These can't even beat an i5 9600K in gaming, and that's before overclocking. They OC like crap and need 1.4v to hit 4.3. Same old story as before. As soon as Intel gets their new node up and running, AMD will be right back in the moar cores bargain bin. I didn't want this to happen. I wanted AMD to run over Intel like a truck. No use in lying about the way I feel regarding these new CPUs. I wouldn't buy them for anything but maybe a dedicated video encoding rig or something and we already had threadripper for that, so...DOA IMO.
I'd also be curious to see how it changes in the near future with presumably better multi-threaded nextgen console games.
Sarcasm apparently doesn't translate well over the internet, hehe.
2-5% at best which part confuses you? and better at everything else, so AMD improve cache, bad, AMD close gaming performance bad, AMD offfers much better price/performance bad.... I'll bet you're a real hit at parties aren't you.... Buzz KillingtonThe problem with the gaming results is that we are kinda back on Ryzen 1000 vs 7th gen launch again. I expected more and im sure im not the only one.
I want to see more in deep results for gaming, this is a clear issue with high mem latency, as CS:GO runs better on AMD now, this is due to cache being efficient for basic games like CS:GO and not enoght for more modern and complex games.
It's still faster in games.
2-5% at best which part confuses you?
No, 10% is not the same as 5-0% if you need me to explain the schemantics out for you on this then I guess you better just call it a night, 1-2% is withinthe margin of error, 3-5% is Ryzen 2 Vs the top dog 9900k at 1080p, take it to 1440p and it goes down to 3%, 4k? no difference but still Ryzen 2 Kicks ass, da fuk did you want? 20% more FPS from a CPU when it's dependant on GPU? AMD here's ou new CPU, it means you dont have to have a GPU cause it can render games at +50% of a 2080Tiyes as i said, petty much back on Ryzen 1000 vs 7th gen when the diference was below 10%. Is on the 1700 site https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-7-1700 .
Just replace 1700 for 3700 and 7700K for 9700K and thats it is. So dont blame me for expecting more than this.
inter-core latency comparison from Hardware Unboxed
der8auer on Ryzen 3000 overclocking and delidding: it's over 5000!!!
well.... I dont know if anything is set in stone I really hate to say but, I actually read that PBO up to 4.85Ghz in some cases, but I don't know which cases.
Now I know why Intel 10nm postpone
Sounds like The Stilt is a bit pissed at Asus for delivering a "faulty" BIOS with altered power consumption behavior.
0-5% difference in gaming, but with the popularity of streaming now I wonder if these handle the broadcast workload better to minimize any fps loss. Anyway, as is the deficiency is near meaningless and I'd also be curious to see how it changes in the near future with presumably better multi-threaded nextgen console games.
The problem with the gaming results is that we are kinda back on Ryzen 1000 vs 7th gen launch again.
Trilinear post-ering.Guess I don't need to upgrade as I'm getting so high FPS on the forums that it triple posts!
What's really humorous is you know he doesn't even own a 9900k because he's too cheap to pay the premium. What does he have? Something that was a great price/performance processor. AMD's crushing the price/performance now, but he wants to focus on the extreme ends which isn't even his use case. Gold, Jerry. Pure gold.Let moonbogg be happy with his comments. It is true that Intel is approximately 3% faster than AMD in 1080 games. Today he can't say that Adobe is the reason for having Intel, I use WinRAR and it is significantly better on Intel, the I9-9900K uses less power than Ryzen, Intel's multi threading is better, security is Intel's forte, Intel costs less, Sunny cove is announced for desktop. Let him hold onto his last bastion of grace, gaming performance.