Quantcast
I kicked intel to the curb, I'm a Ryzen boi now.

Forums - PC Discussion - I kicked intel to the curb, I'm a Ryzen boi now.

vivster said:

But can it run Crysis?

Edit: I just checked out of curiosity because the price point of $500 seemed a bit high for AMD. My hunch was correct. Looks like the 9900K is actually cheaper AND slightly better for gaming than the 3900X. Did not expect that. The 9700 is even cheaper and still better. Looks like the 3700X is basically the same as the 3900X in games but loads cheaper. I'm just gonna hope for everyone that those core heavy monsters will become useful in gaming at some point.

^ note this is from before the Agesa ABBA (boost clock fix) update.

And this is with one of those factory overclocked 2080 Ti's.... the CPU isnt the bottlenecks for performance.

On avg its probably less than 1% performance differnce, between the two, for general gameing (at 1440p).

"The 9700k is even cheaper and still better." - vivster

~0,4% performance differnce.

Yeah the "smart" consumer buys a 9600k or 3600X and calls it a day.
Better to save the money for a stronger graphics card instead.



Around the Network

That's a sweet setup!

I am on the budget side of changing my very very old Athlon to Ryzen. Building it budget friendly with the option of upgrading whenever i feel like it.
Currently I lying next to me:

Ryzen 1300x
Asrock B450M Pro4F
Geil evo Spear 2x8Gb 3200

on the way:
Antec Neo 650W semi modulair
Kingston a2000 m.2 Ssd 500Gb

All going to fit into the Silverstone PS15RGB case, which is a very very sweet case if you ask me. Certainly pricewise.
Now all that is left is buying a GPU. I am considering Amd's 570/580 which should be fine for my HD screen.

Future upgrade will entail the Ryzen 3600, maybe another 16Gb ram and some more SSD's.



I'll just stick with X299, EVGA and no one else for me.



JRPGfan said:
vivster said:

But can it run Crysis?

Edit: I just checked out of curiosity because the price point of $500 seemed a bit high for AMD. My hunch was correct. Looks like the 9900K is actually cheaper AND slightly better for gaming than the 3900X. Did not expect that. The 9700 is even cheaper and still better. Looks like the 3700X is basically the same as the 3900X in games but loads cheaper. I'm just gonna hope for everyone that those core heavy monsters will become useful in gaming at some point.

^ note this is from before the Agesa ABBA (boost clock fix) update.

And this is with one of those factory overclocked 2080 Ti's.... the CPU isnt the bottlenecks for performance.

On avg its probably less than 1% performance differnce, between the two, for general gameing (at 1440p).

"The 9700k is even cheaper and still better." - vivster

~0,4% performance differnce.

Yeah the "smart" consumer buys a 9600k or 3600X and calls it a day.
Better to save the money for a stronger graphics card instead.

And at 4K there is no difference what so ever.



vivster said:
deskpro2k3 said:

9900K is cheaper because it doesn't come with a cooler.

Edit. A sexy cooler

I have very specific opinions about people who subject their CPUs to stock coolers instead of a sweet Noctua D15.

You're underestimating the wraith prism rgb cooler to a huge chunk of metal. For the 9900k you NEED a good cooler that will cost you +$80. Luckily the Ryzen 9 comes with a good one. And it's sexy.



Around the Network
deskpro2k3 said:
vivster said:

I have very specific opinions about people who subject their CPUs to stock coolers instead of a sweet Noctua D15.

You're underestimating the wraith prism rgb cooler to a huge chunk of metal. For the 9900k you NEED a good cooler that will cost you +$80. Luckily the Ryzen 9 comes with a good one. And it's sexy.

Another thing is that the 9900k uses more power and produces more heat than the 3900x.

Even if Intel says its TPD is 95watts, and AMD rates theirs at 105watts.
(they have differnt ways of messureing this stuff)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u4ew6IT4Vo



Yeah, Intel and AMD measure CPU TDP differently. Modern Intel CPUs go waaay above their TDP.



 

 

 

 

 

vivster said:

But can it run Crysis?

Edit: I just checked out of curiosity because the price point of $500 seemed a bit high for AMD. My hunch was correct. Looks like the 9900K is actually cheaper AND slightly better for gaming than the 3900X. Did not expect that. The 9700 is even cheaper and still better. Looks like the 3700X is basically the same as the 3900X in games but loads cheaper. I'm just gonna hope for everyone that those core heavy monsters will become useful in gaming at some point.

Aww, that wasn't very nice. You're so passive aggressive. Guy is happy for the new PC he built and you gotta find some subtle, nonchalant way of making him feel bad.



Well, it's nice to see again AMD offering good value on a wider range of performance. Nice also to see that cooler and cheaper 65W versions can rank not just in lower positions, but also in high ones, like the Ryzen 5 3600.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")

A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.

TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW!

        

vivster said:
deskpro2k3 said:

9900K is cheaper because it doesn't come with a cooler.

Edit. A sexy cooler

I have very specific opinions about people who subject their CPUs to stock coolers instead of a sweet Noctua D15.

+1 recommended.. I got a d15s for clearance reasons, but even so.. them suckas are huge!!.. keeps the CPU super cool..



Man.. I hate it when your girl has to leave my place to come back to you..