Can anyone definitively say any such discounts are tied to an exclusivity agreement?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MP All Models Is Apple ****ing themselves over the ThreadRipper 3 yet?
- Thread starter macjunkie2013
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
9700K is only 6 FPS faster than Ryzen 5 3600 IN A GPU BOUND SCENARIO. You do not understand this concept?
RTX 2070 is nowhere near the performance required for you to not be GPU bound, and only CPU limited at 1440p.
So you have clear proof that even at GPU bound scenario, Intel CPUs are still better than AMDs for gaming.
You may not care about this, cause you may not care about ultimate performance. But for those who care about this it is bloody meaningful.
Why?
Because in this game, you will get better results with 150$ CPU: Core i5-9400F, than with even 300$ Ryzen 5 3700X.
In the first example: Ryzen 5 3600 with RTX 2070, you get 110 FPS average in Overwatch. What this means is simple. You basicaly overpayed for GPU, and CPU for gaming, because the same results you would get in the same resolution in the same details, and game with Core i5-9400F and... RTX 2060, which is averaging with Intel CPUs in this resolution at Epic Settings 110 FPS.
So because of the CPU, you payed more, for less. Remember: Ryzen 5 3600 is 200$ CPU, and RTX2070 is 400-500$ GPU.
But that is E-Sports, and CPU bound scenarios. Clearly nobody would care about this.
But they will care about Money. And if you get the same results with cheaper Intel CPUs compared to AMD, and lower end GPU - the only thing you should care is money.
And this is the very reason why I picked H370 MoBo lately, for E-Sports gaming rig, that I am building. 9400F is plenty enough for maxing out RX 5600 XT/RTX 2060 GPU in 1080p, whatever settings I will throw at them. Zen 2 CPUs would never max out those GPUs and would be more expensive to buy.
Would you buy 9400F if you could actually get 1600AF for $85?
Yeah, no modules cause it doesn't support LR-DIMM. But are there any motherboards support more than 256gb of RAM?
Maybe there is one that supports 512. Or they could support more than 256 but are not tested.
Last edited:
This all happened before, maybe 17 years ago when Intel designed themselves into a corner, AMD took new lead for a while. Few years later intel took the lead again and dominated for a decade. As others have said on this thread, Apple are looking at the long term.
Man, this is hard to read. I think you are just trying to make sense of what you have already built, which is clearly a budget-oriented system, and claiming that it's better than any Ryzen system for gaming because Intel is "WAY AHEAD" (which is a false statement) of AMD in gaming?
Next time, please keep it simple. What exactly is your position? Intel is not "WAY" better than AMD in gaming anymore. It isn't 2012. Tell me how much FPS you get at resolution with what CPU and GPU on high/ultra. I follow up and post an published AMD benchmark. That's how simple it is. I don't give a crap about what you consider GPU/CPU bound. I'm wanting you to back up your claim in a published manner.
And no, the "first example" did not show the Ryzen doing 110 FPS in Overwatch. It showed a puny 1600x (original release) doing 272 FPS with a 1080p and 192 FPS with a 1440p. Clearly, no reason to use Intel in this game like you suggested.
Keep the examples concise, linkable, when you post next. I want to hear how Intel just $hits all over AMD Zen 2 series in gaming. I want screenshots. So 9400F is what you got for the CPU. The 3600 is a better gaming CPU than the 9400F. It gets more FPS in more games. Let's just start off with that fact. It is however, about $40 more. Are you trying to make a point that you scored the best gaming CPU at $150? I'd probably agree with that, but it gaming is all I'd do with it.
Like a previous poster said, AMD's $85 1600AF is probably the best deal in the world right now, and not a lot of people know about it. It is a 2600x chip, and is 50% of the cost of a 9400F. However, it is basically on par with a 9100F for gaming, so it is not quite up to the performance of a 9400F. For $85, I wouldn't expect it to be...but even the 1600AF would clearly hit 144 FPS in overwatch with a decent budget-y GPU at 1080p.
Last edited:
Well, Its not me who considers what is GPU and what I CPU bound, but the performance, and the load on the CPU decides what is CPU and what is GPU bound scenario.
When your GPU utilization is getting below 95% in a game - you become immediately CPU bound. If your CPU is doing effectively nothing while gaming, and its utilization is 20% while your GPUs utilization is at or above 95% - you are GPU bound.
If you have a situation in which you lose 6 FPS in 1440p, while CPU is doing nothing - being loaded in 20% or less, and your GPU is at or above 95%, your CPU is the cause of the loss of performance.
I am baffled you have never knew about those factors and what is GPU bound scenario, and what is CPU bound...
Let me give you an example of my experiences in games.
You have said that I am building a budget oriented gaming build. Yes it is because I have better things to do with money, than waste it on computer hardware, that will with time lose its value, so why not go for best value hardwrae in the first place? Also I am not a moron who flushes its money in the toilet, so, theres that.
Overwatch is very predictible game when it goes to performance. With GTX 1660 Ti and anything at or above 9400F it averages 152 FPS in 1080p, Epic preset.
With any Ryzen CPU it averages 135 FPS in the same res, details, game.
RTX 2060 averages in this game 180 FPS in 1080p, Epic preset, with anything at or above 9400F.
RTX 2060 with any Ryzen CPU averages 160 FPS in the same game in the same settings in the same resolution.
RX 5700 averages 210 FPS with any Intel CPU, at or above 9400F in Overwatch.
RX 5700 in the same game averages 190 FPS with any Ryzen CPU in the same settings.
If you pair a very expensive GPU with Ryzen CPU - you are effectively buying worse GPU, than you could've, because of the CPU.
You may not care about it. But I do care: because of money, and because of performance targets. Yes I will play different games. But Overwatch is the main reason why I picked Intel platform.
I target in this build 1080p, Epic preset 144 Hz at all times, during a match. Which means that if I have a choice of buiyng 200$ CPU plus 350$ GPU, or 145$ CPU plus 280$ GPU, I pick the second option for my build.
Its that simple.
Yes, because if I want to maintain 144 FPS at all times during the match, as said in the response to a post above, I have to buy more expensive GPU. So why not buy simply more expensive, and faster CPU, and less expensive GPU that is equally fast?
You listed solid examples, but keep in mind you are picking out one game, one resolution and a specific price point that AMD doesn't really play at. What you should have said in your prior post is:
"For a low budget gamer that is focused solely on Overwatch at 1080p and 144Hz settings, the Intel 9400F is the better CPU."
A better value if you could live with 130Hz instead of 144Hz (you actually cannot tell a difference between these refresh rates if you watch Jayz's video of them guessing refresh rates) is to get the 1600AF for $85 instead. But it's up to you to determine if that fits your need or not.
When I personally build a gaming rig, I chose the best CPU and GPU that will net the most FPS price/performance for the next 6 years amongst all games at my ideal resolution (which is 1440p).
FYI, I did it your way in the past, and you actually tend to spend more money in the long term by more frequent updates. For example, what happens with Overwatch 2 comes along?
Last edited:
9400F is still faster for Overwatch. And this is main game that will be played on that rig.
Impossible. Not even RTX 2080 Ti will be able to play games that will be 6 years from now released, at 1440p. Not with decent IQ.
I pick OW because this is the main game that will be played on that rig. Like 90% of the time. There will be other games, also.
Nothing. I will still play the game at the same settings, same res, same config.
Last edited:
I do like its competitive aspect. One of better "designed" games currently on the market.
Apple not only doesn't care about gaming, they are actively discouraging it on the Mac.
What processor and GPU are better in a game don't concern Apple at all - if they can eke out a better price or better performance in Final Cut by taking a huge hit in game performance, not only will they, they'll actually consider the huge hit an advantage, because it means not having to support games which have consequences for the rest of the system.
To certain users (myself included), who don't play complex games, "game-proof" Macs are an advantage, because it means not taking stability hits from games' need for low-level hardware control.
Of course, that same feature is a disadvantage if you want to do work and game on the same machine.
What processor and GPU are better in a game don't concern Apple at all - if they can eke out a better price or better performance in Final Cut by taking a huge hit in game performance, not only will they, they'll actually consider the huge hit an advantage, because it means not having to support games which have consequences for the rest of the system.
To certain users (myself included), who don't play complex games, "game-proof" Macs are an advantage, because it means not taking stability hits from games' need for low-level hardware control.
Of course, that same feature is a disadvantage if you want to do work and game on the same machine.
And a disadvantage if you want performance in any work environment that uses a gaming engine - Archviz, 3D, VR etc.
AMD posted Linux sensor drivers.
There are few AMD convertibles, lack of these drivers would have been a bit of a problem.
The cheapest Intel convertible costs 220 euro (N3350, Windows 10, 11" 1080p, 4GiB soldered, 64GB eMMC).
The cheapest AMD convertible costs 400 euro (Zen+, Windows 10, 14" 1080p, 4GiB, 128GB M.2).
There are few AMD convertibles, lack of these drivers would have been a bit of a problem.
The cheapest Intel convertible costs 220 euro (N3350, Windows 10, 11" 1080p, 4GiB soldered, 64GB eMMC).
The cheapest AMD convertible costs 400 euro (Zen+, Windows 10, 14" 1080p, 4GiB, 128GB M.2).
Last edited:
See AdoredTV's coverage on intel.
Intel have been taken to court previously, and lost (forced to pay out AMD over 1 billion dollars in damages) because they were essentially paying OEMs so much money that they could not afford to take 1 million AMD CPUs FOR FREE (because that would cause them to lose their intel incentives). That was the last time AMD was leading significantly in performance during the athlon days.
This is the way they operate.
[automerge]1578870866[/automerge]
That must be why they just launched Apple arcade on the mac.
Oh wait...
That was then, this is now. Can you demonstrate they're engaging in the same bad practices right now?
Not the exact same practices no (it's not like intel will be broadcasting that they are payign OEMs off, that information is typically under NDA until a whistleblower reports it - count on that happening sooner or later), however they are currently putting out all the misleading benchmarks they can.
What with 5Ghz 28 core Xeons that they just happen to "forget" to mention are hooked up to 1.6KW refrigeration systems, comparing their laptop parts to AMD parts with half the cores and with discrete GPUs half the price, etc.
Because this is how they operate, and leaked internal slides from a couple of months ago have outright stated that their strategy vs. AMD right now is "financial horsepower".
Do i need to get the crayons out?