Yeah that does suck. But I was replying specifically to the person saying Intel hasn’t been relevant for years because of a supposed performance dominance from AMD. That’s part just isn’t true.
Your comment does not reply to anyone though, its just floating out there on its own.
And even taken as a reply it still does not make sense since as of this “issue” any 13th or 14th gen Intel over a 600 is out of the running since they can not be trusted to not kill themselves.
Yeah not really sure how my comment ended up where it is. Connect stacks comments in a weird way and I must have clicked reply in the wrong place.
I was replying to this …
Is there really still such a market for Intel CPUs? I do not understand that AMDs Zen is so much better and is the superior technology since almost a decade now.
…Which up untill this issue was NOT true. The entire Zen 2 line was a step behind the Intel chips that released at the same times as it.
I’ve been running a 3600x for years now and love it … But a i5-10600k that came out at the same time absolutely smashes it in performance.
Those came out a year apart and no one does not “smash” the other in performance. I doubt you can even notice the difference between the two, and that is the issue with CPUs today, they are not the bottleneck in most systems. I have used both of these (I like the 10600k as well) but they are almost exactly the same “performance” and would not turn up my nose at ether. The issue is that (especially in personal use cases) there is no justification in the newer systems. DDR4 still runs literally everything and both of these 4 year+ year old CPUs (that are now a few gens old) also will run anything well outside of exotic cases. You are more likely to see slowdowns with a lack of ram (since most programs today seem to think the stuff is unlimited), GPU bottlenecks, or just badly optimized software.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25546355/intel_13900k_tomwarren__2_.jpg)
Yeah that does suck. But I was replying specifically to the person saying Intel hasn’t been relevant for years because of a supposed performance dominance from AMD. That’s part just isn’t true.
Your comment does not reply to anyone though, its just floating out there on its own.
And even taken as a reply it still does not make sense since as of this “issue” any 13th or 14th gen Intel over a 600 is out of the running since they can not be trusted to not kill themselves.
Yeah not really sure how my comment ended up where it is. Connect stacks comments in a weird way and I must have clicked reply in the wrong place.
I was replying to this …
…Which up untill this issue was NOT true. The entire Zen 2 line was a step behind the Intel chips that released at the same times as it.
I’ve been running a 3600x for years now and love it … But a i5-10600k that came out at the same time absolutely smashes it in performance.
Those came out a year apart and no one does not “smash” the other in performance. I doubt you can even notice the difference between the two, and that is the issue with CPUs today, they are not the bottleneck in most systems. I have used both of these (I like the 10600k as well) but they are almost exactly the same “performance” and would not turn up my nose at ether. The issue is that (especially in personal use cases) there is no justification in the newer systems. DDR4 still runs literally everything and both of these 4 year+ year old CPUs (that are now a few gens old) also will run anything well outside of exotic cases. You are more likely to see slowdowns with a lack of ram (since most programs today seem to think the stuff is unlimited), GPU bottlenecks, or just badly optimized software.