OH NO NO NO!

AMD gimped their PBO to limit OC to +200Mhz, creating another artificial segmentation.
Guess AMDrones are now gonna have to buy a more expensive AMD chip if they want more performance.
And you said Intcel was bad...

Attached: DoA.png (598x445, 79K)

Clock speeds don't really matter anyway.
More cores are what's important, and memory speed has more of an impact than CPU speed anyway.

Should I even be surprised that's not what the tweet is saying at all? Drink bleach.

Cope.
You can watch AMD's last PBO presentation to really cry, AMDrone

/thread

But this is wrong fucktard, my 4.6ghz i5 3570k benchmarks nearly the same as new 4 core CPUs ENTIRELY because the clock rate. When it's at the stock 3.8ghz it's massively slower.

>serial algorithms that aren't memory bound don't matter!

>amd auto overclock software only boosts 200mhz over stock max frequency

>intel auto overclock software costs $20 extra


Hmmm.

Maybe we should just go back to overclocking manually instead? Aint nothing stopping us from that.

Benchmarks don't matter, real world performance does.

Amdahl's law

wait Jow Forums is like gizmodo now holy shit!

good. AMD got some ceiling left on desktop.

Real world performance is as big as 30fps in some games.

>i-i can't read!!!
retard

Shut up bitch.

>>intel auto overclock software costs $20 extra
No, it's free.

The WARRANTY is $20.

>200 MHz auto-OC
>you can still manually OC and even use the two in conjunction
why is every Intel consumer such a retard?

Attached: 1507158917074.png (645x729, 11K)

yes, every single piece of software that I use needs a clean boot and never use more then one thing at a time

in the real world, I have chrome open, I also have 16 other peices of software idleing, I have 24 things that are minimized down to the taskmenu, and I have 186 processes.

sure parallel processing may have an upper limit, but I have 1 more doing shit in one program and 2 other cores doing something elsewhere and I have another 4 cores that come in to help with video processing.

more cores are more important once you hit a single thread threshold that doesnt hold you back, and we hit that single thread on stock 1700, everything since has just been better and better

OP has zero (0) reading comprehension

are you ok retard?

12 cores * 4.6GHz = 55.2GHz
8 cores * 5GHz = 40GHz

3900X > 9900k

cow2beef.exe.jpg

how's that -50C chiller going for you

>in the real world, I have chrome open, I also have 16 other peices of software idleing, I have 24 things that are minimized down to the taskmenu, and I have 186 processes.
So all idling then. None of those are even using the CPU aside from making sleep system calls

>sure parallel processing may have an upper limit, but I have 1 more doing shit in one program and 2 other cores doing something elsewhere and I have another 4 cores that come in to help with video processing.
Adding another six isn't going to help you then

>and we hit that single thread on stock 1700
Speak for yourself

>speed doesn't matter
I thought this was the Incels' argument...

>incels so afraid of zen 2 they lose basic reading comprehension

Damn right, AMD bro
Now post the "benchmark" showing the 3600 beating the 9900k in single core performance to prove our superior intellect

Here.

Attached: incel_btfo.png (636x70, 8K)

>clock speed doesn't matter!
god damn amd drones are pathetic lmfao!!!

>games
>"""real world""" performance

this actually made me laugh
very nice

That's actually the case for perfectly parallel workloads tho

>It's free
>Intel
>Free

Attached: d467-intelupgrade.jpg (500x327, 46K)

Man Intel must be running on fuel vapour sending pajeets that can't even speak English. That's not what the tweet says.