about value sentiment and trying to snipe the flagship product without spending flagship money.

This definitely sparked some self-reflection on my use of [H]ard over the years. I was much younger, less established, and had significantly less spare income when I initially started browsing these forums. I was certainly in the camp of trying to achieve the most bang for my buck in the early days and overclocking to squeak every last bit of performance out of a budget chip.

Now I would consider myself far more in the camp of Vega - if I am building a new rig with the highest end GPU available, I want the best processor for the intended task. That 5-15% difference in performance is very relevant when you are shelling out $1k+ for a GPU to get every frame you can. My spending habits have certainly changed over time as money became more available than time and I developed a tolerance for paying a premium to buy the "best".

Random thought related to this as well; It also makes me wonder if the average age of the forum goers has gone up or if [H]ard is bringing in new blood on a regular basis. I lean towards the former based on my perusal of the forums.

 

[Kardonxt]

Clearly showing Intel has quite a lead over AMD in both max game performance and 0.1% and 1% lows.

People definitely need to pay more attention to the lows, this is what's going to kill your gaming experience. Intel has a pretty solid lead here in most games. I hope Ryzen 3 closes the gap so I can have a no brainer next upgrade.

 

[DooKey]

People definitely need to pay more attention to the lows, this is what's going to kill your gaming experience. Intel has a pretty solid lead here in most games. I hope Ryzen 3 closes the gap so I can have a no brainer next upgrade.

Yeah, it's a noticeable difference in lows. I sold my 9900K system because I needed cores for distributed computing. The 9900K ran games better than the 3950X does. Sometimes you have to compromise. Maybe Zen 3 won't require compromise. I hope so.

 

[N4CR]

Clearly showing Intel has quite a lead over AMD in both max game performance and 0.1% and 1% lows.

Nearly a year late and they still use almost double the power to do it. Meh.