ι talked with mypc technician about upgrading graphics card he said this.

[SHREDDER]

i talked with my pc technician about it too. He is 53 years old and has more than 30 years of pc experience and he told me that it will be crazy to buy such an expensive graphics card He also asked me if there is any game that GTX 970 cant run and why i would consider buying such card like RTX 20 and i told him that now all games work on max settings 1440p like they did when i bought it in 2014 but that now some of them run at about 40 or 30 instead of 60 fps at max settings. Then he told me to keep gtx 970 until it is destroyed/burns or until games stop working on it.

that why i will keep gtx 970 for as long as possible(ihave it since 2014 but in 2017 i upgraded from core i5 2500k and 12 gb ddr3 1600 mhz to ryzen 7 1700 and 16 gb ddr4 3200 mhz so i got some percomance boost since then) until they release graphics card that will run max settings 1440p with max ray tracing without DLSS. What your opinion about what he told me to do? He also said that there is no need to upgrade cpu and ram since i upgraded them in 2017 and monitor in 2016(DELLP2416D 24'' 2560X1440 60 HZ IPS).

[r.linder]

Początkowo opublikowane przez SHREDDER:

Ryzen destroyed intel monopoly and made huge progress on pc. We must thank amd for that. They made 8 cores affordale with ryzen 7 1700. Now they did it again for 12 cores with ryzen 9 3900x. But on graphics cards they are very behind Nvidia. They dont have RTX 2080 SUPER and RTX 2080TI cards yet. 5700XT is only as powerful as RTX 2070 SUPER. Maybe intel will save us with cards as powerful as nvidia high end but at a much cheaper price.

Intel still pulls ahead of AMD when it comes to gaming performance. AMD only destroyed Intel in price/performance and workstation workloads.
The 9700k and 9900K are still more powerful than the 3900X for gamers in particular.

[SHREDDER]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Escorve:

Początkowo opublikowane przez SHREDDER:

Ryzen destroyed intel monopoly and made huge progress on pc. We must thank amd for that. They made 8 cores affordale with ryzen 7 1700. Now they did it again for 12 cores with ryzen 9 3900x. But on graphics cards they are very behind Nvidia. They dont have RTX 2080 SUPER and RTX 2080TI cards yet. 5700XT is only as powerful as RTX 2070 SUPER. Maybe intel will save us with cards as powerful as nvidia high end but at a much cheaper price.

Intel still pulls ahead of AMD when it comes to gaming performance. AMD only destroyed Intel in price/performance and workstation workloads.
The 9700k and 9900K are still more powerful than the 3900X for gamers in particular.

More powerful in what? 3900X will run evrything at max settings 60 fps with RTX 2070 SUPER or better(except ray tracing). You dont need 9700k or 9900lk. My ryzen 1700 can do it doo with a better graphics card. There is not any game that will not run at max settings 60 fps on ryzen 7 or ryzen 9. In few weeks intel will release core i 10000 that will be maybe as powerful as ryzen 3000 but at a much higher price which will make it not worth for someone to buy them instead of ryzen 3000.

[Snow]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Escorve:

Intel still pulls ahead of AMD when it comes to gaming performance. AMD only destroyed Intel in price/performance and workstation workloads.
The 9700k and 9900K are still more powerful than the 3900X for gamers in particular.

That's 5% difference for $130 extra between 9900k and 3900X. This could mean a better graphics card or some nice NVMe drive. You can't call that "pulling ahead". You might be able to get even more performance by paying some butler who'd pour liquid nitrogen on a CPU while you play so it can maintain higher frequencies and get even more performance, lol.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Yes, even the best amd ryzen to date can't beat Intel IPC, but in many games you're talking maybe a 5 fps difference and many of the fps differences are with both cpus running with a decent enough gpu to where both systems have good enough fps to be very smooth on either config, so with that said, let's say both are at 1440p, 120-144 fps... an difference of 5-10 fps up or down wont make such a difference to make that Intel config worth it.

[dOBER]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Snow:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Escorve:

Intel still pulls ahead of AMD when it comes to gaming performance. AMD only destroyed Intel in price/performance and workstation workloads.
The 9700k and 9900K are still more powerful than the 3900X for gamers in particular.

That's 5% difference for $130 extra between 9900k and 3900X. This could mean a better graphics card or some nice NVMe drive. You can't call that "pulling ahead". You might be able to get even more performance by paying some butler who'd pour liquid nitrogen on a CPU while you play so it can maintain higher frequencies and get even more performance, lol.

5% difference on stock speed ! but you pay 130$ for an K cpu which means 4.7ghz is NOT the limit like on ryzen cpus.

how about single und multicore in games ? ryzen max 4.7ghz singlecore and 4.1ghz allcore ? while every 9900k runs allcore 5ghz++ ?!

if you dont plan to oc your K oc able cpu then yes stick with amd. no need to pay extra for something you dont use

[Snow]

Początkowo opublikowane przez dOBER:

5% difference on stock speed ! but you pay 130$ for an K cpu which means 4.7ghz is NOT the limit like on ryzen cpus.

how about single und multicore in games ? ryzen max 4.7ghz singlecore and 4.1ghz allcore ? while every 9900k runs allcore 5ghz++ ?!

if you dont plan to oc your K oc able cpu then yes stick with amd. no need to pay extra for something you dont use

Right, up to 10% difference considering OC. Now that's ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ huge, totally worth the price.
Wait, but if 9900k got stock boost to 4.7GHz on all cores, and 3800X got only 4.1GHz, but 9900k only runs 5% faster - that actually means Intel has got lower IPC and you just proven Ryzen are better for gaming? Are you really sure you're not confusing some numbers somewhere?

[Snow]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Bad 💀 Motha:

Yes, even the best amd ryzen to date can't beat Intel IPC

They actually did it already, check this[static.techspot.com]. Thanks dOBER for the info, I didn't know AMD have more IPC now.

[dOBER]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Snow:

Początkowo opublikowane przez dOBER:

5% difference on stock speed ! but you pay 130$ for an K cpu which means 4.7ghz is NOT the limit like on ryzen cpus.

how about single und multicore in games ? ryzen max 4.7ghz singlecore and 4.1ghz allcore ? while every 9900k runs allcore 5ghz++ ?!

if you dont plan to oc your K oc able cpu then yes stick with amd. no need to pay extra for something you dont use

Right, up to 10% difference considering OC. Now that's ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ huge, totally worth the price.
Wait, but if 9900k got stock boost to 4.7GHz on all cores, and 3800X got only 4.1GHz, but 9900k only runs 5% faster - that actually means Intel has got lower IPC and you just proven Ryzen are better for gaming? Are you really sure you're not confusing some numbers somewhere?

i dont think so. no one said amd is bad right now. fact is we dont talk here about low mid range cpus. these are both the best you can get for gaming and if someone wants the last few fps he has to pay more and go with intel. avg gamer dont buy 500 bucks cpus.

do you think somone who builds a "gaming" pc for a few 1000 bucks cares about 60 bucks difference between 3900x and 9900k even if both cpus deliver exsact same performence in games ? dont think so. someone who bought intel for last 20 years dont start to buy amd even if this 3900x would give 5fps more. at least not if we talk about enthusiast level. low-mid market is important where everyone looks how much he gets for his money. there are people who buy amd/intel because cpu x gives them 1% more.

[Snow]

Początkowo opublikowane przez dOBER:

i dont think so. no one said amd is bad right now. fact is we dont talk here about low mid range cpus. these are both the best you can get for gaming and if someone wants the last few fps he has to pay more and go with intel. avg gamer dont buy 500 bucks cpus.

do you think somone who builds a "gaming" pc for a few 1000 bucks cares about 60 bucks difference between 3900x and 9900k even if both cpus deliver exsact same performence in games ? dont think so. someone who bought intel for last 20 years dont start to buy amd even if this 3900x would give 5fps more. at least not if we talk about enthusiast level. low-mid market is important where everyone looks how much he gets for his money. there are people who buy amd/intel because it cpu x gives them 1% more.

Ikr, but that's not my point, don't you see what's going on? Intel have gone NVidia crazy, they're putting out expensive hot CPUs cause they can't compete with AMD on price/performance, watt/performance or clock/performance. That means unless they come up with something way different, with next Ryzen generation they might be left behind in every single thing. We're about to see some huge architecture redesign or something, because Intel are not going anywhere and they definitely won't be happy with being #2, and that means skyrocketing IPC, price drops, actual competition, tons of things that benefit the customer. Maybe in next few generations Borderlands 2 will even be able to stay above 144fps for those with high refresh rate screens!

[dOBER]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Snow:

Początkowo opublikowane przez dOBER:

i dont think so. no one said amd is bad right now. fact is we dont talk here about low mid range cpus. these are both the best you can get for gaming and if someone wants the last few fps he has to pay more and go with intel. avg gamer dont buy 500 bucks cpus.

do you think somone who builds a "gaming" pc for a few 1000 bucks cares about 60 bucks difference between 3900x and 9900k even if both cpus deliver exsact same performence in games ? dont think so. someone who bought intel for last 20 years dont start to buy amd even if this 3900x would give 5fps more. at least not if we talk about enthusiast level. low-mid market is important where everyone looks how much he gets for his money. there are people who buy amd/intel because it cpu x gives them 1% more.

Ikr, but that's not my point, don't you see what's going on? Intel have gone NVidia crazy, they're putting out expensive hot CPUs cause they can't compete with AMD on price/performance, watt/performance or clock/performance. That means unless they come up with something way different, with next Ryzen generation they might be left behind in every single thing. We're about to see some huge architecture redesign or something, because Intel are not going anywhere and they definitely won't be happy with being #2, and that means skyrocketing IPC, price drops, actual competition, tons of things that benefit the customer. Maybe in next few generations Borderlands 2 will even be able to stay above 144fps for those with high refresh rate screens!

I do and i like it. Competition is always good or why do you think we had stupid 4 cores so long. Amds fault not intels. Same for gpus, we could have much better cpus and gpus today. Next intel generation will be Intels last 14nm and then we will see what happen with 10nm. Its not like intel will give up because amd did one huge step after years of nothing.

[Zireth]

Początkowo opublikowane przez dOBER:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Snow:

That's 5% difference for $130 extra between 9900k and 3900X. This could mean a better graphics card or some nice NVMe drive. You can't call that "pulling ahead". You might be able to get even more performance by paying some butler who'd pour liquid nitrogen on a CPU while you play so it can maintain higher frequencies and get even more performance, lol.

5% difference on stock speed ! but you pay 130$ for an K cpu which means 4.7ghz is NOT the limit like on ryzen cpus.

how about single und multicore in games ? ryzen max 4.7ghz singlecore and 4.1ghz allcore ? while every 9900k runs allcore 5ghz++ ?!

if you dont plan to oc your K oc able cpu then yes stick with amd. no need to pay extra for something you dont use

I'm going to try to stay impartial to both sides on the CPU wars.

AMD offers almost similar performance as intel but with the premium cost of a intel K series CPU could be the price of a 3700x and a massive be quiet dark rock pro 4. While the intel competition will not have a cooler at stock and will require aftermarket cooling, it will be a bit faster stock than our 3700x.

This does not include overclocking capabilities but with the 3700x how i discribed it here will run far cooler with the cooler I picked out than the intel I9 with a basic 212 evo assuming you want to stay within a 500ish dollar budget assuming you have all other components.

Edit: I don't know why the 3900x is 500$ because i swear it was around 400$ so i went to a much more comparable option of the 3700x not the 3900x its only a difference of 8% between the intel and AMD peferences.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Clocks never will EVER account for performance between amd and intel. It's never a good or accurate comparison method, so stop thinking that way.

[iceman1980]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Bad 💀 Motha:

Clocks never will EVER account for performance between amd and intel. It's never a good or accurate comparison method, so stop thinking that way.

Yes but using direct clock by clock comparisons taking an Intel I9 or I7 with similar features to an AMD and comparing clock by clock gives you an understanding of how much performance there actually is in a clock cycle itself.

Lock an I9-9900K to 4.0Ghz or higher
Lock an AMD Ryzen™ 7 3800X to 4.0Ghz or high to equal the intel then benchmark popular programs.

It can show how "'efficient the instruction reduction pipeline" actually is.

https://www.techspot.com/article/1876-4ghz-ryzen-3rd-gen-vs-core-i9/
No matter what anyone here says these are useful comparisons and benchmarks.

AMD is actually winning almost against intel in IPC. If you see from that link. IF AMD keeps this up it is only a matter of time before AMD will demolish Intel's lead. I mean at this point I'm seriously looking at going TRX40 series.

[Monk]

Amd now has a higher IPC and will do until Intels new chips, which isn't likely to be for a few years (I believe they have said 2022 for their 7nm as they are going to skip 10 now aparantly), I'm refering to a new architecture here, not another refresh.
Where Intel pulls ahead is raw speed which let's them overcome the ipc difference.

A few thoughts from the view point of an enthusiast who does spend thousands on his pc's.

We don't very much care about who makes our parts, we go for what ever is fastest and best for us at the time, price doesn't really factor into it when you are at this price point so saving a few bucks isn't really a consideration.

Anyone who sticks with a slower product because of brand loyalty isn't an enthusiast, they are a fanboy/girl, the enthusiast will go with the best they can get regardless of who makes it.

Edit.
60fps is a minimum not a goal, personally I find the sweetspot around 100-120fps.

[r.linder]

Początkowo opublikowane przez dOBER:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Snow:

That's 5% difference for $130 extra between 9900k and 3900X. This could mean a better graphics card or some nice NVMe drive. You can't call that "pulling ahead". You might be able to get even more performance by paying some butler who'd pour liquid nitrogen on a CPU while you play so it can maintain higher frequencies and get even more performance, lol.

5% difference on stock speed ! but you pay 130$ for an K cpu which means 4.7ghz is NOT the limit like on ryzen cpus.

how about single und multicore in games ? ryzen max 4.7ghz singlecore and 4.1ghz allcore ? while every 9900k runs allcore 5ghz++ ?!

if you dont plan to oc your K oc able cpu then yes stick with amd. no need to pay extra for something you dont use

9900K stock is 5GHz on one core... Only 30~40% of 9900Ks can actually do 5GHz all-core according to silicon lottery stats.