Let's get real. Intel makes better gaming CPUs

Oh the cope...............

Attached: 1562636197585.png (1920x1080, 731K)

...

>IT'S NOT AMD. FUCK THAT SHIT

sounds about right for a drone

>muh childrens gaymans
please shill fuck off

dont forget to sage, everyone

based 7700k

Attached: 1551867439199.png (396x408, 165K)

It won't though because of heat restraints on a lower node. 9900k is already a furnace. Intel is fucked lol. Same gaming perf, gets obliterated in everything else for less money and more threads. No brainer to go AMD. Plus you don't support the whole locked CPUs locked mobos security vulnerability overpriced monopoly bullshit

>CPU metrics don't matter!!!

Attached: 1558038977600s.jpg (140x250, 4K)

its funny i camet to Jow Forums to post this once i realized the same thing.
Its very likely i buy a 3900x by end of year but it really speaks loads of archicture efficiency and it would be amazing if Intel brought their current technolgoy to 7nm.

>Not to mention that a die shrink by itself will not magically increase performance
except it does, its not just well known and common sense, its been shown time and time again both in cpus and gpus.

Dude if you buy the 9900k right now you're a fucking IDIOT.

If you are able to find it for $150 for some local nigger, go for it, but anything more than that you must kill yourself.

It's an exciting time finally in the CPU world after 10 years of stagnation. Stop feeding the Jew. Or support AMD with their better products so we can balance out this garbage industry for a while.

Sorry, I like my computers to work.

Never looked back, With 4000mhz ram it's a beast single and multi core. Anything AMD has core for core can't touch it.

Attached: R20.jpg (1644x795, 376K)

I have a 9980XE and I still want to buy the next gen Threadripper because the IPC will be much better this gen.

Kys nigger

Enjoy your high latency firehouse.

New AMD has a base of 3733MHz for RAM and it easily hits 4333MHz.

>
>core for core
lel this mental damage control.

>except it does, its not just well known and common sense, its been shown time and time again both in cpus and gpus.
Yeah you can just add more shaders to a GPU and make it faster. Much harder to do that with a CPU. The performance increase mostly comes from higher clock rates and improved architecture. And the 9900k is already overclocked to the absolute maximum.

Where's that 3800x R20 score at? Oh that's right it can't compete.

Just ran this, AMD can't compete.

Attached: uhlhl.jpg (867x823, 151K)

I didn't expect it to live up to the hype, but at the same time I didn't think it would be this fucking bad. Other than LinusShillTips, every tech reviewer is taking a shit on it. At least the comments sections are hilarious.

Attached: 1562636478852.png (500x530, 39K)

What about all these vulnerabilities mitigations?

Look at reviews. The 3800x slaps 9900k around like a babby especially in multicore. Single core it either beats it or matches it.

You have to remember that the 9900k is where intel consumer CPUs stop evolving because it's running to its max and is soldered. It's a 5.0Ghz boost fire house while AMD still has room for OCing.

Intel is finished unless they pump out next gen 10nm processors with at least 12-16 cores.

Who gives a FUCK.

>AMD still has room for OC'ing

Fuckin' kek

but there's zero sense to buy a 9th gen right now, with Comet Lake looming. Think about it, AMD has forced Intel's hand to provide HT to every processor in the stack, meaning the i3's are now 4/8 , i5's are now 6/12 and i7's are 8/16 and 10/20 i9's.

If you're an idiot, running on e-peen, you'd stupidly buy a 9600K, not knowing that a 10600K which has HT and possibly a better platform is coming.

Yeah within the 95w threshold, Properly tuned 3800x get's bitch slapped hard.

The important thing is that there is good competition in the market, this is good for people buying either brand. What is up with these immature threads? You choose a product and use it, easy.

Enjoy your fucking science experiment aka LN2.

Who gives a fuck about that kind of cooling except some youtube tech jesus?

That shit's unrealistic homie.

pretty much this. I wanted the 3000 series to BTFO Intel at gaming for them to give me stress-free/ OC-free 9900K performance with Sunny Cove CPU's releasing earlier.

Now we're stuck with Comet Lake and possibly a refresh after Coffee Lake.

So, an ES CPU wouldn't have any issues at all? No BIOS version crap or whatever juju to make it work?

NH-D15 with an undervolt to 1.32 It never exceeds 82c running prime so tell me another one.

Attached: 7565.jpg (861x577, 183K)

You may want to read up on that because i'm not sure, I just know the silicon is identical.

>Running a CPU consistently at 82c

lmfao

You're kidding right? Running battlefield it doesn't exceed 54c so get fucked.

Attached: 2700x burning.jpg (1663x625, 347K)

Your CPU doesnt matter above 1440p, stupid nigger.

You don't know what you're doing and you should move to consoles.

>Usinng Prime95 as a metric

ahahahaha

try running the heat function you will get ASS FUCKED

Enjoy your dead CPU in a few weeks.

That's why I'm asking. I'm sure someone in this thread knows anything about using ES processors.

Unless your pissing competition between Intel and AMD is more entertaining.

Lol, The cope.

Attached: mp,550x550,gloss,ffffff,t.3u5.jpg (528x550, 45K)

Personally i think you'll be fine, There are plenty of people using xeon ES samples without problems.

Oh i'd love to see the temps from a 3800x with a 4.4ghz all core run prime smallest. Since they supposedly fixed AVX instructions you can have a housefire to.

>it really speaks loads of archicture efficiency
No it doesn't, intel's 14nm++ is actually barely bigger than TSMC's 7nm. "14nm" and "7nm" are just marketing terms, not actual transistor sizes. If Intel brought their arch to TSMC'S 7nm there would most likely be no difference in performance. Or it might even be worse since TSMC's 7nm doesn't clock as high as Intel's 14nm++. And neither does Intel's 10nm by the way, cannon lake got cancelled because they failed to get it over 4.1 ghz.
Usually when you move to a new process you're going to have to sacrifice some clock speed until the process matures. The reason why zen 2 is such a big deal is that they pulled off a 15% IPC gain, moved to a more efficient process AND kept clocks more or less the same. So basically you get a free 15% performance uplift, lower consumption and better thermals. With Intel's 10nm processors you'll get the last two but you'd be lucky to see any sort of performance improvement at all.

Just run at stock man, why the fuck do you need to squeeze out 2-5% of performance, shortening the lifespan of your CPU and making your moms bedroom hotter?

It's fucking obvious you n00b, why play quake at 423fps when I can be playing at 426fps?

>Playing a 15 year old game

Yeah ok

People overlook the fact that it took AMD 3 generations and a reduction to 7nm, with high speed memory to get ~on-par or better than Intel CPU's (raw hardware, not software optimizations).

Who knows how much longer AMD can optimize their current architecture. Are we seeing hurdles already, with CPU's being ~4.2-4.4Ghz at best? Thermals are a bit of a concern as well, at least on the 3900X.

The race is on.

What games do you play? Tomb raider so you can see girls boobs bouncing? Lol!

New games are dogshit anyways. All I play these days are CS:Source, CS:GO (sometimes) and WarCraft 3.

Fucking gamers. Grow up.

Attached: Incel Inside 4.png (1280x720, 965K)

The Witcher 3
Fallout 4 with a bunch of mods
Hitman
Doom 2017
Resident Evil 2
DMC5

>gaming

what if game developers start to write games that use more cores?

>If Intel releases a 10nm or 7nm CPU, it will completely BTFO AMD for another 10 years.
There's usually a clock problem on new nodes. For example Haswell boosted to 4.5GHz and could be overclocked even more without problems. When they switched to 14nm, Broadwell could barely do 4.2GHz. They've improved the process and arch afterwards, but without IPC gains you can get even less performance (but better power efficiency).
Their whole Tick-Tock thing is basically "Power efficiency" "Performance".

What FAN rpm and work loads? I have a 9700k at 1.265v for 4.7ghz (avx stable) and it hits 85C during handbrake/benchmarks. Gaming is 60-65C. Noctus d15 too, but at 850RPM

I mapped it to go full load at 74c, Don't know why you're hitting 85c at 4.7 and such a low voltage, Maybe your case doesn't have enough cooling?

>what if game developers start to write games that use more cores?
Why should they?
They have their target platforms, which are usually consoles and just go with 30/60fps target for them (which even shit Bulldozer can pull).
On PC they have to cover as much of the userbase as possible and provide them with playable framerate
store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam
53% of users are 4 core. 27.7% are 2 cores.
The people that care about 150fps are a minority really. What devs care about is 60fps for people with those 4 cores. Time spent on everything else is a luxury.

>raw hardware, not software optimizations
What about Intel's compiler then?
>Who knows how much longer AMD can optimize their current architecture
The architecture is better than Intel's at this point, the only thing holding it back is the process. TSMC's 7nm isn't optimised for high clocks which is why the zen 2 processors struggle to hit even 4.4 ghz while Intel can go up to 5 ghz with relative ease. If and when the process matures enough to reach 5 ghz AMD will have a considerable lead since they're ahead in IPC and efficiency.

Attached: Screenshot_20190709-155923_Samsung Internet.jpg (1016x2118, 632K)

First gen Ryzen had a clock limit of 4.3Ghz.
Third gen Ryzen STILL has a 4.3Ghz clock limit.

It blows my mind how retards keep buying the same rebranded shit with ZERO improvements.

Define R4 with 2 intake, 1 exhaust at about same rpm, 850

>if

I have triple intake with triple exhaust, might be a heat exhaust problem.

0/10 bait

>smaller transistors means better performance

Absolute state of this retarted board.

Are you enjoying your 3 microsecond 4.6Ghz boost? Hope you do, because that's the most you will ever see it.

they do not have anything on the roadmap yet that can beat ryzen 3

Maybe, but it's the same temps even with just 1 intake. 2nd intake is on the bottom for the GPU.
Maybe I'll try it without the side panel one time.

It's all most people care about, who gives a fuck that you can open more excel tabs pajeet.

Yeah take the side panel off and put a desk fan to it. If your temps are better then you have a insufficient exhaust problem.

>muh minimum target hardware.
how's arguing for targetting old hardware relevant for a thread about which cutting edge CPU has better performance?

Nice outlier

Attached: world war z pozzed again.jpg (1019x569, 59K)

>synthetic benchmarks are the ONLY thing that matters anymore because they're bribed to favor Intel
lmao you make a lot of money at your job using geekbench software, huh, user?

Does it really matter how they got there? AMD is quickly going to eclipse Intel at this rate. Process superiority is just as valid as other forms of superiority.

Consider the fact their process names don't quite match up. AMD's 7nm is essentially Intel's 10nm in terms of feature size. AMD isn't enjoying as much of an advantage as the naming implies. While we like to joke about about Intel just spinning its wheels and not ramping up 10nm to full production as planned for years now, the maturation of their 14nm is still a real factor.

It can't be denied that the 9900k is a good CHIP, but comparatively we can't call it a great one, it being a one trick pony of slightly edging out in some gaming titles.

Considering its price it's we can't call it the better PROUCT either as value is something you can't ignore when you're talking about something sell. On its qualities we also know Intel gets their ass handed in other workloads.

As a long time Intel user I'm looking forward to returning to 'team red' in September.

>literally claiming a node shrink should last 10 years
Is this what Intel have reduced themselves to? Paying shills to convince others node shrinks aren't required?

Attached: 1b77pc4c2cl21.jpg (812x1024, 61K)

Attached: CPU-Z.jpg (396x405, 62K)

>use HWinfo
>which coincidentally doesn't show temperatures

Attached: 1517524708805.jpg (669x696, 88K)

All 9900Ks run at 9627 degrees celcius

Bros...

Attached: unknown.png (1341x650, 800K)

As someone who doesn't give a flying fuck about either Intel or AMD and wants to buy a new machine next month I don't even know what to buy anymore. There are both Intel and AMD shills in here saying their CPU would be better and god knows how many reviews are biased

I wanna see 3900x on there too. 3600 matching the 9900k plus 3900X crushing it by 10% is hilarious

Then just choose whichever is cheaper.

*It seems like it would be retarded to buy an Intel CPU but apparently mainboards are expensive and buggy? Can anyone elaborate?

I hate that box. Trashed.

don't listen to Jow Forums, including this post.

You're probably right. I'll just flip a fucking coin or something.

>if
so it's settled then

source?

dude trust me

>If™

ok

Why should I buy a 3700x over a 9700k?

Been an Intel fan this past decade but they really jumped the shark in performance per price ratio
One of these i9 chips cost more than my entire AMD setup

Why should I buy a 9700k over a 3700x?

Why doesn't Intel just fuck over AMD by taking up TSMC space?

Intel 7nm would wipe the floor with whatever AMD coughs up