9900K + RTX 2080 Ti vs Ryzen 2700X @ stock speeds

9900K + RTX 2080 Ti vs Ryzen 2700X @ stock speeds.
youtube.com/watch?v=n8QRaYGq4dk

Intel requires overlocking to 5Ghz+ with a an expensive cooler to even make Ryzen look bad.

Attached: Turing is fucking gay.jpg (600x692, 63K)

Other urls found in this thread:

hooktube.com/watch?v=n8QRaYGq4dk
geizhals.de/intel-core-i9-9900k-bx80684i99900k-a1870092.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

AHAHAHAH

Attached: inteli9hardboiledeggmaker.jpg (3840x2160, 796K)

you dont understand i need 7 more fps, who cares if its a housefire

Attached: 1539959781161.jpg (486x386, 49K)

>Intel requires overlocking to 5Ghz+ with a an expensive cooler to even make Ryzen look bad.
At what?

>Jokerproductions
Do everyone a favor, and just link hook tube for that channel
hooktube.com/watch?v=n8QRaYGq4dk

>hooktube
How is linking some shit you found on facebook helping anybody?

Yeah but when you put it on a bar graph with linear scaling Intel is waaaay better.

post feet bitch

It looked like Intel was doing better in these games. Am I missing the point?

>Am I missing the point?
Yes. FPS is a stupid measurement. Frametimes makes a lot more sense since the improvement in smoothness gets smaller the higher FPS you get.

BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAP

>change your conception of performance, and use a different metric
I see.

Basically the difference at stock is marginal and you require an expensive (not included) CPU cooler in order to push it. At stock settings Intel is only marginally ahead in gaming for twice the price. It still requires a decent (read pricey) cooler even at stock though.
Intel is just not good value right now even if it is the fastest by a few %

He purchased *AN* RTX card, user. Please fix it or I will have an attack

>LOWER IS BETTER
You just know that they had to put that in for americans

Attached: 1481370624285.jpg (600x450, 29K)

For the budget consumer not really into gaming a 2200G is more than enough.
For the average consumer the Ryzen 2600/X is more than enough.
For high end gamers and productivity the Ryzen 2700/X is more than enough.
For those that absolutely must have the fastest (by only a few percent) and where money is no object the Intel 9900K cannot currently be beaten.
But it will only be a short run retaining the performance crown and comes with it's own set of caveats. Like being a housefire and too expensive for starters.

>It still requires a decent (read pricey) cooler even at stock though.
Does it require an expensive cooler though?
TFW the i9-9900k is platinum scary.

No. I like it like that because it triggers autists like you.

Yes. You will need something like a Noctua ND15 to cool it without it throttling itself into oblivion. But you won't be able to overclock it much.

I'd probably get an older Xeon e5-1650 before going ryzen desu. Best price to performance right now with those that's comparable (if not better) to ryzen single core performance.

I'd personally just go with a close looped cooler with a large radiator (360-430mm), or a kit cooler.

HIGHER MEANS BETTER
THE MORE YOU BUY THE MORE YOU SAVE

so it's basically a 10-20% performance increase but with a 16% overclock
if amd was clocked the same it would actually be faster
intel is shitting their pants right now because of zen 2

*NOT ACTUAL SIZE

Attached: not-actual-size.jpg (556x448, 47K)

Hopefully one day it will be
>Bribery doesn't matter

>not having adblock

That's mean, I will report you to internet cyber bullying police!

wat. are you saying they should sell their chips clocked at 3.9ghz so they are on par?

1.5v? i wonder why it's hot.

For some a company that is stuck at 14nm and being doing sandybridge refreshes for 6 years now AMD is still struggling to to catch up to Intel at the same clocks.

jk, i really don't care either way. ignoring price to performance AMD is not close to intel, i don't know why you guys have to lie to yourself. You guys are just delusional kids trying to protect 'your' team just like the retarded sports fans.

how about you just buy whatever product best suits your need.

testing with that GPU makes this test pointless. use a 1080ti or something.

>i like paying $300 more for a literal imperceptive change in performance
What's it like working for Intel?

>a literal imperceptive change in performance
Have you benchmarked the i9-9900k vs the 2700x in anything outside of GPU bound games, and software?
Not all software scales well with more cores. In fact most don't.

Have you guys at Intel tried benchmarking anything that isn't games? Games are the most poorly threaded applications out there. Not to mention just how fucking stupid this whole conversation is. You're arguing that a processor that costs twice as much, that has more expensive mobos, requires much more expensive coolers, and uses twice the power is 10% faster. Yeah, no shit dumbass.

Attached: 1536185187536.gif (556x720, 335K)

The i9-990k is actually better at:
>Games (ryzen was supposed to be good at this)
>Content creating software (remember ryzen was supposed to be good at this too)
>DAWs

>You're arguing that a processor that costs twice as much, that has more expensive mobos,
Intel released a CPU that the 1800x was marketed to be, and at the same price.
AMD opened this shitty door user, but Intel was the only one to bring the promised performance with it.
So now Jow Forumsand is back on with an epic shit fit, because they have been brought down yet another notch.

>boils water

>at the same price of the 1800x
geizhals.de/intel-core-i9-9900k-bx80684i99900k-a1870092.html
+ 400€ for the custom loop

1800x
>$500 launch price
>Full of bugs
>Needed special ram
>Needs expensive cooling to over clock
>Needed an expensive motherboard
>Performed poorly in games, and content creation software
i9-9900k
>$500
>Needs expensive motherboard to over clock
>Needs expensive cooling to over clock
>Actually performs better than anything AMD has released
>It's Meh, but it doesn't deserve the fud that Jow Forumsamd is spreading

Attached: Intel engineers.jpg (1200x801, 72K)

Best price to performance ratio to date.
Unfortunately these are getting scooped up too fast now.

yay turing

Attached: AAAAAAAAAA.jpg (576x1024, 216K)

>not piping to mpv