• You are losing out on amazing benefits because you are not a member. Join for free. Register now.
  • Two-Day Giveaway - Win a Google Chromecast, Branded Gear, and a Mystery Gadget. Enter Here.
  • Giveaway - Win a DiskStation DS918+ and Active Backup Suite from Synology. Enter Here.

New Intel 9th-gen Core processors - South African pricing and details

supersunbird

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
44,083
#2
I wonder what the i3 9100 will pack?

The i3 8100 is basically on par with the i7 4790 (except no hyperthreading).
 

Bryn

Doubleplusgood
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
13,218
#10
I paid R5.5k recently for an i7-8700 (non-K). Pretty glad I did - performance is good and I doubt the new equivalent will come close to that price for a long time.

I see the K models are finally getting proper solder between the die and IHS. Jesus this took years too long. Just a pity about the crap pricing.
 

ponder

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
71,053
#15
As we've seen the Intel commissioned benchmarks are BS, and it's a fscking cnut move to release them while all other independent reviewers are under NDA embargo not to release their own results. It's purely done to get the hype train going, damage AMD and increase their preorder sales, gutter scum tactics.

Reality is it performs a bit faster than ryzen but costs twice the price. I suspect when the independent benchmarks come out they are gonna nail intel for the BS and the negative publicity is gonna do them more harm than just being honest upfront.
 

DanDango

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
6,682
#16
Whoever's buying Intel chips since ryzen launched, needs a P#@$ klap
Football Manager still needs high clock speed on the first 2 core. The game relies heavily on single core performance. I will buy the best cpu I can afford to feed my Football Manager addiction. Currently Intel wins.

 

ponder

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
71,053
#17
Football Manager still needs high clock speed on the first 2 core. The game relies heavily on single core performance. I will buy the best cpu I can afford to feed my Football Manager addiction. Currently Intel wins.
Your situation is an outlier and not the norm. There are still a few games out there, especially older ones, that rely heavily on clock speed/ipc not core count etc.

My fav game gta v just runs better on intel+nividia, with the new ryzen 2000 series + nvidia it's very close to intel. using either cpu with an amd gpu you'll suffer an fps drop.

Slightly OT but max fps should not really be a deciding factor, the more important thing is the 1% lows, if a cpu gives you 10fps lower than a competitor but it's 1% low fps is 10fps higher the game will feel much smoother.
 

Sl8er

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
6,712
#20
Your situation is an outlier and not the norm. There are still a few games out there, especially older ones, that rely heavily on clock speed/ipc not core count etc.

My fav game gta v just runs better on intel+nividia, with the new ryzen 2000 series + nvidia it's very close to intel. using either cpu with an amd gpu you'll suffer an fps drop.

Slightly OT but max fps should not really be a deciding factor, the more important thing is the 1% lows, if a cpu gives you 10fps lower than a competitor but it's 1% low fps is 10fps higher the game will feel much smoother
.
To add to this:
Sure **200 FPS is better than **132 FPS, but that doesn't mean **132 FPS is bad or unplayable. Most games going forward will probably be optimized for more cores -as mentioned.

**tumbsuck numbers
 
Top