N-NOOOOOO AMDBROS THE INTELBULLS ARE LAUGHING AT US AGAIN

AMD sucks. More news at 11.

I'm still on a 4670k and I think it's STILL not worth replacing it. Is that right?

>3 3300x

Attached: flat,1000x1000,075,f.jpg (904x864, 83.77K)

I-intel bros....
W-we're still relevant right?

Attached: 1586789391346.png (210x190, 81.84K)

now switch to 1440p benchmarks

Attached: tech jesus.jpg (1279x621, 232.18K)

It depends, but I agree. I'm on a 4770K and am considering Zen 3. I don't know if I can make it until Zen 4/Next batch of Intel.

I wouldn't trust Zen4 to come out anytime soon.

>1080p

I've only noticed it for certain CPU heavy engines. Hosting a Vermintide listen server, for example, as that engine murders CPUs both for graphics and AI simulation.

>ryzen 3600 poorfag

This doesn't even make a blip on my radar, but I am excited to dig through the budget pieces in two years

>2020
>AAA video game engines are still single-threaded
Can they fucking finally start utilizing the other 4-6 cores in today's cpus? Even phones have 12 cores nowadays

most games are lightly threaded (6-8 at most) and the x600 cpus generally have higher clock speeds

Why is it every year the AMD "team red" fanboys declare that AMD has beaten Intel for single core performance yet it's never even remotely true? It wastes my time looking into this shit to see if it's worth buying for once, never is.

Attached: Tj6G4RR2ZDVLvSrVhW2QC7-650-80.png (600x787, 216.71K)

Okay, now show me the price differences.

Attached: 1589988774175.png (650x490, 83.41K)

if you came to the conclusion based on that graph that RDR 2 is single threaded, you are retarded.

>2080TI
>1080p
For what purpose

single core performance does not equal gaming performance
clock by clock thread by thread ryzen is faster in everything else that's not gaming

The only way AMD can compete is if they have 1nm while Intel is at 14nm++++++++++++

>Intel is back

NOOOO!!!

Now post the prices.

You say that but what would you use the extra cores for?

Maybe educate yourself on how CPU benchmarks work.

modern videogames are almost all threaded properly, but you cant split workload evenly, especially not consistently, certain elements will always require more raw power than others. RDR 2 is actually quite well threaded, the game scales up to 8 cores/8threads.

I don't care what CPU you use just stop makng these fucking threads come up with something new FFS

What the fuck

Attached: 1589999968764.jpg (679x516, 28.88K)

What does winning the benchmark mean if in all practical use cases the CPU will be chilling while the GPU is hitting it's wall?

>paying the intel goytax for 10 frames
OH NO HOW WILL I COPE

It obviously depends on your setup and goals. 60hz screen? I don’t think that there are any games that would be too bad to play with that. 144hz with a proper GPU? Yeah, it’s gonna bottleneck your GPU.

Or maybe games will finally start using more than 4 fucking cores. Clock for clock, core for core, and thread for thread AMD is better. The reason intel gets better performance in "spiky" tasks like gaming that only stress a few cores is that their chips can clock much higher than any Ryzen so even if they're slightly slower at the same clocks they're still faster with that clockspeed advantage.

Once you start using more cores that advantage disappears as Intel's chips can't maintain those boost clocks for a longer period of time at high loads.

quick post the 240p benchmarks!

The reason they test at 1080p with the highest end card is literally to create the exact opposite of the scenario you just described.

Wow, a 600$ CPU is 10% better than a 200$ one

Why even bother boosting it this high just to throttle it later when it gets hot?

intelbros.... we won.....

Attached: Burning-House-of-Wirecard-scaled.jpg (2560x1706, 603.97K)

>Summer 2019 avg temp was 75F
>It was hell on earth
>Summer 2020 is set to be 79F avg
>buys a fucking nuclear reactor to play games with

Attached: tgssdvaoo0431.jpg (3024x4032, 744.95K)

>consolewars are so cringe guys!
>DUDE MY HARDWARE BETTER THAN UR HARDWARE DURR URR

Because the tests are supposed to compare CPUs to each other, which is pretty fucking hard to do if your GPU is the bottleneck. Besides, anyone with half a brain can deduce from the results that both Intel and Ryzen 3 offerings are more than enough for gaming today as is.

>Skyrim_720p_CPUbenchmark.jpg

Attached: 23543413213.png (650x435, 35.35K)

>single core performance does not equal gaming performance
AMD does not equal gaming performance. You have to cherry pick super hard to find a single game it can squeak out a small lead in.
>clock by clock thread by thread ryzen is faster in everything else that's not gaming
But it's not, or Intel would be dead. AMDfags are more delusional than consolefags, decades of declaring victory when they were far behind.

Which is not a "practical use case" for the overwhelming majority of people. They generally don't go out and buy $1200 GPUs only to play on $80 1080p monitors.

Those things are nuclear reactors; hot and consume A LOT of power. Even if you're an Intel fanboy i would wait for their next architecture.

are we back in 2016?
Seriously you faggots need to stop thinking that threading is just some switch that needs to be flipped and suddenly games will spread workload across all threads evenly.

Dominant cores will always be a thing for games, this will never go away.

Attached: Its_fucking_nothing.png (650x435, 37.77K)

Fucking moron

you're right, they should make their tests gpu bound so ryzen won't look bad

But that makes the benchmark only useful to AMD vs Intel wars. If there is 0 difference between a 3900x and 10900 with the worlds best GPU at 1440p I'd like to know that

It's almost like you have to pay more to get better performance.

How many security vulnerabilities are we at with intel chips?

>75 F
>24 C
>hell on earth
M8 that's winter weather.

>460e more expensive
>14 fps gain
Oof.

>or maybe game developers will stop being retarded
I wouldnt hold your breath

Nuclear reactors don't consume power user, that's their point

Just imagine, for triple the price you'll get like 30 to 40FPS more that you'll most likely not even notice in a game you might not even play as you spent your time shitposting in Zig Forums instead.

Based 3600bro

The question is why would I when it doesn't matter in 90% of the cases? I'd rather pay the difference for a better GPU.
People are usually talking about performance per $.

Living with a suboptimal build to save a few hundred dollars is a level of poor I am not at and I do not care.

The test is to compare the performance
of the cpus and only the cpus and that is best way to do it. Obviously all the cpus perform more similar when you take load off them, but that isn't the point of the test. How can you be this ignorant?

you asked specifically about single core performance, not about gaming performance.

SHEEEEEEE HAD TO LEAVE

LOS ANGELES!

Attached: 8349DA6C-977B-4203-B089-5525928EBBAE.png (504x998, 46.01K)

>Linus shill tips
Did anyone miss how he made a video literally 1 day before that review came out saying how he LOVES Intel so much

Spectre, Meltdown, Zombieload, Foreshadow, RIDL, Fallout, TAA, SWAPGS, etc.

Buying overpriced hardware that will never be utilized 100% is a level of retard I am not at and I do not care.

It doesn't matter if you have 2-3 dominant threads, if the game is still utilising 10+ total threads for other tasks to at least 50% load Intel won't maintain that boost in longer gaming sessions, the thermals just don't allow for it.

And considering next-gen consoles have a true 8C/16T CPU in them and not some tablet garbage you'll likely to see devs at least attempting to utilise those threads.

This means absolutely nothing without the rest of the specs

>B-But 1440p Ryzenbros...

Attached: 9A305236-EC63-45D9-89FE-A419A2377144.png (1031x1000, 563.34K)

...

>Dominant cores will always be a thing for games, this will never go away.
We are gonna hit architectural limits during this decade, though. It will at best mean another decade of improved performance through software optimisation, but those gains aren't likely to be significant.

>All AMD CPU's are within %8 percent of Intel equivalents
>Cost half the price
>Consume half the power
>Don't run at 100°C even when water cooled
No thanks, i'll stick with my 1600 AF and upgrade to a 4600 when it drops, then change out to the AM5 platform next year for a 5800X.

Pre-calculating gamelogic and rendering, check out naughty dog's presentation on how they have done it on uncharted 4, its amazing what they achieved with their engine.

Bought intel because emulation. sorry faggots I actually play videogames

Because you want the best of both worlds, and aren't a poor fag.
AMD will always be best value, but Intel will always be the best (in single core power).

>idle
Might as well post the power consumption when it's off.

Ryzen 9 3950x: $719.99
i9 9900k: $529.99

Imagine paying almost $200 more to go 20% slower.

>Linus sucks AMD's dick
BASED
>Linus sucks Intel's dick
B-bbut hh-he's a ss-shill

LMAO AMDRONES

>AMD has beaten Intel for single core performance yet

They have done it (on average). At least on IPC, but intel still has the frequency crown.

>cpu so hot it boils water
why

Attached: water.jpg (1007x721, 87.43K)

With the crazy amount of cores cpus are starting to get, there's no way the future won't be optimized for multi core.

>3950x 144.5
>3300x 145.1
watt

Attached: 1585683347815.gif (200x200, 851.1K)

Ok, here are the prices: Do you care, now?

Zen 4 won't come out till 2022. We will see AMD dominate with Zen 3 for 1.5 years.

>AMD shills were shitting on the 7700k, calling it a dead platform
>3 years later AMD coughs up a cheaper 7700k, on a dead platform
>AMD shills starts shilling quadcores all of a sudden

>75F
>hell on earth
Where the fuck do you live, Antarctica?

Wow it's as if games are more limited by gpu than cpu. Crazy, I know.

Wrong, Rockstar's current gen RAGE engine does not utilize more than 3 cores.

>biggest difference is 10FPS across the entire graph
wooooooooooooow

>But it's not
But it is.

>or Intel would be dead
The consumer isn't smart, user. Intel has a brand power that can't be rivaled by AMD.

Neat.

You're right, and i honestly hope the future is like that as it better for everyone.
But for now, Intel is king.

shintel on suicide watch

Attached: 1589982343509.jpg (3336x1827, 818K)

All that I gather from this is that at higher resolutions, which basically the entire industry is moving towards, nearly all products perform similarly and fanboying over one or the other is a complete waste of time.

Intel fanboy here, that's what I'm doing. Especially since rocket lake is rumoured to be in like 6-9 months.
Makes no sense to upgrade now.

Disingenuous. The Intel"bruh" trolls on /g/ always use Far Cry benchmarks to show off Intel, like you. Are you a Intel"bruh"?

>new gen is barely any faster while being way hotter
I don't think so

Attached: 1590067609163.png (1080x798, 441.7K)

@509048471
>Intel has a brand power

Attached: you.jpg (600x800, 52.73K)

3300X is based

It's almost as if engines can utilize different drivers and different gens differently, Ubishit jank being garbage in general and this thread being a shitty bait thread anyways.

>cooks an egg for you
based

>DirectX 11
>no min fps
>in Far Cry
It's like the perfect chart created for Intel CPUs.

>game is so badly optimised that the 4C 7700K beats the 10C 10900K.
What a great example to use. Really makes me want to spend $500 on a CPU that offers no improvement in gaming over a $100 CPU(4% better than a 3300) or a 4 year old model.

OH but surely those 10 cores will be great for productivity! Except as soon as you step outside the purely gaming tasks Intel stops making sense because they're so far behind Ryzen.

>just trust me bro, it's so much faster at everything, we just can't show it for some reason, probably Intel shills hiding the truth
>if you point out it's not we'll move the goalposts and say that AMD has a price advantage and no one buys high-end

All these graphs show me is that budget chads are blessed.
Paying less than half the price for 80-90% of the performance.

>retards dying on their *preferred manufacturing* hill and not just switching to whatever is the most practical at the moment.
I went from Intel to AMD back to Intel and now AMD again and laugh at all of you.

The bruhposter is most likely userbenchmark's user CPUPro.

Attached: the bruh hard at work.png (593x111, 14.81K)

>it's almost like they chose the options to benchmark the CPU!
Yeah no shit, AMDbro.

>450degrees
this is a meme graph right? Even the Sun's surface is not that hot

People that buy Intel are the equivalent of the jabronis that buy a Ferrari and never take it out on to the track to fully test its power. Sure, its a better experience and you can go faster than anything in the road but what is all that money wasted if you're just going to use it to drive around town and show everyone how much money you got?

I'd rather have a practical CPU that won't hurt my wallet while still being able to give me the performance I need to play the games I want to play. As long as I can play 4K at 60FPS or higher, I'll be happy.

the difference here is that we know for a fact that amd wouldn't be able to outbid intel for linus