Local Microcenter has the boards... but not hte CPUS. They also have AMD CPUs ... but no boards
Unless you want threadripper. Got plenty of that.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Jeez 10900k really?
- Thread starter OFaceSIG
- Start date
Local Microcenter has the boards... but not hte CPUS. They also have AMD CPUs ... but no boards
Unless you want threadripper. Got plenty of that.
No it isn't true. He is saying Intel is only a good choice, all you do with your PC is play games.
"all you do with your PC is play games" is an absolute statement of usage.
No internet, no home office, no doing your taxes. Do any of that and you should choose a different CPU.
Absolute statements are usually wrong, and so is this one.
It wasn't an absolute statement and your inferring meaning that you shouldn't had you read the entire post and understood it.
"All" is an absolute, just like "always", and "never".
Example:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/all
6: nothing but : ONLY
You shouldn't use "all" if don't actually mean that is the ONLY thing you can use your Intel CPU for, without qualification.
If you had said unless the "main thing" you do with your PC, or the main CPU intensive thing, then that would have a qualification built in, and not be an absolute.
Last edited:
your wasting your time with this person. if a higher power came down he would still argue till hell froze over. seems to be a troll!
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2008
- Messages
- 6,617
Get over yourself. Dan's post was as impartial as one could get especially given his partiality for intel.
If you had read the entire post and understood it, you wouldn't be saying that. Not mentioning every specific task a CPU can be used for is not a statement asserting that a given CPU is bad for it. I said quite the opposite in the paragraph above what you quoted that you've been ignoring this entire time. I may have chosen the wrong word, but it seems most people understood what I wrote. I'm not sure why you are struggling to do the same.
Sure, most AMD fans agreed with you repeating the common AMD fan trope, that you buy Intel if all you do is gaming with your computer.
Especially after you point out that the image you use for gaming, is GPU limited identical performance for all CPUs at 4K.
WTF Intel fan boy dribble is this? Your mind must be busy coming up with these strawman arguments.
Make up your minds people.
When I recommend something from AMD, people say I'm biased towards AMD. When I recommend Intel, I get told I'm biased towards Intel. To quote Kyle Bennett: "I must be doing something right." Let me be absolutely clear here. I don't give a shit about brand loyalty. Period. I've owned plenty of AMD and Intel CPU's over the years. Whatever is faster for my purposes is what I tend to buy. However, I personally do not focus on gaming performance alone. There are applications and tasks in which your CPU choice makes no difference. You could use a lowly Core i3 whatever from a couple years ago and it would do the work just fine. I web browse and do general application usage on both Intel and AMD systems all the time. I literally have a 9900K, 10900K, 3900X and 3950X systems all within the same 15 feet of wall space across my test bench and desk.
I don't notice the difference between any of them for basic tasks. Again, I never thought it was necessary to state whether Intel or AMD CPU's were better at doing your taxes, surfing the web, watching Pornhub or Netflix. I figured that enthusiasts and readers of these forums were smart enough to know that without me saying so. I figured they would be smart enough to realize that these weren't the tasks I was talking about.
And because you seem to have difficulties reading it, and you continue to ignore the paragraph right above what you cherry picked and quoted: "Outside of gaming is where things fall apart for Intel. However, most people don't really do the types of things with their systems that really benefit from the massive increases we've had in CPU cores in the last two years or so. The fact is, software hasn't really caught up to those increases yet and probably won't for years. That assumes the application can even benefit from additional parallel processing in the first place. Some simply can't benefit from that. Again, while AMD is clearly the winner in anything multi-threaded, the difference for most people is largely academic. This is a "buy whatever" you want type of situation. You have to have pretty specific use cases for someone to say with certainty that AMD will really benefit you over what Intel offers. If you aren't doing a ton of video editing and encoding, or a ton of virtualization work I'd largely say that either option would generally work about the same."
So, what does the above paragraph mean? I clearly state that while Intel is weaker in non-gaming tasks, the difference isn't something you are going to notice. I specifically stated that you would need very specific applications or workloads to see a real difference between the two products. How can I be more clear about this? You seem to like to cherry pick things I've said and twist them to sell people on your perceived narrative. Again, I picked one graph out of my entire review to illustrate a point. But here is the entire review for those who want the full story. Since I can't count on you understanding the contents, I'll summarize for you: Intel wins and loses in some applications. It loses at most of them. It wins in virtually all the games.
When it comes to gaming, when you are CPU limited such as you often are at 1920x1080, you will see a greater benefit to going Intel. At 4K, it's not quite so black and white. In some games, the difference will certainly be there because not every game is necessarily only going to be GPU limited. CPU performance factors in as well. It depends on the engine and what game we are talking about. However, in strictly GPU limited games, the spread across all the test systems was very small. The Ghost Recon graph is what I used to illustrate this point. It does not, in any way indicate that this is true of all games and that at 4K, your CPU makes little difference. This would be a generalization that isn't strictly accurate.
Doom Eternal on the other hand is a mess, and it's hard to quantify exactly what the results meant as they were all over the place. This is why I didn't include that graph. Destiny 2 shows quite a different story than Ghost Recon does as it isn't strictly GPU limited.
It's also an example where Intel and AMD are much closer in terms of performance. This is actually a different test than my previous Destiny 2 tests, so keep that in mind. The results aren't comparable. But, as you can see, the averages are fairly close acros the board and you only see massive changes in the average when overclocking Intel CPU's comes into play. Again, you missed the part where I said specific game analysis was necessary to determine which CPU was truly better.
Now, the real reasons I've been saying that AMD is generally the better buy is due to the fact that you get a greater core count for the same money. As this is demonstrably true, and AMD is faster at multi-threaded performance, it usually makes more sense. You can also factor in motherboard considerations and the recent price drops into that equation. Intel is faster at gaming for sure, but usually, when comparing the 9900K to the 3900X, the latter is on aggregate only about 5-6% slower. Generally, that's not a big enough gap to change that. The Core i9-10900K is a different animal as it extends this lead to a greater extent and is surprisingly competitive in various applications. The data so far shows considerable improvements to gaming performance. But, it still doesn't match the much cheaper 3900X in non-gaming applications where CPU performance matters. Again, that doesn't mean we are talking about TurboTax or anything else. We are talking about video editing, rendering and virtualization where those extra cores negate any advantages Intel has as far as clock speed or design.
It's all about what's important to you. Perhaps I chose the wrong word as you can't seem to get off the word "all". It was meant as a generalization. If all you do is play games, then Intel is the superior choice in terms of raw performance. That statement itself does not indicate that Intel is awful at non-gaming or trivial tasks such as those that can be done on a phone or tablet just as easily. You are inferring meaning where there is none. In contrast, generally speaking, AMD's offerings are faster for non-gaming tasks. This statement usually, but not always holds true. This statement also does not mean that AMD CPU's suck at gaming. I can provide plenty of data showing that they don't. However, there are still specific situations where AMD would be worth going to for non-gaming use cases and ones where Intel would be the preferred option for specific games.
At this point, I hope I've made myself clear. If you don't understand what I meant at this point, you probably never will. Since everyone else seems to have understood what I said, I'll have to also assume that it's you and not me that's the problem here and move on from this topic.
SixFootDuo
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,839
Sorry, more cores doesn't help me. I am not easily tricked, fooled or manipulated into that argument and or logic.
To me it is absolutely mind blowing that ... suddenly, you have gamers that want more cores at the cost of gaming performance. Sometimes, unknowingly like my friend Ron.
Also, I really don't like that when you have an Intel enthusiast talk about their new build, all of the AMD "more core" kids come out of the wood work and bash on you. I hear a lot of, we are cheaper, use less electricity, oh and we have MORE CORES.
What I would like everyone to understand here is that for me, I am not a brand whore. I am only loyal to one metric and that is, the best performance. When I was younger which a lot of you are, I was limited on funds. I'm older now, semi-retired, house paid for, no debt, etc etc so myself and others who can afford to chase that extra performance, will do so. And no, I am not trying to sound condescending. Lot of you younger guys have the money as well and I get it. I am simply saying is if you only have so much money to budget with, then AMD is going to make a lot of sense to you. In fact, as I've said before many times, I am glad AMD is around so you guys have that option and an excellent option it is.
Just like a lot of you are not going to spend $400 to $500+ on a mother board or research and buy 4400mhz DDR4 b-die Samsung memory to get very tight timings. A lot of you guys don't, won't or can't throw money at the best performance. But, a lot of us do. Some of you guys buy $100 PC cases, I buy $200 and $300 Lian-Li cases. And no, it's not bragging, I'm saying, people are going to chase performance or higher end cases or whatever the case may be.
I really don't want to hear this whole "AMD MORE CORES" argument anymore than I have to. I mean, it's an unwavering tidal wave constantly crashing down on everyone. YouTube influences, forums, here on HardOCP, etc. Especially Bitwit, Linus Tech Tips, that grey haired guy who is in idiot, all of those guys bash Intel over and over and over again. Suddenly, everyone is running productivity benchmarks and we are supposed to base our CPU purchase off that. Like ..... whaaaaaaaaaaaaattttttttt?
The only Intel love I hear is always said in a begrudgingly manner. For example, you hear a lot of people ... "Intel is still a little faster in gaming" and it's always said in a very demure way.
Be nice to have one person say something to the effect of, "oh, he wants the best gaming performance and, I respect and understand that and get it." ....... not "AMD Blah blah blah "more cores" blah blah blah, cheaper, blah blah blah, energy efficient.
BTW, my new intel build is nearing completion, in burn-in and testing phase and slowly getting into the performance tuning side of things. Early numbers are very promising, I'm 99.9% world percentile taking into account CPU, Memory, GPU and I/O. Have my new b-die's running at 12-12-12-28-T1 @ 1.45v @ 4133mhz, 10900K @ 5.2 all cores under-load @ low 80c temps. 2080 Ti MSI Gaming Trio-X at 2050. Total budget so far is around $3300. Minus the $3000 I got for my old system 5 weeks ago. I'm finalizing my NVMe storage route now and trying to decide if I go with 2 x 512 NVMe is Raid0 or just get a 2TB NVMe and partition it to my needs.
I also "pre-paid" for a new nVidia 3080 Ti ... in a round about way. I bought the extended warranty on my new 2080 Ti for $140 ( total investment with GPU, tax and waranty was right at $1,500 ) and was told if for whatever technical reason, I can bring it back for a full refund or store credit minus of course the cost of the added warranty. So, coil whine, over heating, fan noise, artifacting, etc. I already have an occasional tick on one of the fans so this fall i will return my 2080 Ti and pickup a 3080 Ti free of charge.
Let's goooooooooooooo
Oh, for those of you wanting a KILLER rig for not a lot of money. Go checkout the coverage over at Gamers Nexus. The 10600K paired with a 2080 Super is the killer setup for 1440p ultra gaming. In fact, I have my new build sold ( pending for $4K to a guy in the Ozarks ) and may, possibly build this setup. The 10600K @ 5.1 48 cache is as fast as the 10900k in most games save a few. It's a $299 dollar CPU.
You could build a 10600K, 2080 Super, 512 NVMe, $5 Windows 10 Pro Key, H510 case, 750 watt Gold modular Inland, cooling, a $200 z490 mobo all for around $1400 - $1500 all in and be right up there with me and my $3300 build lol ....
To me it is absolutely mind blowing that ... suddenly, you have gamers that want more cores at the cost of gaming performance. Sometimes, unknowingly like my friend Ron.
Also, I really don't like that when you have an Intel enthusiast talk about their new build, all of the AMD "more core" kids come out of the wood work and bash on you. I hear a lot of, we are cheaper, use less electricity, oh and we have MORE CORES.
What I would like everyone to understand here is that for me, I am not a brand whore. I am only loyal to one metric and that is, the best performance. When I was younger which a lot of you are, I was limited on funds. I'm older now, semi-retired, house paid for, no debt, etc etc so myself and others who can afford to chase that extra performance, will do so. And no, I am not trying to sound condescending. Lot of you younger guys have the money as well and I get it. I am simply saying is if you only have so much money to budget with, then AMD is going to make a lot of sense to you. In fact, as I've said before many times, I am glad AMD is around so you guys have that option and an excellent option it is.
Just like a lot of you are not going to spend $400 to $500+ on a mother board or research and buy 4400mhz DDR4 b-die Samsung memory to get very tight timings. A lot of you guys don't, won't or can't throw money at the best performance. But, a lot of us do. Some of you guys buy $100 PC cases, I buy $200 and $300 Lian-Li cases. And no, it's not bragging, I'm saying, people are going to chase performance or higher end cases or whatever the case may be.
I really don't want to hear this whole "AMD MORE CORES" argument anymore than I have to. I mean, it's an unwavering tidal wave constantly crashing down on everyone. YouTube influences, forums, here on HardOCP, etc. Especially Bitwit, Linus Tech Tips, that grey haired guy who is in idiot, all of those guys bash Intel over and over and over again. Suddenly, everyone is running productivity benchmarks and we are supposed to base our CPU purchase off that. Like ..... whaaaaaaaaaaaaattttttttt?
The only Intel love I hear is always said in a begrudgingly manner. For example, you hear a lot of people ... "Intel is still a little faster in gaming" and it's always said in a very demure way.
Be nice to have one person say something to the effect of, "oh, he wants the best gaming performance and, I respect and understand that and get it." ....... not "AMD Blah blah blah "more cores" blah blah blah, cheaper, blah blah blah, energy efficient.
BTW, my new intel build is nearing completion, in burn-in and testing phase and slowly getting into the performance tuning side of things. Early numbers are very promising, I'm 99.9% world percentile taking into account CPU, Memory, GPU and I/O. Have my new b-die's running at 12-12-12-28-T1 @ 1.45v @ 4133mhz, 10900K @ 5.2 all cores under-load @ low 80c temps. 2080 Ti MSI Gaming Trio-X at 2050. Total budget so far is around $3300. Minus the $3000 I got for my old system 5 weeks ago. I'm finalizing my NVMe storage route now and trying to decide if I go with 2 x 512 NVMe is Raid0 or just get a 2TB NVMe and partition it to my needs.
I also "pre-paid" for a new nVidia 3080 Ti ... in a round about way. I bought the extended warranty on my new 2080 Ti for $140 ( total investment with GPU, tax and waranty was right at $1,500 ) and was told if for whatever technical reason, I can bring it back for a full refund or store credit minus of course the cost of the added warranty. So, coil whine, over heating, fan noise, artifacting, etc. I already have an occasional tick on one of the fans so this fall i will return my 2080 Ti and pickup a 3080 Ti free of charge.
Let's goooooooooooooo
Oh, for those of you wanting a KILLER rig for not a lot of money. Go checkout the coverage over at Gamers Nexus. The 10600K paired with a 2080 Super is the killer setup for 1440p ultra gaming. In fact, I have my new build sold ( pending for $4K to a guy in the Ozarks ) and may, possibly build this setup. The 10600K @ 5.1 48 cache is as fast as the 10900k in most games save a few. It's a $299 dollar CPU.
You could build a 10600K, 2080 Super, 512 NVMe, $5 Windows 10 Pro Key, H510 case, 750 watt Gold modular Inland, cooling, a $200 z490 mobo all for around $1400 - $1500 all in and be right up there with me and my $3300 build lol ....
Attachments
Last edited:
SixFootDuo
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,839
I like to suggest to people and I am absolutely serious about this as I have NEVER not sold one of my personal systems is that when you build your system, build it with resell in mind. You can continue to use it, enjoy it and may even decide not to sell it but at least you have that option. Myself and one other friend just recently sold our 9900K systems, both with 2080 ti's ... we got excellent money and used that money to build a new 10900K system. What does building a system for resell mean? Just make it a very appealing system that people would want to own. High end parts, nice case, clean design, excellent cable management. Tiny details like custom badges you can get off eBay, etc etc. I owned my 9900K system for well over 18 months and sold it for only a $200 loss. Not a bad return given I get a new build out of it.
I've never been able to include a custom water loop in any of my builds only from the stand point, it doesn't make sense to spend $600+ dollars only to sell the system shortly there after.
SixFootDuo
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,839
You should be okay. it is extremely rare for an AIO to break and destroy a PC. In fact, go and do a search right now, you will only find a few confirmed instances of this happening. You can also do air. The truth is, a very high end air cooler is just as good as an AIO. This is also confirmed on Gamers Nexus and Linus Tech Tips and elsewhere. Just go and do some research.
Who said we're gamers? More importantly, who said we're gamers only? I do a LOT of things with my systems; I do have a dedicated gaming system, which is a 6700K with 1080, and it's fine - the same as any of these CPUs really would be now, because they're all fine. An x86 CPU is a commodity bit of hardware at this point, unless you're into truly competitive gaming or some of the core-hungry workstation projects. Any of these are fine. They'll all do the job.
Best performance for what? Gaming? Sure - buy an intel system. Have at it. It'll do fine at other things too. Per dollar it will arguably do those other things less well, but the opposite is true too - the other systems will do things like gaming less well too, but it all depends on where your priorities are (or in this case, whoever is shopping for a system).
I could go out and buy a 10980XE and TR3990X right now for two systems both dedicated to that kind of purpose, but it seems rather pointless, so I don't.
For that matter, it doesn't matter how much money you have - Intel will still fare worse for some of my workloads than AMD does - intel tops out at the 8280/8280M, while AMD keeps going quite a bit further, and those are server chips.
To rephrase - it's not about budget, it's about priorities and goals. Infinite budget, I'm buying a pair of 7742 for my most expensive system - and cheaping out a bit on the gaming one because they'll all just about game ~fine~. I'm not playing competitively, I'm not trying to sit at 165FPS - I just want to have fun.
Because a lot of us do more than one thing with our system, and for once, AMD is doing something interesting. Intel has been producing effectively the same core design since Skylake for a long time now. It's a good CPU, but it's ... boring. Very boring. This has let a lot of folks do things they couldn't have (or couldn't have easily) now - home rendering, better coding, etc. It's expanding the hobby, which is a good thing - I'm not a gamer, I'm a technologist. Gaming is part of that, but an NVMEoF target simulating an NVDIMM is also part of that.
Because very few of us are building dedicated gaming-first systems, and for a non gaming-only system, AMD gives you more for the dollar, and still plays games just fine.
Sweet. Sounds fun. I remember those days back when I had a T-bred Barton and was trying to get the last bit of performance out - it was fun. What are you playing that needs that last drop of performance? I get doing it for the hell of it - I ran a datacenter out of my house for the hell of it, because it was fun, but is that it?
I agree that the 10600k is a hell of a gaming-first system, and a decent affordable all around system too. But...
Last years hardware. It's fine. It's just not exciting, because it's just fine. Works great. Looks nice. But there's nothing new there - it's a graphics card that's almost a year old, a CPU based on the 2015 release, and some other bits. It's fine. Just ... nothing special. Nothing that gets me excited at least. I wouldn't turn it down, but I'm not in a hurry to upgrade to it from my 6700 and 1080 either - because they're fine too. I'm far more interested in building a better VM and workstation system (that will play some games too), as that's where my focus is right now. For once, I can do that far better than I used to - because now there are 12 and 16 core systems out there that don't cost an enormous amount and ALSO play games fine, unlike 1st gen ThreadRipper. And if I decide to get REALLY funky, I can get 24 cores and still game just fine with a 3690X. I could do the same on a 10980 too, or a 10900, but AMD will do it better, cheaper, for my use case.
I'm debating on waiting for Ice Lake on the gaming side - AMD looks to have the workstation market locked down for quite some time right now, and a 3950X would do nicely there. But I'd like to spend stupid money on something, so maybe that ends up being ThreadRipper - don't know yet. Got a thread debating it.
I'm not the entire market, and neither are you. I get what you're trying to say, and I don't disagree - it just doesn't matter that much now. They're all fine, and only one of the two companies is showing anything interesting, and it's opening doors that used to be HEDT only levels of performance. It's bringing heavy computation to the masses, and that's great.
Agreed. Never had an AIO have a problem, been using them since Sandy Bridge. They're all still ticking too.
You're obviously biased for Intel and AMD!!!! You can't fool usMake up your minds people.
Let me be absolutely clear here. I don't give a shit about brand loyalty. Period. I've owned plenty of AMD and Intel CPU's over the years. Whatever is faster for my purposes is what I tend to buy. However, I personally do not focus on gaming performance alone. There are applications and tasks in which your CPU choice makes no difference. You could use a lowly Core i3 whatever from a couple years ago and it would do the work just fine. I web browse and do general application usage on both Intel and AMD systems all the time. I literally have a 9900K, 10900K, 3900X and 3950X systems all within the same 15 feet of wall space across my test bench and desk.
I don't notice the difference between any of them for basic tasks. Again, I never thought it was necessary to state whether Intel or AMD CPU's were better at doing your taxes, surfing the web, watching Pornhub or Netflix. I figured that enthusiasts and readers of these forums were smart enough to know that without me saying so. I figured they would be smart enough to realize that these weren't the tasks I was talking about.
And because you seem to have difficulties reading it, and you continue to ignore the paragraph right above what you cherry picked and quoted: "Outside of gaming is where things fall apart for Intel. However, most people don't really do the types of things with their systems that really benefit from the massive increases we've had in CPU cores in the last two years or so. The fact is, software hasn't really caught up to those increases yet and probably won't for years. That assumes the application can even benefit from additional parallel processing in the first place. Some simply can't benefit from that. Again, while AMD is clearly the winner in anything multi-threaded, the difference for most people is largely academic. This is a "buy whatever" you want type of situation. You have to have pretty specific use cases for someone to say with certainty that AMD will really benefit you over what Intel offers. If you aren't doing a ton of video editing and encoding, or a ton of virtualization work I'd largely say that either option would generally work about the same."
So, what does the above paragraph mean? I clearly state that while Intel is weaker in non-gaming tasks, the difference isn't something you are going to notice. I specifically stated that you would need very specific applications or workloads to see a real difference between the two products. How can I be more clear about this? You seem to like to cherry pick things I've said and twist them to sell people on your perceived narrative. Again, I picked one graph out of my entire review to illustrate a point. But here is the entire review for those who want the full story. Since I can't count on you understanding the contents, I'll summarize for you: Intel wins and loses in some applications. It loses at most of them. It wins in virtually all the games.
When it comes to gaming, when you are CPU limited such as you often are at 1920x1080, you will see a greater benefit to going Intel. At 4K, it's not quite so black and white. In some games, the difference will certainly be there because not every game is necessarily only going to be GPU limited. CPU performance factors in as well. It depends on the engine and what game we are talking about. However, in strictly GPU limited games, the spread across all the test systems was very small. The Ghost Recon graph is what I used to illustrate this point. It does not, in any way indicate that this is true of all games and that at 4K, your CPU makes little difference. This would be a generalization that isn't strictly accurate.
Doom Eternal on the other hand is a mess, and it's hard to quantify exactly what the results meant as they were all over the place. This is why I didn't include that graph. Destiny 2 shows quite a different story than Ghost Recon does as it isn't strictly GPU limited.
View attachment 250484
It's also an example where Intel and AMD are much closer in terms of performance. This is actually a different test than my previous Destiny 2 tests, so keep that in mind. The results aren't comparable. But, as you can see, the averages are fairly close acros the board and you only see massive changes in the average when overclocking Intel CPU's comes into play. Again, you missed the part where I said specific game analysis was necessary to determine which CPU was truly better.
Now, the real reasons I've been saying that AMD is generally the better buy is due to the fact that you get a greater core count for the same money. As this is demonstrably true, and AMD is faster at multi-threaded performance, it usually makes more sense. You can also factor in motherboard considerations and the recent price drops into that equation. Intel is faster at gaming for sure, but usually, when comparing the 9900K to the 3900X, the latter is on aggregate only about 5-6% slower. Generally, that's not a big enough gap to change that. The Core i9-10900K is a different animal as it extends this lead to a greater extent and is surprisingly competitive in various applications. The data so far shows considerable improvements to gaming performance. But, it still doesn't match the much cheaper 3900X in non-gaming applications where CPU performance matters. Again, that doesn't mean we are talking about TurboTax or anything else. We are talking about video editing, rendering and virtualization where those extra cores negate any advantages Intel has as far as clock speed or design.
It's all about what's important to you. Perhaps I chose the wrong word as you can't seem to get off the word "all". It was meant as a generalization. If all you do is play games, then Intel is the superior choice in terms of raw performance. That statement itself does not indicate that Intel is awful at non-gaming or trivial tasks such as those that can be done on a phone or tablet just as easily. You are inferring meaning where there is none. In contrast, generally speaking, AMD's offerings are faster for non-gaming tasks. This statement usually, but not always holds true. This statement also does not mean that AMD CPU's suck at gaming. I can provide plenty of data showing that they don't. However, there are still specific situations where AMD would be worth going to for non-gaming use cases and ones where Intel would be the preferred option for specific games.
At this point, I hope I've made myself clear. If you don't understand what I meant at this point, you probably never will. Since everyone else seems to have understood what I said, I'll have to also assume that it's you and not me that's the problem here and move on from this topic.
. Seriously, if you get complaints that you're biased both ways it just means your doing good. And arguing with a fanboy from Intel or AMD that is just going to take everything they can out of context to try to prove a point that you aleady agree with and make it about themselves is how they role. Snowdog is almost as bad of an Intel guy as ManOfGod is for AMD. The difference is ManOfGod will at least admit he likes AMD and doesn't claim to be impartial. It's a lost cause, everyone else understands your point easily as you stated it concisely. Only someone WANTING to get another meaning out of it possibly could have. Thanks for the in depth posts and helpful benchmarking, most of us appreciate it.
D
Deleted member 312202
Guest
I just went with my first aio. I have used air coolers for over twenty years in my builds. I'm impressed with it so far as my 9900K doesn't get very hot at all after a few gaming sessions.
It really doesn't. That's why I stability test an overclock with encoding and rendering tasks before settling on clock speeds for gaming benchmarks. Prime95 and other stress testers have their place too, but I've found things like Handbrake encoding or the Blender benchmark to be better indicators of stability and far more indicative of what you'll see during actual workloads.
SixFootDuo
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,839
For me, there are a lot of considerations I make and put behind what I buy. I still may buy AMD. Let's see what their single core performance is like. From what I am hearing, their new memory controller is going to fix a lot of AMD's memory issues. That sounds promising. Also, single core performance is supposed to increast 10 - 12 - 15%. If I can get an AMD 16 Core that beats Intel across the board, gaming and productivity then I will make the move. I have a feeling that Intel is still going to be extremely competitive. I really think Intel could possible have a 10nm 20 core CPU to take on AMD in the coming months. They could easily fit 20 Cores @ 10nm on their new 1200 socket. Even 18 Core 10nm could very possibly run at 4.8+ all cores. I mean, it's so exciting to think about this massive push between AMD and Intel that really benefits us PC guys. So god damn exciting.
Coming months? You mean end of next year? I don't think it's as close as you're hoping, but would be happy to be wrong. AMD is probably going to be out much sooner than Intel's next release (just based on Intel just had a release and AMD released almost a year ago now).
Edit:. It is exciting though, hoping they both start bringing some great things coming up.
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 31,326
I wouldn't be surprised if nobody releases another CPU this year other than the AMD refresh.
I also looked into going to AMD this round. The deal fell through when only their top 3 Threadrippers (3960X 3970X 3990X) supported 4+ PCIE sockets, and quad channel memory. The cost increase wasn't worth it over Intel's 109xx X series after the price drop, plus quad channel memory (in my experience) gives a platform much more staying power before an upgrade is warranted. I finally found a 10940X at retail price and haven't looked back. Maybe in four years or so when PCIE 4.0 really matters for gamers I'll upgrade again
Queue the flames!
Queue the flames!
Last edited:
That would be awesome if it happened, but I don't suspect we're going to see that until 2021 at the earliest. There just aren't any signs that they've got 10nm figured out quite yet, although I do hope it happens. Cooling it might be a pain though.
I really want 10nm; desktop sure, but also a full Tremont refresh for real on the Atom side for microservers and the like, and the next generation of Xeons (although Cascade Lake R is rocking that side pretty well given how they're priced). My Avoton systems are getting OLD as shit.
SixFootDuo
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,839
I think I read that Intel might have a new CPU out end of this year? Maybe not.
With the 3080 ti coming out this Fall, that will hold me over for sure.
With the 3080 ti coming out this Fall, that will hold me over for sure.
AMD will most likely announce zen3 this year, not sure if it will be available but at least some models hopefully. Since their roadmap shows zen4 next year, it wouldn't leave much room if they didn't release this year.
yea i think thats all disinformation, and a farce to sell z490 motherboards and I5s to people hoping to drop in a better chip soon down the road. i dont buy it for a second in regards to intel and rocket lake. they cant even supply 10th gen in enough volume. most retailers have had either ONE or ZERO deliveries of the 10980xe parts despite orders being in for 7+ months and that includes amazon and newegg. and 10900K is so far missing in action. theres some chips that have trickled out sure.. but stock is lower than usual for a intel top desktop SKU after 3ish weeks.
weve all seen pictures for months and months of microcener,bestbuys,frys with empty intel CPU sections and AMD chips for dayyyys and dayyys.
another consumer 14nm release in 2020? no way in hell..
10nm? L O L
i wish that wasnt the case, i have a dud 10980xe i wanna sell and reroll my luck at the silicon lotto. but with zero 18c chips anywere i cant sell what i do have. i was lucky and snagged a 10900k and im not totally in love with it either, its a somewhat middle of the road to below average chip for voltage and heat, and i want to get a better one of those also... im just over here waiting on intel to get their shit together, and it doesnt look promising.
I have no doubt nvidia will launch fairly soon IE within 6-9months.