_Windows
Club 4000 Member
Posts: 7,881
| Likes: 9,611
|
Post by _Windows on Sept 27, 2019 23:16:05 GMT
I decoded to go with the Ryzen 7 3700X CPU, and 32 GB of 3000 MHz RAM (I wanted a balance between workstation capability and gaming). I must say that this Ryzen came with the best stock cooler I have ever seen. I also installed a modular PSU for the first time. I still have to install the two SSDs and probably reactivate Windows 10 due to motherboard and CPU change.
I am definitely looking forward to finding what this CPU has to offer.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Sept 28, 2019 1:18:19 GMT
Have you tried Intel?
|
|
_Windows
Club 4000 Member
Posts: 7,881
| Likes: 9,611
|
Post by _Windows on Sept 28, 2019 2:42:36 GMT
Yeah, and I switched. Already loving how this Ryzen is running TBH.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Sept 28, 2019 2:49:23 GMT
Yeah, and I switched. Already loving how this Ryzen is running TBH. It seems that Intel CPUs are way better than any CPU AMD has ever produced.
|
|
mibbzz
Club 4000 Member
Posts: 9,109
| Likes: 12,246
|
Post by mibbzz on Sept 28, 2019 4:31:44 GMT
Yeah, and I switched. Already loving how this Ryzen is running TBH. It seems that Intel CPUs are way better than any CPU AMD has ever produced. I unironically want to castrate you (sometimes) inavideogame
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Sept 28, 2019 4:36:21 GMT
It seems that Intel CPUs are way better than any CPU AMD has ever produced. I unironically want to castrate you (sometimes) inavideogame
I apologize that my opinions on single-threaded performance offend you, however this is 2019 and people either use Intel or they use nothing.
|
|
mibbzz
Club 4000 Member
Posts: 9,109
| Likes: 12,246
|
Post by mibbzz on Sept 28, 2019 5:01:28 GMT
I unironically want to castrate you (sometimes) inavideogame
I apologize that my opinions on single-threaded performance offend you, however this is 2019 and people either use Intel or they use nothing. Just the thought of doing it with a rusty pair of scissors helps me to get through the day
|
|
_Windows
Club 4000 Member
Posts: 7,881
| Likes: 9,611
|
Post by _Windows on Sept 28, 2019 13:50:31 GMT
Yeah, and I switched. Already loving how this Ryzen is running TBH. It seems that Intel CPUs are way better than any CPU AMD has ever produced. I would have agreed with you... in 2016. However, this is 2019 and the Ryzen CPUs exist. They are very competitive, even with single-thread performance (especially the 3000 series Ryzens). The difference in performance single-thread wise is MUCH smaller than the price difference per core. I simply chose not to buy overpriced Intel hardware when a really good alternative exists. Also, no integrated graphics forced onto the CPU like Intel does. Plus, I got PCIe 4.0 which allows for some future-proofing. Simply put, Intel stopped offering the better performance value for the segment I buy at, so I switched. I'd do it again if it reverses again in a few years. I unironically want to castrate you (sometimes) inavideogameI apologize that my opinions on single-threaded performance offend you, however this is 2019 and people either use Intel or they use nothing. That few percent difference in single-thread performance isn't worth $100+ more for the same amount of cores.
|
|
Super
Veteran Member
Retired Senior Admin
Posts: 2,322
| Likes: 1,197
|
Post by Super on Sept 28, 2019 14:22:40 GMT
I unironically want to castrate you (sometimes) inavideogame
I apologize that my opinions on single-threaded performance offend you, however this is 2019 and people either use Intel or they use nothing. You’re sure it’s worth spending $150 more on a CPU that only has a little more FPS (and a load of security issues)?
|
|
CoolJWB
Veteran Member
Cool guys don't look back at explosions.
Posts: 734
| Likes: 330
|
Post by CoolJWB on Sept 29, 2019 1:51:13 GMT
I unironically want to castrate you (sometimes) inavideogame
I apologize that my opinions on single-threaded performance offend you, however this is 2019 and people either use Intel or they use nothing. I'm not biased here but there are actually multiple areas where AMD beats Intel. Sure, Intel's top-end gaming CPUs are ahead of AMD (on such as gaming) but not by a lot. When it comes to workstation AMD will almost always beat Intel, overall use and it's pretty clear that there's not much difference between them, but in gaming (as mentioned), Intel will mostly win. So what's the deal then, why are people investing in AMD? First off, Intel is stuck on 10nm transistors and AMD will next year most likely go down to 5nm due to their partnership with TSMC. AMD CPUs are also affordable to the middle and lower-end builds so that makes it great for those who don't have a lot of cash but need a reliable CPU for gaming, streaming, video editing, rendering, etc. And not only are they beating Intel in the middle and low end, but they are now literally roasting Intel's server CPUs with their EPYC: www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuLsrr79-PwSure, as of now Intel has the lead in gaming CPUs, but don't be too negative about AMD. Give it a few years and we may see AMD in the lead. I'm no expert so yes some of my statements may be incorrect, but for the love of God don't go all offensive on that.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Sept 29, 2019 3:45:32 GMT
I apologize that my opinions on single-threaded performance offend you, however this is 2019 and people either use Intel or they use nothing. You’re sure it’s worth spending $150 more on a CPU that only has a little more FPS (and a load of security issues)? FPS is not a measure of processing power. Also failed to clarify on those security issues which when you bring up also very likely effect AMD as well.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Sept 29, 2019 3:51:04 GMT
I apologize that my opinions on single-threaded performance offend you, however this is 2019 and people either use Intel or they use nothing. I'm not biased here but there are actually multiple areas where AMD beats Intel. Sure, Intel's top-end gaming CPUs are ahead of AMD (on such as gaming) but not by a lot. When it comes to workstation AMD will almost always beat Intel, overall use and it's pretty clear that there's not much difference between them, but in gaming (as mentioned), Intel will mostly win. So what's the deal then, why are people investing in AMD? First off, Intel is stuck on 10nm transistors and AMD will next year most likely go down to 5nm due to their partnership with TSMC. AMD CPUs are also affordable to the middle and lower-end builds so that makes it great for those who don't have a lot of cash but need a reliable CPU for gaming, streaming, video editing, rendering, etc. And not only are they beating Intel in the middle and low end, but they are now literally roasting Intel's server CPUs with their EPYC: www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuLsrr79-PwSure, as of now Intel has the lead in gaming CPUs, but don't be too negative about AMD. Give it a few years and we may see AMD in the lead. I'm no expert so yes some of my statements may be incorrect, but for the love of God don't go all offensive on that. You throw away your argument when you mention transistor nm, which is where CPU arguments go to die and do not measure the satisfaction users receive in their processors in any meaningful or coherent way whatsoever on the planet that we live in. Citing a Linus video for CPU information is also where arguments go to die because there also is no intellectual or realistic basis in that information. You are right in that AMD roasts well, that's what happens when you throw cores together because your single-threaded performance sucks, all you get is a throttling radiator. Why would you want to see AMD in the lead? Last time that happened technology in general was a big fat joke. Intel (and NVIDIA) basically gave you the ability to render and game as you attribute it to AMD.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Sept 29, 2019 3:52:28 GMT
It seems that Intel CPUs are way better than any CPU AMD has ever produced. I would have agreed with you... in 2016. However, this is 2019 and the Ryzen CPUs exist. They are very competitive, even with single-thread performance (especially the 3000 series Ryzens). The difference in performance single-thread wise is MUCH smaller than the price difference per core. I simply chose not to buy overpriced Intel hardware when a really good alternative exists. Also, no integrated graphics forced onto the CPU like Intel does. Plus, I got PCIe 4.0 which allows for some future-proofing. Simply put, Intel stopped offering the better performance value for the segment I buy at, so I switched. I'd do it again if it reverses again in a few years. I apologize that my opinions on single-threaded performance offend you, however this is 2019 and people either use Intel or they use nothing. That few percent difference in single-thread performance isn't worth $100+ more for the same amount of cores. Integrated graphics is worth the extra $100 considering manufacturing costs and the fact that you'll actually be able to use your computer when your discrete GPU dies as opposed to the alternative where your graphics consists of looking at a black screen tantamount to staring at a brick wall.
|
|
_Windows
Club 4000 Member
Posts: 7,881
| Likes: 9,611
|
Post by _Windows on Sept 29, 2019 4:00:29 GMT
I would have agreed with you... in 2016. However, this is 2019 and the Ryzen CPUs exist. They are very competitive, even with single-thread performance (especially the 3000 series Ryzens). The difference in performance single-thread wise is MUCH smaller than the price difference per core. I simply chose not to buy overpriced Intel hardware when a really good alternative exists. Also, no integrated graphics forced onto the CPU like Intel does. Plus, I got PCIe 4.0 which allows for some future-proofing. Simply put, Intel stopped offering the better performance value for the segment I buy at, so I switched. I'd do it again if it reverses again in a few years. That few percent difference in single-thread performance isn't worth $100+ more for the same amount of cores. Integrated graphics is worth the extra $100 considering manufacturing costs and the fact that you'll actually be able to use your computer when your discrete GPU dies as opposed to the alternative where your graphics consists of looking at a black screen tantamount to staring at a brick wall. There are Ryzens which have them, and they end in G for the model names. Also, some people keep spare video cards and swapping a video card takes maybe a minute or two at most. Not having an iGPU means more space for other CPU parts including L3 cache. AMD's integrated graphics also tend to be better than Intel's anyway. Also, we need AMD to do well because otherwise Intel and Nvidia have no reason to keep advancing or to provide decent value.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Sept 29, 2019 4:09:22 GMT
Integrated graphics is worth the extra $100 considering manufacturing costs and the fact that you'll actually be able to use your computer when your discrete GPU dies as opposed to the alternative where your graphics consists of looking at a black screen tantamount to staring at a brick wall. There are Ryzens which have them, and they end in G for the model names. Also, some people keep spare video cards and swapping a video card takes maybe a minute or two at most. Not having an iGPU means more space for other CPU parts including L3 cache. AMD's integrated graphics also tend to be better than Intel's anyway. Also, we need AMD to do well because otherwise Intel and Nvidia have no reason to keep advancing or to provide decent value. AMD's integrated graphics are better than Intel's because that's their best attempt at trying to compete with NVIDIA, whereas Intel isn't trying to, they simply want the ability for people to use their computer without requiring an NVIDIA GPU if they don't want it. It's a low bar, is my point. NVIDIA will innovate regardless of what Intel and AMD do, unlike other companies. Intel takes a more incremental approach which hasn't changed over the years, they're simply going at the same pace they always have which has nothing to do with competition and that was the case in 2016 as well.
|
|