RIP Intel

>1080p
>Intel barely even beating ryzen
>people still cant see Intel is dead

>completely outdated fab process / architecture is still able to be competitive in benchmarks with a brand new architecture

No matter who wins, at the end it'll still be impressive too see how long Intel managed to keep up a fight with this almost ancient 14nm process.

>1800x within a couple percent of the 6900K, beating the 5960X
>for half the price
>1920x and 1950x causing every single 6950X owner to commit suicide, forcing Intel to radically shift their HEDT plans from releasing 12 core HCC dies to 18 core XCC dies
>not even close to top end intel
A mainstream 7700K is not top end, if that's what you're thinking.

b-but muh 15FPS!!!

Attached: 1541547130315.png (448x538, 75K)

> 1080p
Stopped reading there.

>discount
>still over $2k for 24 cores

Attached: epyc suicide.png (1070x601, 816K)

Of course old ass 14nm housefire compete when clocked super high, AMD FX cpus are faster than a haswell when running at 5ghz but the power consumption is ridiculous.

>at the end it'll still be impressive too see how long Intel managed to keep up a fight with this almost ancient 14nm process.
They have been pulling everything they can to prop 14nm up, and there isn't much more they an pull out of 14nm considering they are past the point of actually improving the arch
Intel went back to a soldered IHS not because of consumer demand but because they couldn't get the clocks they wanted without overheating and even then a 5Ghz 9900k still has issues

What if I have a 8700k?

>muh fps
>1080p
>muh winter heater unit

Attached: intel suicide.png (992x1043, 614K)

What, did you want 720p? Lower resolution makes things more CPU-bound.

Which doesn't matter anyway because people play on higher res when you're an enthusiast.
The pleb won't pay for a fucking 9900k for 10 frames at 1080p.
Its not about stressing the CPU here, it's about common sense.

midrange.

>10% better single core performance matters when multicore performance and power efficiency is better on AMD
Enjoy getting 5 more frames at the cost of additional 150W TDP.

Well yeah, the point of that chart is to show how even when CPU-bound, Ryzen is not substantially worse than Intel's parts. Realistically I agree, that never matters anyways.

>s-shut up goy, you need 244 fps not 170 in Apex Legends to win!
>you wouldn't want to lose, would you goy?

Point is, buy Intel and go fuck yourselves.

Attached: NUT.jpg (311x340, 183K)

tfw amd is using AI at kernel level to distribute the workload single threaded sequential programs to all cores big jew benis

x and 1950x causing every single 6950X
Those are not top end.
I'm talking quad Xeon Platinums.

>inb4 8s xeons
kys sboy

>Point is, buy Intel
If they're not paying you shills, it's even sadder.

your sarcasm meter is broken lad

You're lying.
Zen 1 is superior.
Zen 2 will turbo clock to 5Ghz on all cores.
Navi will be 1080 Ti performance for $250

"They" said Zen v1 would be just slightly slower than Intel per-core, but have double the number of cores and cost way less.
"They" were right.

>Navi will be 1080 Ti performance for $250

I deeply doubt this, my melanin rich associate, but it would be glouriace if that were the case.

So, what you're saying is that an i5 8400 is better than an i7 7820X?

>2700X 4.2 Ghz
>152
3.6 pts per 100 mhz
>4.1 Ghz
>147
3.58 pts per 100 mhz

3% improvement for 2% clock speed increase.

>8700K @ 5.2 Ghz
>169
3.25 pts/100 mhz

>Theoretical Ryzen 4.7 Ghz @ only 1% improvement
>3.6 pts x 4.7 Ghz
>169

>Ryzen @ 5 Ghz
>180

Ryzen will rape Intel if no other bottlenecks are present.

Just wait you'll see

Well if zen2 is any good I can probably replace this 8400 I bought for 80 bucks with a 9700k for cheap

could b cool

Not to mention the IPC increases
Intel is finished

Reminder that unless 3D silicon stacking is ready by July, there is no way Zen will run at anywhere near 5 Ghz. Expect 4.X which will be perfectly fine.

Reminder not to listen to clueless retards from /v/ who pull "facts" from their ass.

3D silicon stacking is for low-power stuff which is completely irrelevant here.

>intel dropping prices

10nm from intel is more likely

This. I'd rather listen to a pajeet NEET from youtube saying zen 2 will launch at CES

That's not a fair comparison! The 2700x ships with an adequate cooler, so you can't run it at 5 GHz. The 9900k doesn't come with a cooler, so you can assume it'll be running at 5 GHz all the time!

Are we posting facebook screencaps now? That's one step lower than posting adoredtv's videos. Cmon now.

Lmao ask your wife's boyfriend if he approves of your decision

Attached: blacked.png (1228x1502, 944K)

Brian is gone tho

Your doubts are very reasonable, my chromosome enriched companion, but a gtx 1080 competitor for 300$ should be in the realm of possibility.

>Ryzen will rape Intel if no other bottlenecks are present.
Nice, at the end you admit your entire point is mostly useless. Zen is a mcm architecture, inter-core communication latency is an additional bottleneck. That can't be fixed. Zen2 will not completely rape intel, just decently outperform it (for the most part).

Attached: Untitled.png (688x689, 14K)

I fuckin love trannies

Attached: 149999472193.jpg (600x800, 65K)

No, 3D silicon stacking is for anything silicon. I saw it on youtube.

and this is all I want. I just want Ryzen baseline to outperform intel so there's little bottleneck.

Attached: funger.gif (189x200, 633K)

It won't outperform it all the time. Everything latency depended (like gayming) intel will still win no problem. It's just not a gayming architecture.

>AMD performing within 20% of Intel in the muh gaming department which is all they have left
>Not a gaming architecture