Tags Intel, AMD, Nvidia, 2080 Ti, games, value, fanboy, benchmark, shilling, kike, oven, Jews, poorfag, whales, /v/, OP...

Tags Intel, AMD, Nvidia, 2080 Ti, games, value, fanboy, benchmark, shilling, kike, oven, Jews, poorfag, whales, /v/, OP, is, a, faggot.

Attached: 8700K vs 2700X updated.jpg (2560x1440, 258K)

Should I have added BTFO and X on suicide watch to get replies?

oven made me laugh

So it's 10% faster in games (ie. Intel's strong point) for twice the price. Good going, lads.

i see no reason to upgrade from my cpu from 4 years ago desu

2800X when?

I've heard you like average frame rates so I made a benchmark of average game frame rates in this game of average frame rates we could make another average frame rate of average game frame rates

With a high refresh rate monitor, on a video card that is literally as expensive as an entire PC on it's own. And once you turn on it's main gimmick (RTX), the FPS tanks and again the CPU doesn't matter.

Because your chart is GPU bottlenecked you fucking retard.

Attached: 1539290825324.png (650x337, 42K)

So for anyone who plays at 60fps there is no difference whatsoever, good to know.

>RTX 2080 Ti
>Fastes GPU on the planet
>GPU bottlenecked
I suggest you bottleneck yourself. On the end of a rope.

Only the last one is. No-one is benchmarking at 720p medium. Faggot.

If it's not GPU bottlenecked why do the FPS go down as the resolution goes up you fucking retard.

>NOOOOOOO AND ITS ONLY THE 8700K, 9900K WILL KILL AMD. THIS CANT BE HAPPENING!!!

Attached: 1538450304302.jpg (940x540, 102K)

Because amd shills don't understand what GPU bottleneck means.

Oy vey! 380p is all you will ever need!

>$400 processor beats $300 processor

Attached: rly maek u dink.jpg (433x469, 50K)

>12% for 57% (plus cost of cooler) more shekels!

why are current prices never mentioned in these charts?

>Who cares about that 144Hz monitor that you spent $500 on?

The only games worth playing are heavily modded Stalker and Fallout and maybe something like GTA, Skyrim mostly for the graphics. They're all single core bound so recent high clocked Intlel 4+ core is the only proper choice. None of these pleb shit benchmark charts matter.
For srs goyming r5 2600 is good value, rest is garbage.

He did. Watch the video. However he did not inclute memory prices which I found disingeniopus and said so in the comments. At least have a full apples to apples comparison.

>include
>disingenius

Memory prices are so shit right now, you're gonna get raped no matter what.

because the CPU can't push enough data through to the GPU, and is thus under-utilizing it, retard.

Yeah, no matter what Ryzen you get memed into buying.

>more expensive CPU is faster than much cheaper CPU
Now look at the Cinebench comparison of the i7-8700k's competitor which is currently the Threadripper 1920X. Yes, that IS the competition. The i7-8700k retails for 4790 SEK the Threadripper 1920X retails for 4690 SEK.

At Ryzen 7 2700X's price-point Intel's compatibly priced CPU is the i5-8600. Intel's got nothing competitive right now. The worst part is that this won't change until mid Q1 or perhaps even Q2 2019. This is .. really bad.

Most of these charts are from before the pretty recent 50% price-jump on Intel CPUs. It's fair and natural to compare a $200 AMD CPU with a $200 Intel CPU. Now that's changed so every video comparing that price-point more than a month ago is now comparing $200 AMD CPUs to $300 Intel CPUs.

Attached: intel-btfo-again-fs8.png (1508x534, 40K)

But multi-core doesn't give me a bigger e-peen, so what's the point?

Honestly, I find it a bit unfair how AMD makes all their money by exploiting the absolutely most tech-illiterate retards.

It was meant to be played 2 FPS faster!

Attached: 1539232539950.png (575x641, 13K)

Can you give me an example of a real-world situation where multi-core might be useful?

>1920x
Now look at the mobo price, poojeet
Moar coars are useless for the average user.

Just about every single thing I do ever that requires high CPU usage will (ab)use all available cores or threads so that's just about everything that uses the CPU for a longer amount of time. Video encoding, compiling, compressing and decompressing files, and so on. I have the impression this isn't as true on Windows but I don't really know since I don't use that garbage.

>Moar coars are useless for the average user.
You may think it's useless to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time because you can't but it really is a nice ability to have. You do have a point about motherboards, the cheaper TR4 boards are priced like the more expensive Z390 boards. But motherboards aren't CPUs, are they? The Z390 boards aren't exactly competing against TR4 boards in terms of features.

You're clearly a paid shill since nobody's this utterly stupid. I get that you're mad and worried about your job security; Intel probably won't renew the contract with your employer because it's utterly pointless as of right now. Don't worry, Intel will get their act together - but it won't be until Q1-Q2 2019. And that's.. scary.

>Video encoding, compiling, compressing and decompressing files

Wow that sounds really fascinating. But what about games?

Do you own at minimum a 1080ti?

Pajeet, you forgot to mention multitasking™ and value for money™. Do you still get paid for that post?

>encoding
Not sure about compiling, and archiving, but I use either the ugly, or GPU to accelerate encoding.

What are you trying to imply?

>igpu, and gpu

I'm not 12. I do have some games installed, though.

I don't get paid to step on Intel shills, it's just a lot of fun right now since it's so easy and they are so utterly stupid and retarded. Intel screwed up and now all their CPUs are priced 50+% higher yet Intel shills are still trying to argue like it's a $200 vs $200 price-point comparison when that's changed to $200 vs $300. It's laughable.

Attached: steam-2018-10-14-fs8.png (2460x1752, 751K)

You are not going to buy a RTX 2080 Ti or even GTX 1080 Ti if you own a 8600K or Ryzen 2700X anyhow. Maybe a 1080 or Vega 56 at a push.

Is 1080p the new 640x480?

im about to be working a fuck load of overtime and am gonna have plenty of extra cash to spend. should i upgrade from my 4670k to a new platform?

Attached: 1535158203137.jpg (620x538, 70K)

>10% FASTER and 30% more expensive

>I'm not 12™
>It's better at multitasking™
>I don't care that it performs worse than intel
>I'm saving 50% by buying Ryzen™

If you need OT pay to afford a toy clearly you should be reevaluating your expenses, habits, and saving for your inevitable future of old age.

Considering the RTX 2080 Ti won't play any raytraced titles above 1080p anyhow. Yes.

Now do a max overclock on consumer AIO for both CPUs and rerun the tests.

completely missed the point. i dont need OT to pay for anything in my life.

Just because you are a neet that only has one fullscreen open at a time and make neetbux by shilling for intelaviv as a hasbarakike, doesn't mean everyone else is the same. My current i7 is hopefully the last piece of kiketel housefire I'm ever gonna own. No amount of shilling will change my mind or that of those other people that are fed-up with kiketel's shenanigans. Stay buttblasted, projecting-self-hating-pajeet. Hope that 0.0000006 shekel per hour that shlomo is paying you is worth all of this shilling.

Yeah fuck that shit. Live for today. Have fun while you are young. When you are old and decrepit all it will do is pay for your nursing care and you will be said and regretful you did not enjoy yourself when you actually COULD!

t. oldfag

No, you should save that money. If you need a new CPU and platform later then go buy it with that money. Don't just buy some new thing because you can. You should save until you can buy whatever minor thing if you need to.

>I'm saving 50% by buying Ryzen
and that's why you're stuck in a dead-end shill job, you're an idiot. If you're going to spend $400 on a CPU and one of those at that price-point is a lot faster than the other then you're obviously not saving anything by buying the better one, you're still spending $400. You're just getting more performance for your money.

I find your backtracking laughable. Nobody would ever ask the question of "should I buy this" after stating they're going to have money because of OT pay if they had enough money in the first place.

>depressed middle-ager wants to spread the suffering caused by his life's mistakes of not thinking ahead

>backtracking
christ, you're pretentious.

I currenly have a 4770K. I will be moving to Ryzen regardless of what Intel may come up with in the next 12 months. I also will go with Navi if it is competitive with 'rasterization' on Nvidia. Fuck RTX and DLSS memes until they become workable past 1080p on a midrange GPU.

you can't afford 9900k ranjesh, i'm gonna buy 2950X just to btfo intards however

>Those games
Free to play, and Humble bundles?

yeah, as I said, I'm not 12

>moar coarz
>moar niggahurtz
*yawn*
Still no response for Kikeripper.

Attached: 1539012357937.jpg (922x519, 205K)

>yeah, as I said, I'm not 12
Why are all your games free to play then?

>$100 more CPU is faster
Wow nice job OP. Can't say that I am willing to pay $10 per 1fps.

because, as I just pointed out, I'm not 12. So I rarely if ever play games. So why the hell would I buy games for myself?

Only games I've actually bought the last decade were Playstation 4 games like Overwatch and FIFA and some others, don't remember which, for my nephews. They are 10-12. I'm not so I don't have a PS4.

>Console games
>200+ hours in crush crush
>Unturned
What are you 15?
I don't play games that often either, but I still have paid games like arma 3 in my steam libraries.

>200+ hours in crush crush
yes, I admit that

>gonna have plenty of extra cash to spend
>i dont need OT to pay for anything in my life
Here's some advice since you may need it. If you're looking at items like a computer thinking "I can afford that" then that's great but it's not much in terms of financial security. You implied that you don't actually need to upgrade, just that you can. So you shouldn't. Save until you're able to buy something like a new car cash-down. At that point you'll be able to buy whatever computer you actually need whenever you find that you need a new one. You may someday run into a situation where something like your fridge breaks down. That's where you'll find that it's nice to be able to immediately buy a new one and pay cash without any concern at all as to how you'll be able to afford it - because you can.

What's a good free to play. I want to play a niprpg like in those isekais.

If you don't own a 1080ti or better you'll get much better fps buying and and spending everything you've saved on a better GPU. Intel has one purpose, and that's 1080p gaming on a high refresh monitor with a 1080ti+ anything else is throwing money away.

What do you know, turns out that having an 8700K or 9900K doesn't matter because the fastest GPU known to man can't perform well enough to bottleneck most CPUs.

Depends on the game. My games are better suited to faster higher IPC CPUs, and the GPU isn't that important.

>Oi vey, you must purchase a new GPU ever 6 weeks to get those extra pixels

>But what about games
The state of Intel shills

Attached: 1531256647296.jpg (1024x719, 129K)

>If you're looking at CPUs that cost drastically different for similar performance you're better off getting the more expensive one because of you don't you're not better off
What the fuck is this?

He can't, because the fps disparity at 1080p will be even greater, and he's on the amd shill train.
Apparently people who buy 8700k don't OC and that's a realistic scenario.
Also running 4000MHz RAM doesn't matter too, because ryzen physiclly can't get it running at that clock unlike 8700k

>7nm 3700X 8 core @4.8GHz 1.2v on air until end of 2018
Imagine the incel butthurt..

>GTX 1080
>fastest GPU known to man

>and that's 1080p gaming
Same goes for 1440p, BF1 and BF5 benchmarks are the reason I went for a 9900K. 2700X is unable to crack 200 FPS on 1440p (low settings of course) while 8700K tends to hang around 220-270 easily. From the detailed comparisons I've done, the 2700X is on par with my current mildly overclocked X99 Haswell-E system, that's now a 4 year old CPU.

not what I meant and I don't think that's what I wrote.

If two CPUs cost $400 and one of them is twice as fast as the other and you buy the fastest one then you get twice as much performance. But you're still spending $400 on a CPU.

yes, zen2

>Can you give me an example of a real-world situation where multi-core might be useful?
I enjoy gaming while watching 1080p video and running half a dozen different programs in the background. I'd imagine multi-core is good for that.

It's useful for everything that's not poorly written by lazy clueless people and that's pretty much everything on GNU/Linux and probably more and more software on the Windows side too.

You have to actually write software to take advantage of more than one core. It's not that old software is somehow optimized for single-core, it's just that it's not optimized at all. If you write some simple basic program then it'll run on one core, that's the default.

>hurr durr it sucks in this incredibly contrived unrealistic scenario

Nobody plays on low, dicknose.

Try 80% more for just the cpu, then add a high end motherboard because the mid range z boards won't be able to handle the i9 at sustained max boost, oh and a cooler.

Everyone who doesn't want to end up with a .5 kdr plays on low, dicknose.

Hardware Unboxed got called an AMD shill by Linus' minions so to balance things out he releases a benchmark video where the 8700k still remains supreme. It's hilarious how AMD shills in the comments pretend they're all on 1440p/4k and how 1080p doesn't matter.

In 5 days he'll jack off to the 9900k's performance and shit on its price and availability. That will make AMD shills call him an Intel shill.

>comparing current spiked prices to SRP
(lol

If you can't get a 3.0+ infantry only k/d on a 60hz monitor you should probably kys.

Literally the argument consolefags were using 10 years ago to justify their 30 fps

Lmao I'm sure it's that 144 fps holding your kdr back not the fact you suck.

depends on the GPU, doesn't it. if you're trying to game on a GTX 1030 then you're probably going to set everything to low. I'll simply change the settings until whatever I want to play runs fine at 60fps on 4k. I imagine those with a 1080p display do the same. And as for higher than 60 fps, who cares. Like 1% of people have higher-refresh rate display anyway - just like it's just around 2% who's using a 1080/1080ti/etc. The vast majority are using a 1060 or a 1050ti or a 1050.

Look at what industry insiders and analysts are saying; the currently spiked Intel prices won't be coming down until mid Q1 or Q2 2019. Intel CPU MSRP won't be relevant until then, just like GPU MSRP prices weren't relevant for almost a year.

>144hz
>$500

Man you must be a console gamer because it'd take some severe retardation to be that delusional

ait busta u get to decide who lives or dies
amd or intel

Attached: 94c7fbbb-0563-4a93-a1c5-0718bc19ddc2.jpg (640x640, 34K)

I think you meant until 2020 at least (only 5 years late Intel).

>he want to play at over 200 fps on low settings
Get a load of this idiot.

sorry but...what was your fucking point again?

>games don't matter
>unless AMD is on the lead, only then games will matter
>I will pretend that I do video encoding, 3D rendering and that my browser and games take up 100% CPU usage all at the same time
Kek

>pay more for less

Attached: 1375541828188.jpg (272x318, 37K)

Keep 1700x or upgrade to 2800x?

Trying to build a PC that'll last at least 4 years.

Linus will say anything for clicks (read money). You cannot argue against that very fact.

But Intel shills are constantly moving the goalposts anyhow. Next it will be only Netflix matters. Just like they say only AVX512 matters or only CUDA matters on Nvidia etc etc ad nauseam.

What if I bought an 8700K for the sole purpose that it fits my needs despite the cost?

3700x

Lel.