AMD showed several previews of their Ryzen 3000 series processor with one running Forza Horizon 4 at over 100 FPS on 1080p resolution (The GPU used was the Radeon RX Vega VII). The processor has also compared in Cinebench R15 versus the Core i9-9900K at stock frequency and the 8 core, 16 thread Ryzen scored 2057 points at 133.4W (max) while the Core i9-9900K with the same 8 core and 16 thread configuration scored 2040 points at179.9W (max).
Lower TDP, higher score? looks like AMD is giving a fight over Intel's high end CPU.
Not into high end CPUs, but can't wait for Ryzen 5 3000 series to see if it beats Intel 9600K (gaming wise).
@PredatorRules: I really hope they do challenge them so they both start innovating a lot quicker to not get beat. But I also went with Threadripper for my 2nd build.
AMD showed several previews of their Ryzen 3000 series processor with one running Forza Horizon 4 at over 100 FPS on 1080p resolution (The GPU used was the Radeon RX Vega VII). The processor has also compared in Cinebench R15 versus the Core i9-9900K at stock frequency and the 8 core, 16 thread Ryzen scored 2057 points at 133.4W (max) while the Core i9-9900K with the same 8 core and 16 thread configuration scored 2040 points at179.9W (max).
Lower TDP, higher score? looks like AMD is giving a fight over Intel's high end CPU.
Not into high end CPUs, but can't wait for Ryzen 5 3000 series to see if it beats Intel 9600K (gaming wise).
I get over a 100 fps in horizon 4 with a i5 4670K and a GTX 1080 Ti and 2560x1080.
Seems like AMD has caught up in CPU department to Haswell when it comes to per core performance but the GPU department?... Eh $699 for a GPU that probably wont fare well against a almost 2 year old Ti and it has no ray tracing?... No thank you.
I don't know why people are so happy that AMD is playing catch up and for gaming still falls short of the competition of cheaper i5's.... 8400/8600/9600 > Ryzen for gaming and Vega 7?.... Jesus bury that thing asap, we thought RTX pricing was bad but atleast that has ray tracing.
AMD showed several previews of their Ryzen 3000 series processor with one running Forza Horizon 4 at over 100 FPS on 1080p resolution (The GPU used was the Radeon RX Vega VII). The processor has also compared in Cinebench R15 versus the Core i9-9900K at stock frequency and the 8 core, 16 thread Ryzen scored 2057 points at 133.4W (max) while the Core i9-9900K with the same 8 core and 16 thread configuration scored 2040 points at179.9W (max).
Lower TDP, higher score? looks like AMD is giving a fight over Intel's high end CPU.
Not into high end CPUs, but can't wait for Ryzen 5 3000 series to see if it beats Intel 9600K (gaming wise).
I get over a 100 fps in horizon 4 with a i5 4670K and a GTX 1080 Ti and 2560x1080.
Seems like AMD has caught up in CPU department to Haswell when it comes to per core performance but the GPU department?... Eh $699 for a GPU that probably wont fare well against a almost 2 year old Ti and it has no ray tracing?... No thank you.
I don't know why people are so happy that AMD is playing catch up and for gaming still falls short of the competition of cheaper i5's.... 8400/8600/9600 > Ryzen for gaming and Vega 7?.... Jesus bury that thing asap, we thought RTX pricing was bad but atleast that has ray tracing.
Those i5 and i7 would still be 4 cores if not for Ryzen.
AMD showed several previews of their Ryzen 3000 series processor with one running Forza Horizon 4 at over 100 FPS on 1080p resolution (The GPU used was the Radeon RX Vega VII). The processor has also compared in Cinebench R15 versus the Core i9-9900K at stock frequency and the 8 core, 16 thread Ryzen scored 2057 points at 133.4W (max) while the Core i9-9900K with the same 8 core and 16 thread configuration scored 2040 points at179.9W (max).
Lower TDP, higher score? looks like AMD is giving a fight over Intel's high end CPU.
Not into high end CPUs, but can't wait for Ryzen 5 3000 series to see if it beats Intel 9600K (gaming wise).
I get over a 100 fps in horizon 4 with a i5 4670K and a GTX 1080 Ti and 2560x1080.
Seems like AMD has caught up in CPU department to Haswell when it comes to per core performance but the GPU department?... Eh $699 for a GPU that probably wont fare well against a almost 2 year old Ti and it has no ray tracing?... No thank you.
I don't know why people are so happy that AMD is playing catch up and for gaming still falls short of the competition of cheaper i5's.... 8400/8600/9600 > Ryzen for gaming and Vega 7?.... Jesus bury that thing asap, we thought RTX pricing was bad but atleast that has ray tracing.
Those i5 and i7 would still be 4 cores if not for Ryzen.
Not really they were in development before they launched Ryzen. Also it doesn't matter... If you want to game a 6 core Intel chip is king, I love the value of Ryzen for media related work but for dedicated gaming build regardless of budgets intel all the way a i5 8400 is the budget gaming CPU king and the 2600 is the budget media PC king.
Not really they were in development before they launched Ryzen. Also it doesn't matter... If you want to game a 6 core Intel chip is king, I love the value of Ryzen for media related work but for dedicated gaming build regardless of budgets intel all the way a i5 8400 is the budget gaming CPU king and the 2600 is the budget media PC king.
If you're stuck with a 60Hz monitor either one is fine. Even for high performance, but not top, AMD beats Intel. Remember the mobo are more expensive with Intel, you need a cooler as well.
If you need the best performance overall or best single core performance, intel is the way to go. By this I also mean you will be overclocking that CPU. 9700K or 9900K, 5.1GHz or higher. 4266MHz RAM. That's gonna cost you. If you don't bother with overclocking, what little you lose by going for 2700X and 3600MHz RAM compared to 9700K or 9900K and 4266MHz (or 3600MHz to keep them more equal) is not much. Save some 100$ or more though.
AMD showed several previews of their Ryzen 3000 series processor with one running Forza Horizon 4 at over 100 FPS on 1080p resolution (The GPU used was the Radeon RX Vega VII). The processor has also compared in Cinebench R15 versus the Core i9-9900K at stock frequency and the 8 core, 16 thread Ryzen scored 2057 points at 133.4W (max) while the Core i9-9900K with the same 8 core and 16 thread configuration scored 2040 points at179.9W (max).
Lower TDP, higher score? looks like AMD is giving a fight over Intel's high end CPU.
Not into high end CPUs, but can't wait for Ryzen 5 3000 series to see if it beats Intel 9600K (gaming wise).
I get over a 100 fps in horizon 4 with a i5 4670K and a GTX 1080 Ti and 2560x1080.
Seems like AMD has caught up in CPU department to Haswell when it comes to per core performance but the GPU department?... Eh $699 for a GPU that probably wont fare well against a almost 2 year old Ti and it has no ray tracing?... No thank you.
I don't know why people are so happy that AMD is playing catch up and for gaming still falls short of the competition of cheaper i5's.... 8400/8600/9600 > Ryzen for gaming and Vega 7?.... Jesus bury that thing asap, we thought RTX pricing was bad but atleast that has ray tracing.
Vega 64 is running at 140fps, Radeon VII should be faster.
Over 100fps doesn't say how much over it.
People are happy for competition, any competition is welcome even if it's catch em up, you'd rather having no competition at all and pay whatever Intel/Nvidia price tag will throw at you? you sure won't have a choice, I can see already Intel and Nvidia's products are up around 15% more where usually the price stayed the same but the hardware tech was upgrading.
AMD showed several previews of their Ryzen 3000 series processor with one running Forza Horizon 4 at over 100 FPS on 1080p resolution (The GPU used was the Radeon RX Vega VII). The processor has also compared in Cinebench R15 versus the Core i9-9900K at stock frequency and the 8 core, 16 thread Ryzen scored 2057 points at 133.4W (max) while the Core i9-9900K with the same 8 core and 16 thread configuration scored 2040 points at179.9W (max).
Lower TDP, higher score? looks like AMD is giving a fight over Intel's high end CPU.
Not into high end CPUs, but can't wait for Ryzen 5 3000 series to see if it beats Intel 9600K (gaming wise).
I get over a 100 fps in horizon 4 with a i5 4670K and a GTX 1080 Ti and 2560x1080.
Seems like AMD has caught up in CPU department to Haswell when it comes to per core performance but the GPU department?... Eh $699 for a GPU that probably wont fare well against a almost 2 year old Ti and it has no ray tracing?... No thank you.
I don't know why people are so happy that AMD is playing catch up and for gaming still falls short of the competition of cheaper i5's.... 8400/8600/9600 > Ryzen for gaming and Vega 7?.... Jesus bury that thing asap, we thought RTX pricing was bad but atleast that has ray tracing.
Vega 64 is running at 140fps, Radeon VII should be faster.
Over 100fps doesn't say how much over it.
People are happy for competition, any competition is welcome even if it's catch em up, you'd rather having no competition at all and pay whatever Intel/Nvidia price tag will throw at you? you sure won't have a choice, I can see already Intel and Nvidia's products are up around 15% more where usually the price stayed the same but the hardware tech was upgrading.
No that's not my issue at all. Competition is healthy... Yes, but when one company like Nvidia move the price to performance in the wrong direction with RTX the last thing anyone was expecting was a $700 AMD GPU in 2019 that performs the same as a 2017 1080 Ti.
Competition - Great... What we have here is a mess.
Also intel's prices haven't changed with their CPU's with the new "competition" from Ryzen, not at all. Competition gives you options but doesn't really affect price as much as people think it does... What effects price is the market, if people buy these RTX cards and the buy this $700 AND GPU that in 2019 that competes against a $700 GPU from 2017 then you will see that "competition" will not save the price increase with the coming generations.
Look at Sony and Microsoft with their consoles... Xbox 360 had paid online service, Sony didn't and with your logic that would mean that due to "competetion" Microsoft would feel pressure to remove the online fee?... No, the MARKET dictated that they don't mind paying for online and bam Playstation Plus.
Competition?... Please. AMD is playing catch up and is matching Nvidia's shit price to performance of RTX. "Competition" would be if they released a AMD GPU for $499 that had the performance of a RTX 2080 minus the ray tracing ability.
Log in to comment