Lotta fanboys trying to convince themselves they'll finally win gaming next round... they won't

This is a bad comparison. Going by GHz, you might as well say the AMD FX-9590 is better because it boosted to 5 GHz with 200+ watts. Also single core performance and boost goes up with higher tier Ryzen CPU's. Just ran GeekBench 4 with a 3900x, got 6300 single and 56000 multi with CL16 3200 MHz ram (not fast or expensive ram by any means).

Did I mention the 3900x costed me only $400 and almost a year old?

Bias arguments here..

He is compare PEAK values for Intel vs AVG values for AMD.

If you want to be trusted compare Apples to Apples... not to bananas...

You think that we are stupid and did not realize that?? :o

Ultimately the Intel 10th gen is going head to head against Zen 3, not Zen 2. It's a couple months for these chips and then a couple months after Zen 3 will arrive.

The gap is going to close even more for single threaded performance, to the point it won't even matter not even in gaming. Not that it does anyway, if you're at 1440p resolution by now. Intel are showing single digit figure percentage improvement over the 9th gen, but Zen 3 will almost certainly be double digit for IPC. At a minimum. Even a mere 10 percent better IPC and 5 percent better sustained clocks will put insane pressure on Intel entire product lineup.

Realistically Intel can go no further without a next generation process node. AMD are winning on mobile with Renoir and they are about to reclaim all round desktop performance this year.

Quote from: Kvarta on April 19, 2020, 23:12:22

Quote from: RazorRay on April 19, 2020, 08:07:06
Haha, single core performance is what gamers want. And the fact that intel is on par or faster with old tech shows you how bad AMD really is. They need a million cores and a million threads to do what intel does with a hand full on older tech. You amd fan kids are sad, pathetic, and clearly blind.

Realy millions? Or you blind? Intel needs 5 Ghz to mach Amd 4.5 Ghz. From your post I ques that you are 10 years old or drunk :-)

He has a point you know. For productivity amd is undoubtedly king, but if you want the best of the best for gaming. The lead may not be huge, but personally I care the most about single core and right now amd can't give me more than Intel can.

Intel is here again to sell us something we don't need.

Quote from: RazorRay on April 19, 2020, 08:07:06
Haha, single core performance is what gamers want. And the fact that intel is on par or faster with old tech shows you how bad AMD really is. They need a million cores and a million threads to do what intel does with a hand full on older tech. You amd fan kids are sad, pathetic, and clearly blind.

Realy millions? Or you blind? Intel needs 5 Ghz to mach Amd 4.5 Ghz. From your post I ques that you are 10 years old or drunk :-)

Intel part is K series so it also will not come with a cooler, while amd parts work adequately with the box cooler, Intel will need additional $50 worth cooler at least to be functional.

Also noone mentioned the actual power consumption here. In India, the more electricity you use more you get charged per kwatt/hr, for 200 units the rate is 4 rs. For 400 units it's 7 rs. After 700 units it goes above 13 rs per unit. So power consumption is a major factor here.

Amd has more ipc than Intel, more power efficient and has better multithreading than Intel. Also it can manage to boost for considerably longer times than Intel.

Intel on other hands has only single threaded advantage due to higher boost clocks. For gamers it's good, but for productivity it's nowhere near where amd is.

Haha, single core performance is what gamers want. And the fact that intel is on par or faster with old tech shows you how bad AMD really is. They need a million cores and a million threads to do what intel does with a hand full on older tech. You amd fan kids are sad, pathetic, and clearly blind.

Intels 10th gen is nore just desperation and basically taking shotgun approach to launching products and seeing if anything sticks. While they are bringing them on pair with Ryzen, just to stay somewhat relevant, 10th gen will be bad buy. But Intel has to do something till 10nm or 7nm comes out. Those will be terribly hot and power hungry, kind of like FX was for AMD. But till Intel gets something better out, I will keep recommending AMD. And not to mention how much 3700X wrecks any value of new i7, not just it can already be bought below 300USD, it also is just 1% behind 3800X.

Quote from: PCWarrior on April 18, 2020, 15:43:20
3800X buyers are less value oriented - if they were value oriented they would go for a 3700X. The 3800X scoring around 35500 as a median is a skewed result as most 3800X buyers tend to pair it with better cooling solutions and overclock their cpu even a little. They also all pair it with faster than stock RAM and many with high frequency, low latency kits such as 3600MHz CL16 or 3733 CL17 improving performance further. for the record, on the same benchmark the 9900K can do over 6500 in single thread and over 40,000 even on iMacs (who we know they run it completely at stock). So the 10700K only scoring 6018 and 34221 suggests that it was running completely at stock, with power limits enforced, paired with a slow RAM kit (like 2666CL16) and some other kneecapping condition.

There appears to be an issue happening with these 10 series CPUs: they're overheating so bad, because Intel basically took 9 series CPUs and pushed up the TDP. The TIM has a realistic heat limit it can disssipate, and by allowing the CPUs to try and get to 5.3GHz, it's just overwhelming the coolers, meaning thermal throttling comes along crippling the CPU.

We all know Intel 95w meant 225w+; very few coolers could keep up to that. So 125w probably means 275w, and that is beyond any reasonable cooling solution.

Now, since the 10700k is a rewired (to ensure incompatibility) and rebranded 9900k, you're right that it will match the performance in identical configurations, but since the power consumption will be so much higher on these new chips, it appears Intel is finally succumbing to their ignoring of max-load power consumption.

Good news: if you can figure out how to cool a 300w CPU, you're good. Bad news: those cooling solutions are essentially non-existent currently (very rare, very loud, and very expensive). When these chips finally are released, they'll be tested on the best cooling available at the time by reviewers, which will finally be inadequate.  I'm personally hoping it's done with a 150w cooler, since that is plenty for covering the TDP, and showing how bad Intel lies.

Depending on how long Intel keeps delaying what is basically the exact same chip they've been selling for 3 years, they might push to where AMD shows up with their 7nm refined chip, which should come along with plenty of performance, and actually adhere to a TDP that coolers can handle.

congrats intel to be still in pair with AMD with their old 14nm.

And if my uncle was named Martha instead of Arthur he'd be my aunty

3800X buyers are less value oriented - if they were value oriented they would go for a 3700X. The 3800X scoring around 35500 as a median is a skewed result as most 3800X buyers tend to pair it with better cooling solutions and overclock their cpu even a little. They also all pair it with faster than stock RAM and many with high frequency, low latency kits such as 3600MHz CL16 or 3733 CL17 improving performance further. for the record, on the same benchmark the 9900K can do over 6500 in single thread and over 40,000 even on iMacs (who we know they run it completely at stock). So the 10700K only scoring 6018 and 34221 suggests that it was running completely at stock, with power limits enforced, paired with a slow RAM kit (like 2666CL16) and some other kneecapping condition.