Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

AMD Ryzen R7 3700X & R9 3900X Review

13»

Comments

  • XingbairongXingbairong Member RarePosts: 927
    edited July 2019


    just think, 10+ years ago, AMD was at a dollar a share....... :)



    Been an intel fan for years but amd forcing intel to get off their lazy greedy butts is great. Now if only Raedon would do the same to Nvidia.
    It's seem whoever is the market leader is accused of being lazy and greedy these days...

    These forums get more depressing every day.
    Are you suggesting that the ridiculous prices that Intel kept for years are reasonable? And bare in mind that for years people were paying those ridiculous prices for 4c/4t and 4c/8t... 
    If it wasn't for AMD the 9900k would've probably been 4c/8t and the price would've been the same it's now.

    I don't get it when people try to defend something so obvious. Intel has been always overpriced, but since they didn't have any competition no one could say anything, but now when there are better CPU's at cheaper prices things might change for the next generations, tho I'm doubtful seeing how Intel continues to keep these prices despite losing miserably at the moment in price/performance.

    Things might be different next year or heck even next week, but here today AMD is superior and their prices show that Intel is overcharging. If cheaper CPU's with better performance don't prove that than nothing else will.

    Edit: Btw @Gdemami here's a video of the 3600 vs 9600k - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke3OnFlOUnI

    Watch it and weep.
    GdemamiAsm0deus
  • Asm0deusAsm0deus Member EpicPosts: 3,066
    edited July 2019



    Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.

    case: Coolermaster HAF932
    PSU: Antec EA 750watt
    RAM: 4x2g G-SKILL DDR3-1600mhz 9-9-9-24
    Mb:Gigabyte GA-P55-UD4P
    CPU: i5-750 @4ghz
    GPU: gtx msi N760 TF 2GD5/OC
    cooling: Noctua NH-D14
    storage: seagate 600 240GB SSD, samsung evo 860 500gb SSD, 500GB x7200rpm HDD


  • jonp200jonp200 Member UncommonPosts: 455
    AMD offers a much better value proposition than a few years ago.  I built Athalon machines a few years ago then got away from AMD, as I felt they just didn't complete.  Most recently, I build new gaming rig based on a 2700X, x470 MOBO and don't regret it at all.

    As a long-time PC builder and gamer, the defining factor has and will always be, what do you intend to do with the machine; i.e. look at the software you are running first then decide on hardware.  If you are a FPS fan, twitch gamer, you may want the fastest overclocked beast you can afford.  If you are me, you play MMOs, strategy games, roleplaying games; AMD is a good value.
    Torval

    Seaspite
    Playing ESO on my X-Box


  • TheDarkrayneTheDarkrayne Member EpicPosts: 5,297


    just think, 10+ years ago, AMD was at a dollar a share....... :)



    Been an intel fan for years but amd forcing intel to get off their lazy greedy butts is great. Now if only Raedon would do the same to Nvidia.
    It's seem whoever is the market leader is accused of being lazy and greedy these days...

    These forums get more depressing every day.
    Are you suggesting that the ridiculous prices that Intel kept for years are reasonable? And bare in mind that for years people were paying those ridiculous prices for 4c/4t and 4c/8t... 
    If it wasn't for AMD the 9900k would've probably been 4c/8t and the price would've been the same it's now.

    I don't get it when people try to defend something so obvious. Intel has been always overpriced, but since they didn't have any competition no one could say anything, but now when there are better CPU's at cheaper prices things might change for the next generations, tho I'm doubtful seeing how Intel continues to keep these prices despite losing miserably at the moment in price/performance.

    Things might be different next year or heck even next week, but here today AMD is superior and their prices show that Intel is overcharging. If cheaper CPU's with better performance don't prove that than nothing else will.

    Edit: Btw @Gdemami here's a video of the 3600 vs 9600k - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke3OnFlOUnI

    Watch it and weep.
    That's insane logic. It's like saying if I started baking my own tasty bread and selling it cheaper than the supermarket then the supermarket has always been overcharging for years... even though my bread didn't exist then. Ludicrous.
    Ozmodan
    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
  • ConnmacartConnmacart Member UncommonPosts: 717


    just think, 10+ years ago, AMD was at a dollar a share....... :)



    Been an intel fan for years but amd forcing intel to get off their lazy greedy butts is great. Now if only Raedon would do the same to Nvidia.
    It's seem whoever is the market leader is accused of being lazy and greedy these days...

    These forums get more depressing every day.
    Are you suggesting that the ridiculous prices that Intel kept for years are reasonable? And bare in mind that for years people were paying those ridiculous prices for 4c/4t and 4c/8t... 
    If it wasn't for AMD the 9900k would've probably been 4c/8t and the price would've been the same it's now.

    I don't get it when people try to defend something so obvious. Intel has been always overpriced, but since they didn't have any competition no one could say anything, but now when there are better CPU's at cheaper prices things might change for the next generations, tho I'm doubtful seeing how Intel continues to keep these prices despite losing miserably at the moment in price/performance.

    Things might be different next year or heck even next week, but here today AMD is superior and their prices show that Intel is overcharging. If cheaper CPU's with better performance don't prove that than nothing else will.

    Edit: Btw @Gdemami here's a video of the 3600 vs 9600k - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke3OnFlOUnI

    Watch it and weep.
    That's insane logic. It's like saying if I started baking my own tasty bread and selling it cheaper than the supermarket then the supermarket has always been overcharging for years... even though my bread didn't exist then. Ludicrous.
    The ludicrous thing is your analogy here.

    Intel sat on their asses for years. They raised the clockspeed by 100mhz or so each new generation, added a few minor tweaks and than let marketing hype it as the best thing since sliced bread. All the while the previous generation chips still had to be sold for full price as Intel doesn't do price cuts. 

    This isn't the first time AMD made a better product than Intel, but now the Intel marketing team will have a lot more trouble trying to downplay the difference. 

    Intel's 10nm chips will probably get them back in the lead, but only if they release before ryzen 4000 series next year and AMD's 4000 series is somehow lacking. Intel has been forced to actually try and innovate again. Something they haven't done for years and it shows they haven't. 

    So yes Intel has been lazy and overpriced for years. Not having competition has only been part of the reason. Simply not wanting to innovate and just rake in money has been the main reason the CPU market had stagnated for so many years.
    Gdemami
  • TheDarkrayneTheDarkrayne Member EpicPosts: 5,297


    just think, 10+ years ago, AMD was at a dollar a share....... :)



    Been an intel fan for years but amd forcing intel to get off their lazy greedy butts is great. Now if only Raedon would do the same to Nvidia.
    It's seem whoever is the market leader is accused of being lazy and greedy these days...

    These forums get more depressing every day.
    Are you suggesting that the ridiculous prices that Intel kept for years are reasonable? And bare in mind that for years people were paying those ridiculous prices for 4c/4t and 4c/8t... 
    If it wasn't for AMD the 9900k would've probably been 4c/8t and the price would've been the same it's now.

    I don't get it when people try to defend something so obvious. Intel has been always overpriced, but since they didn't have any competition no one could say anything, but now when there are better CPU's at cheaper prices things might change for the next generations, tho I'm doubtful seeing how Intel continues to keep these prices despite losing miserably at the moment in price/performance.

    Things might be different next year or heck even next week, but here today AMD is superior and their prices show that Intel is overcharging. If cheaper CPU's with better performance don't prove that than nothing else will.

    Edit: Btw @Gdemami here's a video of the 3600 vs 9600k - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke3OnFlOUnI

    Watch it and weep.
    That's insane logic. It's like saying if I started baking my own tasty bread and selling it cheaper than the supermarket then the supermarket has always been overcharging for years... even though my bread didn't exist then. Ludicrous.
    The ludicrous thing is your analogy here.

    Intel sat on their asses for years. They raised the clockspeed by 100mhz or so each new generation, added a few minor tweaks and than let marketing hype it as the best thing since sliced bread. All the while the previous generation chips still had to be sold for full price as Intel doesn't do price cuts. 

    This isn't the first time AMD made a better product than Intel, but now the Intel marketing team will have a lot more trouble trying to downplay the difference. 

    Intel's 10nm chips will probably get them back in the lead, but only if they release before ryzen 4000 series next year and AMD's 4000 series is somehow lacking. Intel has been forced to actually try and innovate again. Something they haven't done for years and it shows they haven't. 

    So yes Intel has been lazy and overpriced for years. Not having competition has only been part of the reason. Simply not wanting to innovate and just rake in money has been the main reason the CPU market had stagnated for so many years.
    OK, so when you're the best.. you're lazy and greedy if you don't constantly get dramatically better than yourself all the time. Got it.
    Asm0deus
    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
  • Asm0deusAsm0deus Member EpicPosts: 3,066
    edited July 2019
    It's pretty clear Intel has been sitting on their asses on purpose simply to be able to milk the market more with less investment so to speak.

    They are a company so this can be expected somewhat but it has gotten pretty darn obvious last few years.

    Only thing ludicrous is acting all surprised or naive about this.  When companies start doing this the only losers are all of us their clients so defending this kind of behavior isn't very clever which is why I think AMD's popularity is what it is right now and why people are giving intel the look.

    To some extent this is also why I give M$ the stink eye as there's not really anyone to force them off their arses and to keep their monopoly in check.

    It leads to crapware like windows 10 with backdoors built right into the OS that can't properly be removed unless you cripple the OS basically.


    Post edited by Asm0deus on
    GdemamiXingbairong

    Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.

    case: Coolermaster HAF932
    PSU: Antec EA 750watt
    RAM: 4x2g G-SKILL DDR3-1600mhz 9-9-9-24
    Mb:Gigabyte GA-P55-UD4P
    CPU: i5-750 @4ghz
    GPU: gtx msi N760 TF 2GD5/OC
    cooling: Noctua NH-D14
    storage: seagate 600 240GB SSD, samsung evo 860 500gb SSD, 500GB x7200rpm HDD


  • XingbairongXingbairong Member RarePosts: 927
    edited July 2019


    just think, 10+ years ago, AMD was at a dollar a share....... :)



    Been an intel fan for years but amd forcing intel to get off their lazy greedy butts is great. Now if only Raedon would do the same to Nvidia.
    It's seem whoever is the market leader is accused of being lazy and greedy these days...

    These forums get more depressing every day.
    Are you suggesting that the ridiculous prices that Intel kept for years are reasonable? And bare in mind that for years people were paying those ridiculous prices for 4c/4t and 4c/8t... 
    If it wasn't for AMD the 9900k would've probably been 4c/8t and the price would've been the same it's now.

    I don't get it when people try to defend something so obvious. Intel has been always overpriced, but since they didn't have any competition no one could say anything, but now when there are better CPU's at cheaper prices things might change for the next generations, tho I'm doubtful seeing how Intel continues to keep these prices despite losing miserably at the moment in price/performance.

    Things might be different next year or heck even next week, but here today AMD is superior and their prices show that Intel is overcharging. If cheaper CPU's with better performance don't prove that than nothing else will.

    Edit: Btw @Gdemami here's a video of the 3600 vs 9600k - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke3OnFlOUnI

    Watch it and weep.
    That's insane logic. It's like saying if I started baking my own tasty bread and selling it cheaper than the supermarket then the supermarket has always been overcharging for years... even though my bread didn't exist then. Ludicrous.
    Sorry, but that example was really bad.

    Here's a more clear view. Up until Ryzen, Intel did the bare minimum, especially after the 4790k. 
    As soon as Ryzen came out Intel delivered more cores and more threads(safe to assume they could've done it before, but it just wasn't worth investing more money for less profit), but prices remained the same.
    Now with the new Ryzen AMD actually delivers almost same or better performance in games at vastly lower prices and I'm not taking into account the fact that the Ryzen CPU's are better for everything else, beside photoshop from what I've seen. Intel still wins there, at least the 9900k.
    What are we about to see due to the new Ryzen CPU's? A 15% price cut on all Intel CPU's... What does that mean? That 1. they admit that their CPU's aren't competitive at that price and 2. They admit that they can sell their CPU's at lower prices. The reason the price cut is only 15% is because Intel is still percieved by people who don't understand from computers as the better buy and at least for now they will still make enough money to keep them from doing serious price cuts. 
    Intel is too big of a monster. If I remember correctly in 2017 or 2018 the profit AMD did throughout the whole year, Intel did in a single month... but I might be remembering wrong, so take this with a grain of salt.

    Also I'm not even talking about how almost every 2 years tops they change their platform. How they give you a junk cooler, that is insult to the buyers, especially for the prices people pay for those CPU's. How people seem to have forgotten the vulnerability issues. How(some people might find this good) their CPU's remain expensive over the years even when they've become almost obsolete(for example the 4790k is still over $200) due to the issue I mentioned with them constantly changing platforms which results is almost no upgrade choice for people. Also I love their latest trick where they added F(no iGPU) CPU's that should've been cheaper, but almost everywhere they are more expensive, so essentially you are paying more for less features.
    Also the 9900KS... seriously? All you need to do on the 9900k is to choose 50 in the multiplier and it will run at 5GHz... why did they even add this 9900KS BS is beyond me.



    Gdemami
  • ConnmacartConnmacart Member UncommonPosts: 717


    just think, 10+ years ago, AMD was at a dollar a share....... :)



    Been an intel fan for years but amd forcing intel to get off their lazy greedy butts is great. Now if only Raedon would do the same to Nvidia.
    It's seem whoever is the market leader is accused of being lazy and greedy these days...

    These forums get more depressing every day.
    Are you suggesting that the ridiculous prices that Intel kept for years are reasonable? And bare in mind that for years people were paying those ridiculous prices for 4c/4t and 4c/8t... 
    If it wasn't for AMD the 9900k would've probably been 4c/8t and the price would've been the same it's now.

    I don't get it when people try to defend something so obvious. Intel has been always overpriced, but since they didn't have any competition no one could say anything, but now when there are better CPU's at cheaper prices things might change for the next generations, tho I'm doubtful seeing how Intel continues to keep these prices despite losing miserably at the moment in price/performance.

    Things might be different next year or heck even next week, but here today AMD is superior and their prices show that Intel is overcharging. If cheaper CPU's with better performance don't prove that than nothing else will.

    Edit: Btw @Gdemami here's a video of the 3600 vs 9600k - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke3OnFlOUnI

    Watch it and weep.
    That's insane logic. It's like saying if I started baking my own tasty bread and selling it cheaper than the supermarket then the supermarket has always been overcharging for years... even though my bread didn't exist then. Ludicrous.
    The ludicrous thing is your analogy here.

    Intel sat on their asses for years. They raised the clockspeed by 100mhz or so each new generation, added a few minor tweaks and than let marketing hype it as the best thing since sliced bread. All the while the previous generation chips still had to be sold for full price as Intel doesn't do price cuts. 

    This isn't the first time AMD made a better product than Intel, but now the Intel marketing team will have a lot more trouble trying to downplay the difference. 

    Intel's 10nm chips will probably get them back in the lead, but only if they release before ryzen 4000 series next year and AMD's 4000 series is somehow lacking. Intel has been forced to actually try and innovate again. Something they haven't done for years and it shows they haven't. 

    So yes Intel has been lazy and overpriced for years. Not having competition has only been part of the reason. Simply not wanting to innovate and just rake in money has been the main reason the CPU market had stagnated for so many years.
    OK, so when you're the best.. you're lazy and greedy if you don't constantly get dramatically better than yourself all the time. Got it.
    Feel free to not buy AMD products and stick it to them.
    Xingbairong
  • TheDarkrayneTheDarkrayne Member EpicPosts: 5,297


    just think, 10+ years ago, AMD was at a dollar a share....... :)



    Been an intel fan for years but amd forcing intel to get off their lazy greedy butts is great. Now if only Raedon would do the same to Nvidia.
    It's seem whoever is the market leader is accused of being lazy and greedy these days...

    These forums get more depressing every day.
    Are you suggesting that the ridiculous prices that Intel kept for years are reasonable? And bare in mind that for years people were paying those ridiculous prices for 4c/4t and 4c/8t... 
    If it wasn't for AMD the 9900k would've probably been 4c/8t and the price would've been the same it's now.

    I don't get it when people try to defend something so obvious. Intel has been always overpriced, but since they didn't have any competition no one could say anything, but now when there are better CPU's at cheaper prices things might change for the next generations, tho I'm doubtful seeing how Intel continues to keep these prices despite losing miserably at the moment in price/performance.

    Things might be different next year or heck even next week, but here today AMD is superior and their prices show that Intel is overcharging. If cheaper CPU's with better performance don't prove that than nothing else will.

    Edit: Btw @Gdemami here's a video of the 3600 vs 9600k - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke3OnFlOUnI

    Watch it and weep.
    That's insane logic. It's like saying if I started baking my own tasty bread and selling it cheaper than the supermarket then the supermarket has always been overcharging for years... even though my bread didn't exist then. Ludicrous.
    Sorry, but that example was really bad.

    Here's a more clear view. Up until Ryzen, Intel did the bare minimum, especially after the 4790k. 
    As soon as Ryzen came out Intel delivered more cores and more threads(safe to assume they could've done it before, but it just wasn't worth investing more money for less profit), but prices remained the same.
    Now with the new Ryzen AMD actually delivers almost same or better performance in games at vastly lower prices and I'm not taking into account the fact that the Ryzen CPU's are better for everything else, beside photoshop from what I've seen. Intel still wins there, at least the 9900k.
    What are we about to see due to the new Ryzen CPU's? A 15% price cut on all Intel CPU's... What does that mean? That 1. they admit that their CPU's aren't competitive at that price and 2. They admit that they can sell their CPU's at lower prices. The reason the price cut is only 15% is because Intel is still percieved by people who don't understand from computers as the better buy and at least for now they will still make enough money to keep them from doing serious price cuts. 
    Intel is too big of a monster. If I remember correctly in 2017 or 2018 the profit AMD did throughout the whole year, Intel did in a single month... but I might be remembering wrong, so take this with a grain of salt.

    Also I'm not even talking about how almost every 2 years tops they change their platform. How they give you a junk cooler, that is insult to the buyers, especially for the prices people pay for those CPU's. How people seem to have forgotten the vulnerability issues. How(some people might find this good) their CPU's remain expensive over the years even when they've become almost obsolete(for example the 4790k is still over $200) due to the issue I mentioned with them constantly changing platforms which results is almost no upgrade choice for people. Also I love their latest trick where they added F(no iGPU) CPU's that should've been cheaper, but almost everywhere they are more expensive, so essentially you are paying more for less features.
    Also the 9900KS... seriously? All you need to do on the 9900k is to choose 50 in the multiplier and it will run at 5GHz... why did they even add this 9900KS BS is beyond me.
    I'm not sure why you're insisting on educational replies. I'm aware AMD is stepping up their game.

    What I don't agree with is that Intel are somehow the bad guys. AMD didn't push the CPU market either.. they've only 'just' got on an even playing field. Why aren't AMD accused of being lazy and greedy over the last few years too? Because they were 'catching up'? The guy lagging behind is usually the lazy one. It's taken AMD far too long to get to this point. Intel achieved it years ago.

    The point of the metaphor is the principle behind it. Value is determined by demand, not cost of materials and labour. That's how the value of currencies are determined and the stock market. Demand for Intel was (or still is) higher than it was for AMD, therefore it cost more. It may change now and that could be good overall but Intel didn't do anything wrong.
    Asm0deusXingbairongGdemamiOzmodan
    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
  • ConnmacartConnmacart Member UncommonPosts: 717
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1mJMI_uaa8 

    Top of the mountain for why Intel is the bad guy.
    Gdemami
  • XingbairongXingbairong Member RarePosts: 927


    just think, 10+ years ago, AMD was at a dollar a share....... :)



    Been an intel fan for years but amd forcing intel to get off their lazy greedy butts is great. Now if only Raedon would do the same to Nvidia.
    It's seem whoever is the market leader is accused of being lazy and greedy these days...

    These forums get more depressing every day.
    Are you suggesting that the ridiculous prices that Intel kept for years are reasonable? And bare in mind that for years people were paying those ridiculous prices for 4c/4t and 4c/8t... 
    If it wasn't for AMD the 9900k would've probably been 4c/8t and the price would've been the same it's now.

    I don't get it when people try to defend something so obvious. Intel has been always overpriced, but since they didn't have any competition no one could say anything, but now when there are better CPU's at cheaper prices things might change for the next generations, tho I'm doubtful seeing how Intel continues to keep these prices despite losing miserably at the moment in price/performance.

    Things might be different next year or heck even next week, but here today AMD is superior and their prices show that Intel is overcharging. If cheaper CPU's with better performance don't prove that than nothing else will.

    Edit: Btw @Gdemami here's a video of the 3600 vs 9600k - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke3OnFlOUnI

    Watch it and weep.
    That's insane logic. It's like saying if I started baking my own tasty bread and selling it cheaper than the supermarket then the supermarket has always been overcharging for years... even though my bread didn't exist then. Ludicrous.
    Sorry, but that example was really bad.

    Here's a more clear view. Up until Ryzen, Intel did the bare minimum, especially after the 4790k. 
    As soon as Ryzen came out Intel delivered more cores and more threads(safe to assume they could've done it before, but it just wasn't worth investing more money for less profit), but prices remained the same.
    Now with the new Ryzen AMD actually delivers almost same or better performance in games at vastly lower prices and I'm not taking into account the fact that the Ryzen CPU's are better for everything else, beside photoshop from what I've seen. Intel still wins there, at least the 9900k.
    What are we about to see due to the new Ryzen CPU's? A 15% price cut on all Intel CPU's... What does that mean? That 1. they admit that their CPU's aren't competitive at that price and 2. They admit that they can sell their CPU's at lower prices. The reason the price cut is only 15% is because Intel is still percieved by people who don't understand from computers as the better buy and at least for now they will still make enough money to keep them from doing serious price cuts. 
    Intel is too big of a monster. If I remember correctly in 2017 or 2018 the profit AMD did throughout the whole year, Intel did in a single month... but I might be remembering wrong, so take this with a grain of salt.

    Also I'm not even talking about how almost every 2 years tops they change their platform. How they give you a junk cooler, that is insult to the buyers, especially for the prices people pay for those CPU's. How people seem to have forgotten the vulnerability issues. How(some people might find this good) their CPU's remain expensive over the years even when they've become almost obsolete(for example the 4790k is still over $200) due to the issue I mentioned with them constantly changing platforms which results is almost no upgrade choice for people. Also I love their latest trick where they added F(no iGPU) CPU's that should've been cheaper, but almost everywhere they are more expensive, so essentially you are paying more for less features.
    Also the 9900KS... seriously? All you need to do on the 9900k is to choose 50 in the multiplier and it will run at 5GHz... why did they even add this 9900KS BS is beyond me.
    I'm not sure why you're insisting on educational replies. I'm aware AMD is stepping up their game.

    What I don't agree with is that Intel are somehow the bad guys. AMD didn't push the CPU market either.. they've only 'just' got on an even playing field. Why aren't AMD accused of being lazy and greedy over the last few years too? Because they were 'catching up'? The guy lagging behind is usually the lazy one. It's taken AMD far too long to get to this point. Intel achieved it years ago.

    The point of the metaphor is the principle behind it. Value is determined by demand, not cost of materials and labour. That's how the value of currencies are determined and the stock market. Demand for Intel was (or still is) higher than it was for AMD, therefore it cost more. It may change now and that could be good overall but Intel didn't do anything wrong.
    Few years ago there was a guy(Martin Shkreli) who if I remember correctly raised the prices for a life depending drug by 5000%. Supply and demand you say... that's true, but it has to be within limits. In this particular case he went to jail. 
    Obviously Intel isn't doing something that's life-threatening, but the point of this is that they kept prices high while improving on their tech with just a little. Enough to say it's new tech. 
    Then comes AMD and suddenly Intel is producing excellent CPU's... do you think they had a breakthrough in technology suddenly... no they felt the heat and they decided to start delivering better technology which they could've done for years, but why invest more for less profit...

    You see I don't "hate"(if I can use that word at all) Intel for what they were doing and in fact continue to do, rather I'm annoyed that there are people who defend them which only encourages them to continue doing it. Thankfully AMD is delivering and Intel doesn't have a choice, but to improve and hopefully adjust their future prices.
    And if you are wondering why I want Intel to imporve when I'm on team AMD at the moment... competition. Only with competition will us the small people actually get fair prices and good products.
    Gdemami
  • XingbairongXingbairong Member RarePosts: 927
    Btw Gdemami after you got destroyed I'm surprised you aren't embarrassed to even open this thread. It seems you click LOL on everything that doesn't shout Intel is better. 
    Well I suppose at least you have the decency not to try and flaunt your ignorance anymore after that self K.O. 
    GdemamiOzmodan
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 21,459
    That Intel CPUs have been largely stagnant for the last few years rather than continuing to advance is not because they got lazy, and certainly not because they were greedy.  It's because they tried to build a new process node that could build the newer, better products that they wanted to build and failed spectacularly at it.  
    Torvalgervaise1Ozmodan
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,934
    Quizzical said:
    That Intel CPUs have been largely stagnant for the last few years rather than continuing to advance is not because they got lazy, and certainly not because they were greedy.  It's because they tried to build a new process node that could build the newer, better products that they wanted to build and failed spectacularly at it.  
    Agreed. Lazy, greedy, and unethical started way back in 286, 386SX/DX, 486SX/DX with the  math-coprocessor shenanigans. Here's hoping they reassess their values and move forward.
    GdemamiOzmodan
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 21,459
    For-profit corporations have always been greedy.  Saying that they did something because of greed doesn't make sense unless they've always done it.  It's like blaming an airplane crash on gravity:  that doesn't explain why most planes don't crash.

    And the train wreck that is Intel's 10 nm process node is most certainly not because of greed.  The dollar value of what that is going to cost them in revenue (as compared to something that more or less worked while being at most mildly delayed) over the next couple of years is easily into eleven digits.
    Gdemami
  • R3d.GallowsR3d.Gallows Member UncommonPosts: 155
    edited July 2019
    I expected a CPU review on mmorpg.com to include some testing/benchmarks done in actual MMOs. Disappointed.
    Ozmodan
  • OzmodanOzmodan Member EpicPosts: 9,590
    edited July 2019


    Intel and N/vid/ just crapped their pantaloons.



    Well to be honest I'm not entirely sure about Nvidia since the RTX super versions seem like the better buy, but Intel is definitely filling that diaper.

    Generally I'm surpised that there are still people who support Intel especially from the gaming community. It appears that those people are oblivious that their Ice Lake CPU's are all for laptops. Intel doesn't care about your gaming experience. They care where the money is and currently laptops are generating more sells than desktops. On the other hand AMD is focusing on both gaming and more importantly delivering CPU's that can be used for work as well without having to fork $1k just for a CPU.

    First off, there is a stocking problem at the moment for the super cards and secondly I can get a AMD 3700 for $100 less than the 2060 super and it is a better card.  So please explain how the super cards are better?  Oh and even the 2060 super can't really do ray tracing without major FPS loss.  At least AMD realizes that ray tracing is just a gimmick at the moment as it requires far more HP than the current generation can furnish.
  • OzmodanOzmodan Member EpicPosts: 9,590
    I expected a CPU review on mmorpg.com to include some testing/benchmarks done in actual MMOs. Disappointed.
    Actually the internet is full of reviews at the moment.  Google is your friend.  No need for another review.

  • R3d.GallowsR3d.Gallows Member UncommonPosts: 155
    edited July 2019
    Again, isnt this MMORPG.com? Youd think if theres a hardware review published here it would pertain to MMOs.
    Post edited by R3d.Gallows on
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 11,867
    Isnt this MMORPG.com? Why no MMO testing / benchmarks?
    MMOs usually do not provide any benchmarking tools.
    Ozmodan
  • R3d.GallowsR3d.Gallows Member UncommonPosts: 155
    edited July 2019
    Gdemami said:
    Isnt this MMORPG.com? Why no MMO testing / benchmarks?
    MMOs usually do not provide any benchmarking tools.
    You can come up with your own benchmark methodology. Put some thought and effort into what youre doing.
    Ozmodan said:
    I expected a CPU review on mmorpg.com to include some testing/benchmarks done in actual MMOs. Disappointed.
    Actually the internet is full of reviews at the moment.  Google is your friend.  No need for another review.

    Well, my thoughts exactly. Whats the point of another review if it doesnt provide some new or uncommon information.

    Gdemami
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 11,867
    R3d.Gallows said:
    Put some thought and effort into what youre doing.
    ...maybe you should follow your own advice before you try to prescribe it to others.
    R3d.Gallows
  • R3d.GallowsR3d.Gallows Member UncommonPosts: 155
    Gdemami said:
    R3d.Gallows said:
    Put some thought and effort into what youre doing.
    ...maybe you should follow your own advice before you try to prescribe it to others.

    Mind backing that up with some arguments?
    Gdemami
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,934
    Gdemami said:
    R3d.Gallows said:
    Put some thought and effort into what youre doing.
    ...maybe you should follow your own advice before you try to prescribe it to others.

    Mind backing that up with some arguments?
    Now you've asked way too much. Just click the lol button.

    I agree the CPU reviews should at least run some MMOs under the rig and measure casual framerates under the same conditions they ran the benchmark suites or other titles under. People still come to this site for MMO content. In my opinion it's a very fair criticism.
    Gdemami
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


Sign In or Register to comment.