The 2700x is a lot cheaper than Intel's 9700k, yet it's supposedly faster? Something doesn't add up here...

This is the actual REALITY of the gaymen world: after 2-4 cpu cores it literally doesn't matter anymore. The question you must therefore ask yourself is: is spending $600 on a CPU + expensive custom liquid cooling worth it over getting a $300 ryzen 2700X that comes with a free stock cooler that can handle all cores at 4.1-4.3 GHz (depending on what voltage you get)?

8-core CPUs are still worth it for multi-tasking and streaming while gaymen if that's your thing.

Attached: relativeperformancegames19201080.png (500x1450, 95K)

This too, 2700X s 7% slower than 9900K but it also uses 150W less.

Attached: aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9DLzkvODA1MjU3L29yaWdpbmFsL2ltYWdlMDA3LnBuZw==(1).jpg (755x561, 88K)

>92% performance for 50% the power.
Unless by some miracle, 10nm won't save Intel any face.

TSX. Due to Ryzen not supporting this, it performs many times worse than Intel in dedicated programs (e.g. RPCS3).

Why do these tests never include the 9700k? Is it the black sheep or something?

9700K does not have HT, the whole point of intel processors.

BASED
INTARDS BTFOREVER

Attached: 1539964418227.png (686x773, 74K)

Yeah, but isn't it supposed to be the successor to the 8700k? Surely Intel doesn't expect people to spend $500+ on a processor.

TSX only matters for console emulation and SSE/AVX 128/256 bit optimizations are better anyway.

This isn't nearly as much of a problem anymore. You can even get a program to scan your PC for programs that have the Intel "cripple AMD" shit in them, and even fix them. majorgeeks.com/files/details/intel_compiler_patcher.html

>No matter how good Ryzen dies are, an enormous amount of software is compiled using Intel compilers that optimize for Intel specifically

Wow. So in other words, Jews are working with the Jews at Intel in order to fuck over everyone else.

>after 2-4 cpu cores it literally doesn't matter anymore

that's mostly because games predominantly still run on old engines like dx9 or 11

The 9th series flopped pretty badly except for the lower priced shit like 9600k

Even on new DX12 titles you won't see any jump at all from 4-6 core processors since most of what the CPU used to do is now also being done by the GPU at least on AMD GPUs that have full hw async compute and higher FP64.

Don't BS anybody here, you know full well it's just an unlocked i5-8400

DirectX is an API, not a game engine.

If the engine utilizes up to 6 cores, it will not matter even with DX15

This is changing daily though and you're the reason the progress towards heavy multicore use in games is slow.

What? AMD uses the same socket for years. It will take at least half a decade to move to another one and at that time you can just buy the then latest/best CPU as an upgrade, and wait 10 years before upgrading again.

>10% less performance for 60% less price and less power draw
2700 confirmed to be THE BEST consumer CPU right now.

It's the opposite actually, devs are getting lazier and optimizing less and less. See pubg.

This board is full of incels who blame their ugly weeb childhood on normies, jews or whatever the fuck else. They have this weird imagination that if they buy AMD the world's gonna be a better place. I really don't see how. You people are worried about the wrong things. You should be worried about stuff like people developing "desktop apps" on Electron/JS instead of being worried about CPUs. CPUs and GPUs have had enough performance for a long time, why do you think they started meme'ing 144hz+ screens to you? Now it's raytracing lmfao.

The world will be slightly better without Jewtel, yes.

u r dumb

>AMD monopoly
It's the same shit only the other way round.

AMD isn't run by Jews. Intel chips are LITERALLY MADE in Israel.

>dx9
is it 2004?

But its run by chinks? Have you ever done business with chinks? They are just as bad if not worse. You are delusional.

You mean 700$+.

>Jews are bad
>Chinks are better

Attached: Chinese-HDD-Is-Really-a-128MB-Flash-Drive-in-a-Case-2.jpg (800x551, 121K)

I'd rather deal with chinks than Jews. I'm 99% sure the chinks feel the same way.

Naa, just need to break them like IBM, monopolies are bad.

>I'd rather deal with chinks than Jews.
Only someone who has never had to do business with chinks could say that.

Except I have. Many times.

*or a Muslim which is most likely the case. Sometimes I forget how many camel jockeys are lurking on this board.

Single core

>he starts larping now
youtube.com/watch?v=5ncOyYzOP3w

lmfao

You're living in your own little world. The fact remains: Intel is cancer and AMD is not.

>AMD is not
It's AMDs fault that we had to deal with a monopoly for a fucking decade, not Intel's. You fucking survival of the weakest faggots.

>Jewtel made people suffer because someone else tried to intervene on their money-making

XD

Have you ever heard the term free market? You fucking dumb leftist communist.

How fucking dare you. I'm no leftie.

>Implying communism isn't the most right wing

>bribery and anticompetitive judaism is free market capitalism

>muh free market means when a monopoly appears nothing should be done about it
Are you fucking retarded? Monopolies are by definition unbeatable. Which just proves that Intel never had a monopoly, but they're trying to make one by buying off AMD engineers. That's exactly why Facebook bought Instagram and WhatsApp and why Microsoft bought hundreds of smaller companies.
You CANNOT fight a monopoly. They will either buy you, sabotage you, have 10x more ads than you or temporarily reduce their prices. This is exactly why even people who support free market are for punishing monopolies.
You seem to be too brainwashed and retarded to think for yourself.

Punishing monopolies how though? I thought "free market" people tend to oppose all or most forms of government regulation.

>Monopolies are by definition unbeatable
What? Are you denying at IBM had at some point a monopoly? Of course you can fight a monopoly. You fucking google educated no-degree nigger.

nice FUD

Attached: g.png (1111x915, 207K)

Hyper threading should be in here somewhere. Also you haven't accounted for the $3,000 water chiller required to OC the 9700K

>Multi-core doesn't matter!
>Productivity doesn't matter!
>Price/performance doesn't matter!
>Performance per watt doesn't matter!
>Power usage doesn't matter!
>Temperatures don't matter!
>Soldered dies don't matter!
>Stutters don't matter!
>Streaming doesn't matter!
>Data centers don't matter!
>Locked CPUs don't matter!
>OEMs don't matter!
>Hyperscalers don't matter!
>Upgradeability doesn't matter!
>Anti-competitive business practices don't matter!
>Locked platform features don't matter!
>Synthetic loads don't matter!
>PCI-e lanes don't matter!
>Burnt pins don't matter!
>ECC support doesn't matter!
>*NEW* 7nm doesn't matter!
>*NEW* StoreMI doesn't matter!
>*NEW* Security doesn't matter!
>*NEW* Stock coolers don't matter!
>*NEW* Games don't always matter!
>*NEW* Hyperthreading doesn't matter!

To think, all of this bullshit just to get 7% better performance in gaymes.

this.
anyone who says otherwise is a low-paid AMD shill

>144 hz is a meme

Don't have a brainlet enough image for this post.

see

incredibly based

Actually unless it's on a true 1ms gray to gray monitor it really is. Prove me wrong.

>see benchmarks that prove you're correct
I already knew 2700x wasn't actually faster than 9700k.

you are actually correct and at 144hz your USB keyboard has more delay than the screen so what is the point

Literally never used a high refresh rate monitor in your life. Embarrassing poorfag.

You'd have to be either tech illiterate or a dumb /v/-tard if you buy intlel in 2018

We know cockmuncher, we're just saying the heavy power consumption, exorbitant cooling, and additional price isn't worth it if all you get is like 5 more FPS at 100 fps compared to ryzen.

The 9700k isn't even on that benchmark.

IBM never had a monopoly on personal computers. For one, they jumped into the market AFTER apple, and for two, they never had any sort of ownership over 808x processors, and they let Microsoft sell DOS to anyone, so all they had a monopoly on was the IBM Bios, which is why the entire market filled up with hundreds of types of "IBM compatible" machines and there wasn't shit they could do about it even if they wanted to.

unless you're being a cheeky cunt and implying they had some market on some other shit they used to make like typewriters or cash registers or some shit.

>literally just a stripped down 9900K without HT that anyone would buy intel for
Because it's an embarrassment

I agree, but it's supposed to be the successor to the 8700k.

That makes it even more humiliating. Has intel gone mad?

Attached: your_off_ya_chops_mate.png (442x434, 176K)

The 2700x is only able to achieve 4.2 while OC'd? Damn...

>expensive liquid cooling
Running my 9700k at 4.9ghz with a noctua nh-u14s 600rpm. Barely passes 65C during gaming. AVX loads ~80C.

>Something doesn't add up here.
You'll have an AMD CPU and the cool gamer kids will make fun of you.

They were always mad. AMD just forced them to make it more obvious.

Simple -- Intel has market dominance, AMD does not.
For a long time, AMD was way behind Intel. You'd happily spend more money on Intel because Intel WAS, by many metrics, worth the premium.
Now AMD needs to sell at lower prices to sell more in order to get profits, because the brand name alone doesn't win customers over like it does for Intel.

On the stock cooled, probably just 4.1GHz for most people. Obviously 4.3-4.5GHz won't be a problem even at like 1.45v if you use something like an NDH-15 though higher clocks tend to also require a base OC as well.

>you could starve your enemy's with ease
WTF? i'm a Communist now!

its faster because the zen architecture is more advanced and handles multithreading more efficiently.

So single thread performance is intel's camp
multi-core. multithread performance is AMD's camp

understand the difference now?

Wanna know the REAL reason Intel is still a thing while AMD is still catching up?

NOSTALGIA

When older people think of Intel, they usually think of stuff like the Pentium, and Windows 98.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or not but intel socket lifespans are fucking pathetic. You can pretty much count on having to buy a new motherboard when you buy an intel chip. This is all done to make more money under the guise of "Well we wouldn't want people to buy a board that needs a BIOS update :^)". Highly Semetic.
AMD's socket lifespan is far longer and you can very feasibly buy an early socket chip then upgrade 4 years later using the same board.

>upgrade

Upgrading for what reason? It'll be at least 10 years until theres any significant change to computer processor requirements.

Wait for the next generation Ryzen, and you'll be fine for at least a decade.

I'm so tired of waiting, and I've waited a long time. Why can't AMD give it to us now.

stock vs stock yes the 2700x is faster but only in rendering (anything that makes use of 6 plus cores)

But the 9700k stomps it with all the overclocking headroom it has. Yes it requires WC to get all of that extra headroom but AIOs are so reliable and cheap nowadays that its considered another staple component like ram. and most of these chips can hit 5Ghz on all cores. Hell my 8700k hit 5Ghz on all cores at 1.28v and idles at 32C.

You cant go wrong with either option. But it you do want max performance then you might as well go intel. as the 2700k it pretty much tapped out at stock.

If you already have an AMD mobo then its not worth spending money on a new intel mobo and getting the 9700k. Just stick with the 2700x.

But is 7% better FPS really worth the hundreds of dollars more in cooling + higher electricity bill? See and I mean 75 vs 70 fps doesn't seem like much of a jump to me.

Attached: 1462117971891.jpg (371x371, 84K)

this, most triple fan AIOs are the price of a ryzen 6-core 2600.

Attached: Screenshot_2018-11-13-18-36-25(1)(1).jpg (720x848, 201K)

Correction: more*

Attached: Screenshot_2018-11-13-18-38-32(1).jpg (720x1030, 191K)

You're a fucking idiot if you believe that.

It's slower in games by about 5%.

>games
They probably didn't test any of the arma games, dcs, or hitman 2.

>It's slower in games by about 5%.
It's slower than that even on amd optimized games. Those games are usually shit anyways, but the real issue is when you try to play one of the many unoptimizesd games. Then you'll see just how shit amd really is.

>yet it's supposedly faster?
Not where core latency, clockspeed, and IPC matters.

The real question is whether it's worth paying $450 for it. Probably not.

Crashes, absolutely unbearable noise, stuttering, god knows what else.

And on top of that, it's slower.

there's literally only like 2

Attached: KESFgbz.png (2560x1440, 714K)

>AMD unboxed

DELET

Attached: 1497992980948.gif (600x338, 350K)

>only 4% faster
But for real though, why is the 8700K such utter dogshit? It's more expensive and requires at minimum a tripple fan AIO to cool.

This, pretty much. It's 33% faster and on top of that, the chart doesn't show things like input lag, stutter, frame time where AMD gets absolutely destroyed and those things ultimately matter just as much as framerate.