Post yfw we are living in a society where Intel could make a slower CPU that uses double the energy of an AMD chip...

Post yfw we are living in a society where Intel could make a slower CPU that uses double the energy of an AMD chip, and they would still have more marketshare.

Attached: shell_shocked_soldier_1916_2.jpg (1488x1600, 251K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=we2oePtTGMM
techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i9_9900K/14.html
youtube.com/watch?v=XEs7ze0xcRw&t=
amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-Processor-Wraith-Cooler/dp/B07B41717Z
youtube.com/watch?v=UNhE6VcqGds
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Don't worry the heat death of the universe will fix the jewish problem.

amd really fucked up with bulldozer
but intel was still somehow winning with athlon around so idk

At least price to performance was insanely good when the 8350 came out, but with the 9900K its ridiculously hot when it turbos, and the price to performance is horrible at 500 dollars, And it's not even much faster than a $300 2700X. And people will still go out and buy it.

For real though zen did some serious damage to intel. They would have never in a million years released sub-$500 octa-core processors like the 9700K but they were forced to due to how badly their 6-core chips were being crushed.

this too

Attached: Comb10102018092249.jpg (641x2895, 423K)

we would be having 4 core mainstream cpus in 2024 if intel had their way
and that would certainly be the case as they would still be backpedaling from their 10nm mistake

It will fix all problems.

the belief that the universe will end with a heat death is reddit tier logic

Attached: tenor.gif (220x272, 63K)

youtube.com/watch?v=we2oePtTGMM

Guess this video is gonna have to get updated soon, don't see any 10nm intel desktop chips yet even at the end of this year.

Attached: 1526871308951.png (1024x1078, 1.44M)

Stay mad kike.

>9900K isn't that much faster than the 2700X
Why do people always downplay how far behind AMD is? Kill yourself. The 9900K is objectively worlds apart from the 2700X. 2700X owners are jealous of the 9900K, which is why they're always talking about AM4's upgrade path.

Nope, see for yourself. At 1440p you'll get less than 5% extra FPS with a i9-9900K @5 GHz. Think about that.

techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i9_9900K/14.html

Attached: relative-performance-games-2560-1440.png (500x1450, 91K)

30 frames per second is totally on 5% less! Please stop spreading bullshit online. I have a Ryzen 1600X and I can confirm that the gaming performance is shit. It's performing slightly worse than Haswell.

youtube.com/watch?v=XEs7ze0xcRw&t=

Attached: Ryzen 1440p Bottleneck.png (2560x1440, 3.34M)

>intel: 3600MHz RAM
>amd: 3200MHz RAM
Anyway on average if BOTH systems are using the same RAM the i9-9900K @ 5GHz will be less than 5% faster across all games.

Is that REALLY worth hundreds of dollars more in motherboards, cpu cost, exotic cooling, electricity bills, and the constant fear of coolant fucking your shit up at any moment?

Attached: aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9DLzkvODA1MjU3L29yaWdpbmFsL2ltYWdlMDA3LnBuZw==(1).jpg (755x561, 109K)

Yes you dumb shill, Intel is an elite product and it's worth every penny you invest in it. Now fuck off back to r/amd, poorfag

>5% across all games
No. That is 5% in the games that they tested. And most of the time these reviewers use in game benchmarks which are not indicative of real world gaming performance. In GPU intensive games, Ryzen is fine. But in games that are even remotely CPU demanding, Ryzen performs like a 2013 Haswell. I have a 1600X and am dying to upgrade because the performance is shit. Do you actually own a Ryzen chip or are you just shilling on here spreading bullshit about how they're not far behind?

>cpu cost
AMD users do not care about CPU cost. They're CONSTANTLY talking about upgrading their 1.5 year old CPUs. If they wanted something that would last, they would have just got an 8700K. One 8700K would have cost the same as their two Ryzen CPUs they bought.

>exotic cooling
A dual tower heatsink is not "exotic cooling"

>electricity bills
I love how when AMD had their FX CPUs out power consumption didn't matter. Now all of a sudden it matters. Lmao. The FX CPUs had terrible power consumption and terrible performance. The 9900K has terrible power consumption but at least it has the performance right.

Attached: Ryzen Bottleneck.png (2560x1440, 3.51M)

And what do you think it's going to end with?

the theory that entropy can't be reversed is retarded
by that logic the big bang could never have had happened
the universe is eternal and cyclical

M8 stop spreading lies. If you don't have a huge tripple fan AIO with fans large and powerful enough to act as leaf blowers you're going to cut the CPU life to 1-2 years with 90C+ temps and/or have constant shutdowns as thermal safety sensors trip.

Also remember a lot of Z motherboards out there don't even support the i9-9900K's """""95W TDP""""" so you have to pay top dollar for motherboards that have like 50 phases and VRMs with fan heatsinks on them as well.

Attached: PCxRwPu.jpg (1327x1222, 331K)

Also again, the test is invalid as the intel system has faster RAM.

I don't even recommend the 9900K as it's overpriced as fuck. It's literally just 2 7700Ks glued together. It's just undeniable that the 9900K performs much better than the 2700X. You went off on a tirade about the temperatures and motherboard support because you wanted to avoid having to admit this fact.

There is no Intel system in that screenshot, you retard. The 2700X is truly an amazing CPU. It can turn your RTX 2080 Ti into an RTX 2070. But but it's just as good as gaming as the 9900K, AMDbros!

I am following you two guys fighting trying to figure out which CPU to upgrade to, I am also willing to get a new Mobo, which one would both of you recommend?

Are you gonna post a fair test where both processors use the same RAM or not? See

Wait to see what Zen 2 offers.
>arE yOu g0nnA pOst a FaiR teSt whEre bOtH prOcesSorS uSe tHe SamE rAM oR noT?

The absolute state of AMDrones who won't admit that Ryzen performs like a 2013 Haswell in gaming. Muh finely tuned RAM timings!

I don't need high end equipment, whatever you deem worth its money

It honestly depends how far you're willing to go to squeeze out that fps. The i9-9900K is undeniably faster than the ryzen 2700X but on average less than 5% at 1440p if you compare both systems with the same RAM. OR wait for zen 2 and get i9-9900K performance for ~$200.

please keep telling yourself that, maybe it will delay zen 2 a little longer

Unrelated to your argument with the other guy I'm not gonna get a Ryzen 2700x at the moment

What do you plan on doing with the CPU? Video rendering? If so, just go with Ryzen. There is literally no reason to go with Intel if you don't need the absolute best performance.

>less than 5% at 1440p
Look at my post again. The Ryzen 2700X has the 1080 Ti at fucking 75% GPU usage at 1440p high settings. Stop spreading misinformation and misguiding people because of your fanboyism.

9900K performance for ~$200
And you know that Zen 2 is going to offer 9900K performance for that price how exactly? Present proof that leads you to believe this will be the case. Internet rumours are not proof.

Wow so it's only 5% slower at a resolution where CPU performance is less important because the GPU is bottlenecking. Who would've thought that.

Disregard my last comment I confused the 2700x with a different CPU, I might actually go for that.

>What do you plan on doing with the CPU? Video rendering? If so, just go with Ryzen. There is literally no reason to go with Intel if you don't need the absolute best performance.
Casual gaming, nothing too strenuous

CPU can be very important at 1440p if you have a high end GPU. CPU not mattering at 1440p is a myth spread online.
If you are only aiming for 60Hz, then Ryzen is more than sufficient. The only use case for Intel is high refresh rate gaming. Don't listen to the AMDrone who says that Ryzen is only a few frames behind though. There's too much latency between the cores.

No problem but know what you're getting yourself into. You're gonna have to balance how much money you're willing to sacrifice on CPU/motherboard/RAM/CPU cooling vs just spending more for the GPU, it's really up to you but just know that there are diminishing returns with intel.

It's between a $80 ryzen 1600 and the $500 i9-9900K

Personally I'd sacrifice a little bit more performance and get the 2700 since that's just $220 right now and invest more in a beefier GPU.

amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-Processor-Wraith-Cooler/dp/B07B41717Z

Attached: 1547259966814.jpg (680x590, 36K)

>Personally I'd sacrifice a little bit more performance and get the 2700 since that's just $220 right now and invest more in a beefier GPU.
That sounds logical and all except for the fact that it would bottleneck anything higher than a GTX 1080 at 1080p. See

>CPU not mattering at 1440p is a myth spread online.
Oh so now that the idea spread by AMD shills doesn't fit pro-AMD narrative it's suddendly a myth.

>It's between a $80 ryzen 1600 and the $500 i9-9900K
Literally no one is recommending the 9900K.

Highly dependant on what game you play and what RAM you buy, in that test the same RAM was not used like in or was so I wouldn't take it into account desu.

The fuck are you on about? I'm not pro-AMD or pro any company for that matter. You're right that the "CPU not mattering at 1440p" is spread by AMD shills and all I did was point out that it's not true. Look at for proof.

I know I'm just trying to outline the min/max for playing vidya. At this point 6 cores is critical as more games are optimized to use more than 4 cores.

I don't understand why keep pointing to a flawed benchmark and just keep discrediting yourself?

>the theory that entropy can't be reversed is retarded by that logic the big bang could never have had happened the universe is eternal and cyclical

Hey, friend. The "theory" that entropy cannot be reversed is much more fundamental than the existence of the Big Bang. However, it is possible for entropy to reverse, you can read about what are called Fluctuation Theorems. Essentially, the critical part to understand is that entropy can be reversed but the probability to do so decreases exponentially in time. It can be likened to the principle of virtual/off-shell particles that are present in mass-energy reactions where otherwise energy conservation would be broken.

t. A physicist who works in the field of theoretical statistical mechanics. Here's the part where you say, "WHAT NO FUCK YOU LARPER. PEOPLE WHO LIVE REAL LIVES CAN'T GO ON INTERNET." I already said it for you. Hope you enjoy the reddit spacing.

>highly dependant on what game you play
Well no shit. If you play The Witcher 3 and other GPU bound games, there is literally no difference between the 2700X and 9900K. If you play BFV or CPU bound games however, the 2700X will turn your high end GPU into a few tiers lower GPU as seen There are cases where a Ryzen 2700X performs equally with a 9900K but there are no cases where a 9900K performs worse than a 2700X.

How is it a flawed benchmark? Oh I know why. Because it doesn't paint your beloved AMD in a perfect light. My god, fanboys are cancer. Imagine being emotionally attached to a company. The 2700X falls behind. Period.

I'm honestly not sure how much more clearer I can point this out. It's right there in the description.

Attached: sketch1553447098368(1).jpg (720x1045, 400K)

>1080p
lolwut, 4K monitors are $300-400 and you can find 1440p monitors close to $200. Why are you still stuck in the 1080p stone age, even 128X FXAA/MSAA can't fix that low res.

Also the difference between the 2700X and 2700 isn't really that much desu.

Attached: 10012430_621963407883790_125433040_n.jpg (640x464, 30K)

So the 9700K has a disadvantage and still wins. You just proved my point that Ryzen has shit gaming performance. Thanks.

I mentioned 1080p gaming performance because most people are still on that stone age resolution.

>OC'd to 5.1 GHz
>faster 3600MHz RAM
Yeah man, this is crippled af

relevant. fucking braindead chinks.

Attached: 1551877699172.png (4366x2638, 3.42M)

>5.1GHz
Even if it was at stock, it would still beat the 2700X.

>faster 3600MHz RAM
Um, you clearly didn't see the RAM timings. They were worse on the 9700K. This is what being an AMD fanboy does to you. You have to scrape for any reason you can to justify why it's performing 30 frames per second worse instead of just admitting that AMD needs to improve their damn CPUs.

Stay mad, AMDpoorfag.

stay engaged, drone nigger

Attached: 1551931844823.webm (720x300, 388K)

Absolutely seething AMD Pajeet.

youtube.com/watch?v=UNhE6VcqGds

Attached: 1488479465293.png (882x758, 316K)

Yeah man fuck AMD, just buy this $300+ Z motherboard to handles intel's """""95W TDP""""" and $200+ tripple fan AIO to barely keep temps in the 80-90C zone, and OC it to 5.1 GHz. Don't worry about that $1,000+ electricity bill each month, the 5% extra fps are totally worth it.

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

Again, nobody who isn't an Intel shill would recommend the housefire 9900K. There are more practical Coffee Lake CPUs available such as the 8600K/8700K. And it's not only a few extra frames. Keep telling yourself that. Cope, AMDjeet.

I love how back in the day the intel fanboys would scream house fire and disregard an FX-8350 outperforming an i5 in games and some i7s on multi core while costing less, now they they seem to be fine with huge heat and power consumption as long as it performs a 2700X by 10-20% while being $500.

I don't have the list of things that don't matter but right now but it's very appropriate.

Attached: FXCPU_Die.jpg (2249x3119, 3.76M)

Hey how's that 10nm working out for intel? Wasn't it supposed to be launched since 2015?

Now the 9900K doesn't matter?

I love how AMD fanboys would say power consumption doesn't matter when the FX series was the newest shit from AMD and now laugh at Intel for having a power guzzling 9900K. Suddenly power consumption matters!

Who gives a flying fuck about Intel CPUs? Literally the only purpose they serve is high refresh rate gaming. Other than that, if you buy Intel you're a retard.

It never mattered since the 8700K exists.

We didn't say the power consumption didn't matter, the thing used 125w and then some, but at least the 8350 could be cooled on air and not be 84C at fucking stock with a Noctua D15

TDP =/= power draw

Also, the FX-8350 never outperformed an i5 or i7 in games. FX apologists are cancer. Second generation FX couldn't even match Bloomfield LMAO.

Attached: 1173028.jpg (1920x1200, 516K)

God these fucking single threaded games suck for benchmarking, but yeah FX would need a 4.5GHz core to match a 2.66 bloomfield single core and smoke it on multi.

It was a strange CPU.

Yeah it was strange. In this specific task, the FX-6200 and FX-6300 beat an i7-3820. Most of the time, FX chips got raped but they would have very specific tasks where they'd actually perform well.

Attached: 1172972.jpg (594x327, 52K)

If things were multi threaded in 2011-2012 like they are now, FX would've taken it all, at 4.5 my FX-8350 has the same cinebench R15 score as a locked i7 4770, and it doesn't even run hot under prime95, but that 2006 Core 2 Duo IPC just didn't cut the mustard and non enthusiasts shouldn't have to play with overclocking in the bios to beat or compete with Intel even though it's pretty easy.

Attached: 4.5GHz 1866 bench.png (376x284, 30K)

not true, Qualcomm currently is the world leader in chip sales

>I have no idea what I'm talking about and have a high school understanding of physics: the post

>List "games" (generic) as the metric for testing
>Lists a Pentium processor with everything else
Who the fuck made this list.

except Intel still BTFOs AMD even after Zen 2 because single core performance is all that matters

weak
lock i7 4790

Attached: file.png (499x237, 15K)

Unironically based post.

based

>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!
>Heat doesn't matter!
>1771w cooler doesn't matter!
>Server space doesn't matter!
>ECC support doesn't matter!
>Free RAID doesn't matter!
>NVMe RAID doesn't matter!
>StoreMI doesn't matter!
>IPC doesn't matter!
>7nm doesn't matter!
>HEDT doesn't matter!
>Stock coolers don't matter!
>Security doesn't matter!
>Games don't ALWAYS matter!
>Enterprise doesn't matter!
>Hyperthreading doesn't matter!
>VMware doesn't matter!
>MySQL doesn't matter!
>Unix doesn't matter!
>Linux doesn't matter!
>Waffer yields don't matter!
>Benchmarks after full patches don't matter!
>Asian markets don't matter!
>Own fabrics don't matter!
>Chipset lithography doesn't matter!
>Cray doesn't matter!
>Cisco doesn't matter!
>HPE doesn't matter!
>AZURE doesn't matter!
>5nm doesn't matter!
>TDP doesn't matter!
>10nm doesn't matter!
>Cache doesn't matter!
>IGPU doesn't matter!
>PCI-Express 4.0 doesn't matter!
>*NEW* Amazon sales don't matter!
>*NEW* Prime95 AVX doesn't matter!
>*NEW* Custom Foundry Business doesn't matter!

Ay there we go.

>$300+CPU beating a $160 CPU at the time

Enjoy your *known* Spectre flaw. I have a ryzen witch ECC memory, as it slows down any attacks. I do value my privacy, crypto, etc.
Intel is proven to be hackeable, they can decrypt any hard drive crypto, any securities that you have.
And its known, and you cant do anything about it. Even a javascript cant hack you. Wallets not safe. Fundus not safe.

I have a 1600X you moron.

Nice to know! You made the right choice. Dont be angry mate.

It's a good workstation CPU but its gaming performance is meh. I'm going to be upgrading if Zen 2 delivers.

Mee too. ;)

>FX-8350 #7 in us
Wut

Normies didn't believe when I suggested Athlon64 instead of Preshott housefyre, even when Preshott reached more than 90°C on load.
VIA/SiS chipset was to blame for not doing proper power management in Athlon/AthlonXP era.

>less marketshare = less demand
>less demand = lower price

Attached: 1540813646083.png (554x400, 305K)

>1440p ultra cpu benchmark

Attached: 4L_9xdbmsG6.jpg (211x310, 32K)

Is 2700X with the RTX 2060 a reasonable combination? What mobo to go with that?

I guess I should actually be asking in the questions thread.

>slower
what benchmarks? Intel literally rekts amd on every games

reason why i stay away from amd because it feels like a beta testing shit that's full of bugs and stutters.

>oh no, realistic benchmarks that aren't 800x600 low settings because its 2003 and the Pentium 4 is 6 million hz

The big bang didn't even happen.

Gotta love that pajeet logic
>1440p doesn't matter, everyone's still at 1080p
>what do you mean 60fps is enough, it's 2019, everything sub 144hz is shit

> doesn't know the meaning of the word "could"
>unironically being this triggered

Attached: images (41).jpg (197x239, 5K)

You're retarded.

But that's what I call the event of my penis entering your mother and/or sister

This, realistic benchmarks are very anti-semetic. All games should be benchmarked at 480x270 res at most.

If you have a high refresh rate monitor, don't get a Ryzen. If you have a 60Hz monitor, then yes that is a fine combo. Although a 2600 would be just as good as the 2700X for gaming.

Get the 2700 instead (like $220 on amazon) and spend the left over money on faster RAM. 3200 CL14 RAM is optimal for IF on ryzen.

dumbfuck, see

You're honestly a fucking retard. Look at Fanboys hate facts.

There is literally no proof. That's why it's called a fucking theory, idiot.

Please tell me this is a shitpost and you're not serious. This has to be a shitpost.

Attached: 16e.jpg (903x960, 52K)

see
>"b-b-buh I still get 5 more fps in mai bibeo gay using the same RAM, all I had to do was buy a $300+ Z motherboard a $200+ tripple fan AIO!!!"

Christ, you inteltards are the worst.

Attached: Comb25032019103500.jpg (740x2628, 307K)

>$300+ motherboard
You don't need a $300 motherboard for an Intel system
>$200+ triple fan AIO
You don't need a $200 CPU cooler for an 8600K or 8700K. You're just making stuff up.
>inteltard
Yeah, I'm such an Inteltard that I have an AMD CPU.

Attached: Screenshot (2003).png (2560x1440, 1.71M)

YES YOU DO if you want 4.7-5.1 GHz that is else the power draw will climb to 250W+ which most motherboards can't handle.

You don't need to overclock to 5GHz to get good gaming performance on a Coffee Lake CPU. 4.5GHz is sufficient. Also, reminder that the difference between Ryzen is not "only 4 fps". Also another reminder that the 9700K beats the 2700X by 30 fps even when it has worse RAM timings. Cope, subhuman AMDrone.