Current cpus - Intel and AMD - are very solid. More powerful is always good of course but until cpus make gpus unnecessary for "higher end" games the bottleneck remains gpu performance.
And with crypto mining still an issue - with all the ramifications it has had - maybe the type of question we need to be asking is how well can a "new" cpu run game X, Y, Z with a 2 or 3 year old graphic's card or even no graphics card.
I hated them then and I don't like them now either, because I bought a laptop in .. 2003 or 2004 which had a AMD CPU , only to find out how HOT it became by just .. navigating and/or play light games . That was the only and last time owning an AMD product.
However, on topic , OP, I know you are a high supporter of AMD and I respect that , but even you , know that they cannot touch Intel and/or compete with them. AMD if anything, will be a "reserve wheel" for some , and that's it.
True story
Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy? Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!
I hated them then and I don't like them now either, because I bought a laptop in .. 2003 or 2004 which had a AMD CPU , only to find out how HOT it became by just .. navigating and/or play light games . That was the only and last time owning an AMD product.
However, on topic , OP, I know you are a high supporter of AMD and I respect that , but even you , know that they cannot touch Intel and/or compete with them. AMD if anything, will be a "reserve wheel" for some , and that's it.
True story
Depending on exactly when you bought it, if you had bought an Intel laptop from that era, it might have been even worse. The laptop version of Prescott had a TDP of 88 W:
For a number of years, Intel was a lot better than AMD in laptops. Merom (the laptop version of Conroe) was the first to bring decent performance with modest load power consumption. Clarksfield and later Haswell brought idle power consumption down a lot. AMD's cat cores had suitably low power consumption, but also low performance, as they were more an Atom-killer than a real option for people who needed considerable performance. It wasn't until Raven Ridge around the start of this year that AMD had a nifty product for laptops that needed moderate to high CPU performance.
Apparently if you force the HPET timer to be used, as you pretty much have to for extreme overclocking, a Ryzen 7 2700X is generally faster at stock speeds than a Core i7-8700K. However, if you're leaving the CPUs at stock speeds, or even overclocking without changing the BCLK, you don't need to force the HPET timer to be used. The HPET timer causes massively larger performance hits on Intel CPUs than on AMD for whatever reason. With it set to default behavior (and hence usually not used), the Core i7-8700K is typically faster at gaming than the Ryxen 7 2700X if you have a CPU bottleneck. Which their testing usually didn't at high resolutions, but commonly did at lower resolutions.
Comments
And with crypto mining still an issue - with all the ramifications it has had - maybe the type of question we need to be asking is how well can a "new" cpu run game X, Y, Z with a 2 or 3 year old graphic's card or even no graphics card.
I hated them then and I don't like them now either, because I bought a laptop in .. 2003 or 2004 which had a AMD CPU , only to find out how HOT it became by just .. navigating and/or play light games . That was the only and last time owning an AMD product.
However, on topic , OP, I know you are a high supporter of AMD and I respect that , but even you , know that they cannot touch Intel and/or compete with them. AMD if anything, will be a "reserve wheel" for some , and that's it.
True story
Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy?
Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!
https://ark.intel.com/products/27367/Mobile-Intel-Pentium-4-Processor-518-supporting-HT-Technology-1M-Cache-2_80-GHz-533-MHz-FSB
For a number of years, Intel was a lot better than AMD in laptops. Merom (the laptop version of Conroe) was the first to bring decent performance with modest load power consumption. Clarksfield and later Haswell brought idle power consumption down a lot. AMD's cat cores had suitably low power consumption, but also low performance, as they were more an Atom-killer than a real option for people who needed considerable performance. It wasn't until Raven Ridge around the start of this year that AMD had a nifty product for laptops that needed moderate to high CPU performance.
https://www.pcworld.com/article/3268953/components-processors/2nd-gen-amd-ryzen-7-2700x-review.html?sf187351328=1
Looks like Intel has some competition.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/12678/a-timely-discovery-examining-amd-2nd-gen-ryzen-results
Apparently if you force the HPET timer to be used, as you pretty much have to for extreme overclocking, a Ryzen 7 2700X is generally faster at stock speeds than a Core i7-8700K. However, if you're leaving the CPUs at stock speeds, or even overclocking without changing the BCLK, you don't need to force the HPET timer to be used. The HPET timer causes massively larger performance hits on Intel CPUs than on AMD for whatever reason. With it set to default behavior (and hence usually not used), the Core i7-8700K is typically faster at gaming than the Ryxen 7 2700X if you have a CPU bottleneck. Which their testing usually didn't at high resolutions, but commonly did at lower resolutions.