Are there any AMD cpus similar in performance to i9 9900k?

>Two thirths

Threadripper 1920X, it's about the same price and it's faster in all-core and it's got more PCIe lanes. It doesn't have the same single-core performance so it really depends on your use-case.

That's a pretty meaningless comparison. The i9-9900k is at a price-point where it doesn't compete with the 2700X, it competes with Threadripper's. Put differently, if you compare a $500 CPU with a $300 CPU then the one at $500 better perform a whole lot better (which kind of makes the i9-9900k a joke since it's not really much faster than the 2700X).

>less is better
Yeah. Whatever helps you to sleep well, dumb AMDrone.

>1920X
how could it possibly NOT be faster if it has 4 more cores?

>1920X
>12 [email protected]

why doesn't amd make a cpu with 3500 cores where each runs at 1mhz

For gaming?.....Nothing can touch a 9900K. Anything AMD makes 8 core wise they're still way behind. But hey, You can save your shekels and get something sub par.

Attached: 1555527390367.png (969x936, 82K)

Attached: Untitled.jpg (1120x578, 146K)

>how could it possibly NOT be faster
That's easy: It's single-core performance is worse. As I wrote, it really depends on your use-case.

If you're rendering in blender or encoding video or compiling or similar your load's on all cores and all-core performance is all that matters. The ThreadRipper's crushes the i9-9900k at a slightly lower price (which is offset by a higher motherboard cost, so they are basically the same price - here, anyway).

If your use-case is software like most of what Adobe makes then that's a different story. You'll be looking at one or at best two cores utilized when you do a whole range of things and the ThreadRipper will be slower than the i9-9900k.

Think about it: what's Intel Xeon's and AMDs EPIC for? If your use-case is better served by 20 cores at 1 GHz than 2 cores at 5 GHz then you should probably get the 1 GHz chip. Again, it all depends on your use-case.

And when it comes to ... lots of cores: There's some interesting ARM chips available with insane core-counts. Not very fast cores, not 1mhz but they are very slow.. for some that's ideal.

All boils down to is core speed and actual support, Unfortunately AMD has neither.

Attached: csgo.jpg (1280x720, 277K)

Multi threaded work AKA rendering compiling multi threaded shit, AMD is the best bang for your buck. Otherwise if gaming is your main function, An 8700K or 9700K would be your best bet. Shame me all you want but i got the best of both worlds if you know what you're doing when overclocking, Undervolting and memory tweaks.

Attached: Untitled.jpg (1006x590, 211K)

GPU usage differs
>let's ignore that

Oh you mean zen can't spit out data fast enough for the GPU to read it? Check.

The latency is real........

retard

Attached: 2ldenj.jpg (640x845, 108K)

ur dumb af

Hahahaha

>28mm vs 35mm pic

(you)

How does Intel keep leading in gaming performance? Is it because of those security holes that keep popping up once in a while?
And does it really matter if you play on 1440p144 or above? It seems the gap only noticeable at 1080p.

i cant read in election tampering, whats it say?

What makes you think ryzen can consistently stay above 144fps in present day games?

Wait a month or two. June should produce interesting results.

You can't read in english?

>moar wats iz gud
>cumpuder not fasd widout bern

It said amd got btfo.

Worded that wrong, I meant at 1440p or above (4k), and 144fps or less. I also don't think Ryzen can reliably push 144fps on newer games.

Define "performance".
>inb4 frames per second in muh "AAA" games or proprietary Windows applications

Attached: 1553326190072.jpg (720x540, 54K)

you sound like one of those tards that tries to claim that IQ means nothing

Judging CPUs by how well proprietary video games work on them is kind of like measuring IQ by how well a person remembers corporate logos and fast food joint menus.