First Core i9 Benchmarks: Here’s How Intel’s Powerhouse Performs

Status
Not open for further replies.

DavidDisciple

Prominent
May 29, 2017
5
0
510
0
Wow!! What a deal!!!! (snicker, snicker) $500 more for the i9 for an average of 10 more frames per second than the Ryzen 1800x. I might be able to go the dollar menu at the drive thru after I bought it!
 

gammaraze

Prominent
Jun 24, 2017
4
0
510
0
Oh how cute, someone who thinks video game performance is the only measure of a cpu's worth... as if the CPU were the bottleneck in graphics performance. The i7-6950x is about 30% more powerful than the Ryzen 7 1800x, but you would never be able to tell by playing video games.
 

DavidDisciple

Prominent
May 29, 2017
5
0
510
0


 

DavidDisciple

Prominent
May 29, 2017
5
0
510
0
Dude, maybe you haven't noticed, but this site (Tom's guide) is enthusiast/gamer oriented, and the article was about gaming benchmarks, and intel had the gaming industry....... until now, and also the Ryzen outperforms the i7 in other benchmarks as well-not all of them of course and in some respects the 6950x is better.Also,I would like to know where it is 30% better than the Ryzen. The Ryzen was just benchmarked at 52% better than the i7 in streaming which is great for online gamers. This article is about gaming benchmarks and if me, being a gamer can't tell a difference in gaming between a $500 processor and a $1,000 processor, guess where my money is going. I must have struck a sore spot with you, and AMD has been ribbed and slammed by intel fanboys for years and now that AMD has came up with a great processor, some of you intel fanboys can't stand it. I think it's great too that a 1st generation Ryzen outperforms a 7th generation Core i7. It doesn't feel too good when the shoe someone once threw is now getting thrown back at them.
 

gammaraze

Prominent
Jun 24, 2017
4
0
510
0
Yeah, I've owned ONE Intel processor my entire life, I guess that makes me an Intel fanboy... smh. Enthusiasts/gamers would have realized almost a decade ago that the most bang for you buck is in your graphics card, not your CPU and not your RAM, though there are gains to be had there. And they would have realized that same decade ago that your best bang for your buck in CPUs is, and has always been, AMD. People have been paying huge sums of money for incremental gains for the better part of 2 decades and you seem to be butthurt when someone scoffs at your comment. Guess where professional gamers throw their money... that's right, at incremental gains. And for "only" 10 fps gain, in one of those benchmarks, that represents nearly a 25% difference. And realistically, if you can't tell the difference between 117 and 127 fps, you're not likely to be able to tell the difference if it was an extra 50 fps.

I will say this again: CPUs aren't the bottle neck in video game performance. And judging a CPU solely by video game performance is lazy. As far as how you don't see anything close to a 30% difference, perhaps you should check out the benchmarks at Anandtech in the link on this article...
 

DavidDisciple

Prominent
May 29, 2017
5
0
510
0


 

DavidDisciple

Prominent
May 29, 2017
5
0
510
0
And once again, this article was all about gaming performance, not algorithms, FPU, encoding, etc. I am a gamer. It is senseless to spend $500 more for a processor for 10 more fps. The intel dominion in gaming is over and they need to price competitively instead of charging $1000 for a processor that I can get the same performance for half the price from AMD. That is the point I am making and the point article has made also. It's time to stop being biased and go towards performance and value and the difference between the two and here, AMD clearly is the winner. Have a good day.
 

gammaraze

Prominent
Jun 24, 2017
4
0
510
0


Yes, because gaming performance is ALL Intel should be concerned with... smh.
 

gammaraze

Prominent
Jun 24, 2017
4
0
510
0
It's almost like you don't understand the market. Like somehow Nike should cut their shoe prices in half or more because Reeboks are so much cheaper and just as good. Oh, and thanks for justifying my first post. Just because you don't care about algorithms, FPU, encoding, etc, doesn't mean the Intel chips aren't 30% more powerful, which is exactly what I said.

Performance and value are different metrics; one that Intel has and still dominates, and one that AMD has and still dominates. Remember when AMD came out with a line of video cards that were intentionally less powerful than their previous series all because the HD5xxx were too far from their value base? Well, that actually happened. AMD is catching up in performance, but they still have a ways to go, right now they are a generation behind Intel in performance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY