AMD Ryzen 5 and 7's back on sale

Spiritualx wrote: ↑ How do these compare to Intel's?

99% of the performance (in gaming) and with hyper threading for like half the price.

You’d have to be an idiot to buy anything intel right now.

zobblplatz wrote: ↑ 99% of the performance (in gaming) and with hyper threading for like half the price.

You’d have to be an idiot to buy anything intel right now.

This would be offensive if it weren't so true.

zobblplatz wrote: ↑ 99% of the performance (in gaming) and with hyper threading for like half the price.

You’d have to be an idiot to buy anything intel right now.

These are 2000 series not 3000 so gaming wise it’s not close.

Edit except the 3600.

Paigne wrote: ↑ These are 2000 series not 3000 so gaming wise it’s not close.

Edit except the 3600.

Except it is true, except at the very high end.

zobblplatz wrote: ↑ 99% of the performance (in gaming) and with hyper threading for like half the price.

You’d have to be an idiot to buy anything intel right now.

Just want to add that, for lots of non-gaming stuffs, AMD is actually faster.

zobblplatz wrote: ↑ 99% of the performance (in gaming) and with hyper threading for like half the price.

You’d have to be an idiot to buy anything intel right now.

I wish I had the option. Would’ve switched to AMD but I’ve got a system built on intel. Switching over would be a mess.

Then again intel is still solid as they come with their CPUs.

zobblplatz wrote: ↑ 99% of the performance (in gaming) and with hyper threading for like half the price.

9700k and asus motherboard: $859 https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/list/4gqjbX

3700x and asus motherboard: $893 https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/list/pM6JYT



9700k overclocked: 148 fps

3700x overclocked: 129 fps

so it doesn't seem like anything you said is true. I guess a 2600 and b450 motherboard could work out to be half the price of a 9900k and 99% of the performance in a game that doesn't use the CPU like minesweeper or something. but if all you do is play games that don't use the CPU then you're not here looking to upgrade your CPU right now, are you

Loomy wrote: ↑ 9700k and asus motherboard: $859 https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/list/4gqjbX

3700x and asus motherboard: $893 https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/list/pM6JYT

[img]https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/6Uvuq ... 650-80.png[/img

9700k overclocked: 148 fps

3700x overclocked: 129 fps

so it doesn't seem like anything you said is true. I guess a 2600 and b450 motherboard could work out to be half the price of a 9900k and 99% of the performance in a game that doesn't use the CPU like minesweeper or something. but if all you do is play games that don't use the CPU then you're not here looking to upgrade your CPU right now, are you

You can use a $120 B450 motherboard and get the same performance on Ryzen, just as you can use a $150 (cheapest) Z370 board for the Intel, which then gives the price advantage to Ryzen, which it should be. Anyone buying those high-end motherboards you linked would be getting a 9900K/3900X, so your comparisons are stupid in the first place.

You are also not mentioning that Ryzen comes with a stock cooler which is a perfectly fine solution even for some overclocking.

[removed]

Dealsfordayss wrote: ↑ I wish I had the option. Would’ve switched to AMD but I’ve got a system built on intel. Switching over would be a mess.

Then again intel is still solid as they come with their CPUs.

Why's that the case? Upgrading an Intel system almost always requires a motherboard upgrade anyway.

Why oh why must these things degrade into insults.

The "half the price" claim was certainly an exaggeration. The value of the AMD platform, however, is unbeatable - especially if you consider that you don't have to upgrade motherboards between CPU upgrades. You can drop a 3600x, or often better, into many (if not most) first-gen Ryzen motherboards. The fact that the stock cooler is actually usable - unlike Intel's stock cooler, which goes straight into the garbage on any serious build - is another notch in favour of AMD's value.

But again, as I said above, Intel does carry a performance lead in gaming at the high-end. You pay a bit more for it overall (I wonder what gaming performance would be like if those saved dollars on the AMD platform were invested in a faster graphics card?) and sacrifice performance in most non-gaming tasks (that may or may not be an issue for some users - typically, they know who they are), but there IS a performance advantage for Intel at the high-end. Intel's are also superior overclockers. Overclocking is essentially dead on the AMD platform.

The more you know...

Intel is coming out with similar thread counts on their next release. I wonder how much extra they will charge though.

Go with Intel, you need something to keep you warm with the temperatures being forecast for February.
https://toronto-ontario.news/news/canad ... on-earth2/
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/3yBUK ... 650-80.png

Just gaming I'd go with Intel. Gaming, streaming, multitasking, etc. go with AMD. especially if you want 7gb/s read speeds on pcie4 x570 direct feed to cpu from nvme.

I'm running a Ryzen 7 2700 and I have no issues running games. I guess it also comes down to how CPU / GPU intensive the game is, I play Civ, Red Dead, GTA, Cities, Frostpunk, Fallout and have absolutely no noticable performance issues with my cpu on high/ultra settings. If you are looking for a starter/budget gaming rig you are getting an absolute steal buying a 2000 series for these prices. At this point I'd probably go with the 7/2700x since it's so cheap.

If you are looking to squeeze every bit of FPS out of your rig on 4K resolutions or VR then this thread isn't for you anyways. Most of us don't care if games are running at 110 vs 120 FPS

Russell wrote: ↑ Except it is true, except at the very high end.

You are mistaking 2000 and 3000 series. While 3000 series is acceptable for gaming, 2000 series really isn’t. It’s better at productivity but if you intend on gaming, either get a 3000 series chip or stick with Intel.

AssetsKey wrote: ↑ Intel is coming out with similar thread counts on their next release. I wonder how much extra they will charge though.

Take the AMD equivalent, and add 1/4 to 1/3 of that price.

Simple rule.

AssetsKey wrote: ↑ Intel is coming out with similar thread counts on their next release. I wonder how much extra they will charge though.

AMD is and will remain the value leader. Intel is and will remain the performance leader. Do NOT delay an upgrade expecting Intel to lower prices. It's not going to happen. Within 6 months you'll be able to get a new i7 with slightly less performance than the i9-9900k for slightly more cost than price of today's i7-9700k. Intel is shuffling the product segments down to match AMD's competitive pressure, so you'll get slightly more cores for the dollar. If you need a cheap computer now, buy AMD and a good motherboard. You'll be able to upgrade to the next generation of ryzen chips in a year (which is too far out to predict the performance, but it'll be good).

Spiritualx wrote: ↑ How do these compare to Intel's?

Ryzen 3000 series is a huge leap from Ryzen 2000 series. Ryzen 3600/3600X performs very similarly to 9600K in both gaming and calculating (a properly overclocked 3600 actually renders faster than 9600K in Cinema 4D).
Ryzen 2000 series is very lame in multiplayer games, for example PUBG and Overwatch. If you only play AAA titles and exaust your GPU power, there will not be much difference between CPUs.
In my opinion, Ryzen 3000 series is really worth buying, especially when they are on sale. But I wouldn't use Ryzen 2000 series in my PC even if you give it to me for free.
If I get a 2700x for free. I'll sell it to those "99% of intel" guys and use that money to buy a 3600x(when it's on sale).