AMD cheap medicore chips are literally better than my 8700k and literally half the cost

What you're saying makes sense, but it is highly anti-semetic so pls delete goy

>who cares about the latency

what a mong

>30ms doesn't matter goy
>But 9ns surely does
Mhm

Latency is more relevant with higher performance, but AMD can still brute force their way into performing better than Intel even with the core to core latency constraints. DDR memory has been getting exponentially laggier with each iteration, but the raw performance gets slightly better each time.

>AMD can still brute force their way into performing better than Intel

nah

Attached: 1561990437318.jpg (718x379, 102K)

Still no real reviews, and AMD being good is good for everyone because it will force Intel to stop being so Jewish

>Muh core to core latency
Didn't intcelturds always say that applications only use one core? Why are they suddenly so hyped up about core to core latency. Surely this couldn't be because they don't understand wtf they're talking about and are only spewing buzzwords, right?

RAM latency!=input latency. You can have lower/same input latency despite having bigger RAM latency. It's physically impossible for an organic being to percieve RAM latency.

>Didn't intcelturds always say that applications only use one core?

That's not what we said. What we said is that there's no point adding more cores if your design is not ready for it yet because all it will do is add more latency and shit up your performance in real time applications and AMD keeps proving us right year after year.

>latency doesn't add latency

Poo intellectuals everyone

Guess we shouldn't have caches then, retard.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH
*WHEEZ*
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Attached: 1561990881198.png (718x379, 84K)

Attached: 1561849673514.jpg (719x568, 152K)

I can cherrypick too

Attached: AMD-Ryzen-5-3600-X570-Juegos-4.jpg (718x379, 133K)

>real time applications
I don't think you quite understand what "real time" means.

Your 8 MB cache isn't going to help you when most games take up 2 GB bruh. I don't even know you bring up such a dumbass argument.

>cherrypicks
>AMD still loses to Intel

bruh

>he thinks something doesn't benefit from cache if it doesn't fit inside it
Are you pretending to be retarded?

>game uses 8 GB of RAM
>m-muh 8 MB cache!!!

bruh

>Lowest end Ryzen Vs highest end kiketel
>literally 2fps difference
>Losing
Lmao

How does it feel being a negative iq subhuman and zero self awareness?

>ONE NUMBER BIG ONE NUMBER SMALL
8 IQ post.

Game is most likely GPU bottlenecked. The Far Cry benchmark is far more relevant in showing the true difference in CPU performance.

>100% higher price
>for 1% more frames
do intbeciles really find this to be defensible?

>Look guis! I posted it again!

8 MB of cache isn't going to do shit in real-time rendering (gaming) because the game cannot predict what it is that you're going to do next.

You need low latency, which Ryzen doesn't have which explains why it's unsuitable for gaming and adding more cores only adds to this problem because it makes a shitty architecture even shittier by adding complexity and lag.

I'm sorry.

You need at least 50000ns of lag to be noticeable on the control.

0 IQ post. RAM is read in pages. With bigger cache you need less RAM accesses even if you access it sequentially.

>6C Ryzen CPU running 800MHz slower than 8C Intel but still nipping at its heels in gaming
You're going to mindbreak when actual reviews come out.

>game takes up 8 GB
>thinks his 8 MB cache is going to do shit

And literally explained you how. Keep on nigging.

the same Brazilian cherrypicked fake graphics in every thread... now tell us that ryzen 2 can't reach 5ghz please

Attached: c5cc19da03a520cf.jpg (640x1280, 199K)

>bro trust me, those 8 GB of ram are magically stored in the 8 MB of cache

>the entire game is loaded on cache to execute it so you either need 10 gb cache to keep it loaded, or 0 bytes because more than that only adds latency for some reason

>the entire game is loaded on cache

That's pretty much what you're saying.

>strawman
>reading comprehension

Look bro I'm really sorry. For a few weeks I was almost expecting Zen 2 to be a threat to Intel. I don't think any of us were expecting it to be such utter shit.

>bro trust me, the CPU will have to execute the whole 8GB of RAM instead of just being stuck in tiny loops the whole time

>bro just play your game in tiny loops and you won't have any issues

>c-cache doesn't matter!

You were expecting the "core i5" from AMD to beat a core i9?

>latency adds latency
But why would CCXs communicate with each other every time? It should only do so when it needs to, otherwise ryzen has very fast core to core communication.

or maybe the wetback benchmark is flawed and far cry 5 isn't a realistic bench.

Attached: FC5.png (1314x1192, 51K)

I'll take utter shit that shits on 9900k in most tasks for $200 any day.

shit at what?

>an actual game that people buy isn't a realistic bench

k

>Tech illiterate street shitting shill doesn't even understand how Ram is different from Rom, let alone how ram works or how caches work
Imagine my surprise

Haha fucking Pajeet probably stores his games on RAM whilst us superior AMD bros have it all on cache.

Every wrote a program at fucking all?

Why are you a retard? Learn how computers work you fucking monkey.

Seeth harder third worlder

Attached: 1507818309681.jpg (700x5000, 1.83M)

I am learning. For example, today I learned that you didn't need RAM because you could just use cache.

Well, you are a person that believes slower RAM add input lag.
That beats even the retards on /v/ that still believe in bits.

Today you learned that you are a fucking moron.

oh, you're back

Nah, these faggots never learn shit

Take your meds, schizo

>imagine being THIS invested in shitting on AMDrones