$280

So? Show me an equally priced build where the 2600 beats the 8400. I'll wait.

Also
>no heatsink for the i5-8400
There are mountains of intel stock coolers in landfills.

Attached: aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9RLzgvNzIxNTIwL29yaWdpbmFsLzA1LVBvd2VyLUNvbnN1bXB0aW9uLVRvcnR1 (708x531, 93K)

You just posted it. You're just too chickenshit to admit the i5-8400 has severe frame stuttering issues on the stock cooler and requires hyper 212 evo at minimum especially since it consumes like 30% more power than the 2600 @ 4 GHz.

At STOCK settings.

It's nice to thing that 1.5Ghz is new standard and it will OC to 1.8Ghz, but frankly I don't think so. Even taking out stream processes to increase speed would probably do Polaris some good.

>Die shrink
>Rebrand
Go back to school

How much they tax, tho?
~$40?

you really are starting to annoy me with misusing that picture.
Told you many times, the picture isn't meant to rip on steve, since he discloses all the info and even suggests intel in the video of the benchmark.
It's shills on Jow Forums that spammed that image with no context that the image is meant to counter

>has severe frame stuttering issues on the stock cooler
Unfalsifiable claim as usual. Go home Steve.

Principled Technologies also disclosed all the info on the 9900k commissioned benchmark yet Steve ripped them for that.

>It is important to note that Radeon RX 590 will be offered with a ‘blockbuster launch bundle’, with three ‘free’ titles included: Devil May Cry 5 (unreleased) The Division 2 and Resident Evil 2 (unreleased).

Might be worth for REmake2

nGoodGoydia™ has a 1060 coming with faster VRAM.

I don't understand, does this mean what CPU you get is no longer important to gaymen? I thought there would be like a 50% jump in fps from a quad-core i7 to a six-core i5/i7/zen at similar frequencies.

I was literally torn between getting a kaby lake or ryzen build but it looks like it doesn't even matter.

Attached: 9a4.gif (750x540, 121K)

>He actually thinks GloFo 14nm to GloFo 12nm is a die shrink

KILL YOURSELF FAGGOT

Maybe time to ditch my GTX 970

CPU never mattered much for gaming compared to GPU. There are rumors that Intel/AMD purposely shill badly optimized games like pubg/fortnite that forces people to upgrade their CPU. Majority of games out there are single core and GPU bound even at 1080p.

Also sorry for posting gif, please don't crucify me.

Attached: 9a4.webm (750x540, 19K)

Actually is TSMC

Because mining still fucking with demand.

Because VRAM prices have shot up.

Because Chi-com tariffs.

Because AMD can barely compete, nJewdia™ can charge whatever they want.

It's not TSMC because AYYMD has to stick to the WSA or pay penalties to GloFo

Also even TSMC says their 12nm is equivalent to 16nm

tsmc.com/english/dedicatedFoundry/technology/16nm.htm

>16/12nm Technology

KILL YOURSELF FAGGOT

The fuckers that make PUBG are shit programmers.

>uses less power
>has higher clocks
>uses a different die
Call it whatever you want its not a rebrand

So now they basically sell RX 580 OC as a new model, RX 590? I didn't think AMD will fall this low in GPU world

sadly this:
Where Intel would just add a "+" to their size numbering, GF decided to use a smaller number for fuck knows what reason. There's no actual "shrink" there, it's just optimized 14nm node. But marketing people know that most sheeple won't bother to see through this.

It is a rebrand

The GPU microarchitecture is exactly the same

Nothing has changed except an optimized 14nm process blatantly called 12nm lie

No, this is a 12nm refresh from Global Foundries. AMD did not port a 14LPP part over to TSMC's entirely different 16nm process, my tech illiterate friend.

GloFo's 12nm line is just 14LPP with a different track and transistor library. Processes are not the same just because they use the same two digits. A 12nm GloFo design cannot be run at TSMC without extensive porting because different processes have different design rules, and complex ICs are always built around the design rules of their target process.

>Rebrand of a rebrand that costs more money than the original 2 and a half years later
Ayymd Rebradeon; the way it's meant to be rebranded

Are you saying that AMD should have done what Nvidia did with the various versions of the 1060 and MX150 and gave these cards the same designation despite the fact that they obviously have different performance levels?

>The GPU microarchitecture is exactly the same
The microarchitecture of most lines of cards is the same. The microarchitecture of entire processor lines is usually the same. Should we be angry that Intel offers the 8400 and 8600k as different chips? Should we call all their products on the 14nm node rebrands of each other?

Seriously, what you're saying is retarded. If there was no discernible performance difference between the 590 and the 580, you'd have a point, but there very clearly will be a significant difference between the two chips.

There's other numbers between 580 and 590. With AMD's naming scheme, adding 10 implies a higher GPU class, while in this case RX 590 is effectively just a RX 580 OC

>Principled Technologies also disclosed all the info on the 9900k commissioned benchmark yet Steve ripped them for that.
Sure? You can rip on steve on that if you want, I'm just saying don't use my picture to rip on him. Because he did nothing distasteful on the benchmark itself and disclosed plenty of info.
If you want to rip on him, make your own compilation on what he did wrong and spam that.
What I am saying is, you can't use Jow Forums shills are faggots as proof of steve being a faggot. Know what I am saying?

Intel has better latencies, and is generally better for gameing, AMD can surpass it in certain situations with B-die memory and overclock vs a stock cpu for instance.
Really look at the prices for either build in your region and decide which gives you better performance for your needs.

Attached: Elaborate 1.jpg (1689x2213, 843K)

WRONG

9th generation Core has hardware fixes, it's not the same

>12nm
it's a die shrink not a rebrand

GloFo 12nm is not a die shrink, it's just an optimized GloFo 14nm

tsmc.com/english/dedicatedFoundry/technology/16nm.htm

>16/12nm Technology

Even TSMC says 16nm/12nm on their page and doesn't claim it to be a die shrink

You wanna go ahead and point out where I made any reference to 9th gen core?

So you agree that it's not a rebrand, but believe they should have given the card a difference designation? That's another point entirely.

There is area reduction from 14nm to 12nm, but its not even a half node.
These terms are misleading. You can reduce area by changing a lot of things without there being a "die shrink."

>Expecting an Intel shill to play fair.
You really should just ignore him he's just looking for (You)'s

I don't know but I saw some better PSU's jump by as much as $20 so a video card might have a substantially higher cost. Check your import tarrifs in the US to find out. But basically anything that is imported from China including parts that make up the whole will put the prices up. That $200 card back in 2016 may well be $280 now once everything is is factored in.

"Mid range" GPUs (which are actually low end ones but that's the world we live in now) being $300 is so depressing. We need real competition.

>"Mid range" GPUs (which are actually low end ones but that's the world we live in now)
huh? They have more RAM than top tier GPUs from 3 years ago

This faggot here.

Attached: ifuckedyouall.jpg (1200x900, 114K)

What's "low end" about them? Being over 2 years old?

Is it the price you're complaining about? Have you heard of this thing called inflation? Also VRAM didn't magically become 90% cheaper in the past 3 years. If you want 6-8GB in a midrange card you've got to pay for it. You're getting way more performance for $200-300 than you ever have in the past, the performance per dollar of graphics cards continuously improves and gets better but you still complain. We're honestly spoiled in this hobby, if anything.

Attached: 1469664762970.png (498x724, 758K)