Just pay $140 more user...

Just pay $140 more user, you get an extra 7% performance increase and our ultra secure hyperthreading! Don't you want more TDP for higher clocks?

Attached: Screenshot_2019-07-10_09-14-45.png (1097x507, 149K)

Intel has a higher score in security flaws too

$140 + Cooler

>He still can't afford a 9900K
Just stick with AMD if you're poor and stop complaining

That couldn't POSSIBLY be because the vast majority of people have intel? And the vast majority of enterprise systems, run intel.

So if YOU'RE an attack, trying to steal information, or break into a system, do you research hardware vulnerabilities for intel, or AMD?

Obviously intel. That's where most of your potential targets are.

If AMD takes the lead in the enterprise space (where all the fucking money is), then we'll probably see a lot more effort into finding AMD specific flaws and vulnerabilities.

As it stands currently, Intel is still the king in that space (though AMD is making big strides lately, it still isn't near intel market share)

Or you can just get a cheaper 9700k or 8700k and still have better performance than the 3700x

>he's proud he gave his moneys away for nothing
I bet you also bought gamer girl bath water

Yeah, 9700k is actually looking like a decent CPU at the moment, for high refresh rate gaming anyway where AMD has kinda shit 99th percentile and 95th percentile FPS.

Even in the cases where AMD has a higher average FPS, the 1% lows are much lower than intel in MOST cases.

No, it's because Intel used the same low level instructions as on Sandy Bridge.

Intel is a pathetic company that uses weak effort to sell their subpar products. AMD has killed them.

>the 1% lows are much lower than intel in MOST cases
Not for 9700k, stop lying.

jesus, imagine being so fucking retarded you actually believed this.

>7%

Who even comes up with this shit...

Attached: 1562636339928.jpg (1920x1080, 409K)

Yes for 9700k
>9700k
>167fps avg
>120fps 95th %tile
>84fps 99th %tile

>3700x
>150fps avg
>~100fps 95th %tile
>69fps 99th %tile

i never see intel users shill as hard as r/amd desu. what a sad existence

Attached: 635CCBA1-BF2F-456A-988C-DDAA664B67A2.png (728x800, 573K)

It's not even shilling, it's coping

Nice cherrypicking. What's next, far cry? Gta5?

>what's next, MORE games that AMD gets btfo in??

Yeah, cause that's literally most games.

Especially older games that LOVE clockspeed and single core performance.

>But NEW games in 2021+ will love Zen2
okay kid

I don't know, let's pick a game at random

Attached: 1562635858837.png (1920x1080, 731K)

You say it as if it's anything wrong with it

>most games
>most
It's literally 5-6 games

It wasn't random though

...you can't be this retarded.

Do you think older games are MAGICALLY gonna work well with a 16 thread 3700x?

Sorry, but MOST games in EXISTENCE will work better on intel, just due to the high single core performance.

Not everyone is playing AAA garbage.

Further, even among new AAA games, the MAJORITY favor intel, ESPECIALLY for 1% low fps.

Yeah, all the popular games

Attached: 1562564161595.jpg (2560x1440, 237K)

All right this one is random I swear

Attached: 1562639331913.jpg (1920x1080, 437K)

>Not everyone is playing AAA garbage.
Except it matters only for aaa garbage.

not when talking about 144hz gaming.

1440p 144hz is still difficult to hit on some older games without a decent CPU.


Doubly so for 240hz 1080p

why do they list the computer case in the specs of that benchmark? like the nzxt makes a fucking difference?

>Last 30 Days 2,942.5 -169.6 -5.45% 5,218
Oh, yes, project cars 2 and deadmintide sure is popular.

AMDtards want to act like it's close, but once overclocking gets brought in they get BTFO

Attached: 1562518459781.png (1920x1080, 252K)

its to tell you that it isn't sitting on an open test bench with no airflow.

>now it's a different video becase there is nothing left to cherrypick in HWU's test
Are you even trying?

Ok, how about Warhammer 2?

Attached: 1562513616652.png (1000x562, 305K)

What older non-aaa game can't run at 144hz on ryzen, but can on 9700k?

Ok this time I didn't cherrypick I swear.

Attached: far cry new dawn.jpg (1920x1080, 1.35M)

>3600

->

Eh

Attached: 1562538404073.jpg (615x707, 197K)

Would've been good advice back when 9900k launched.

Now disable farcry

for 240hz 1080p just look at R6

Attached: 2019-07-10 12_43_53.png (2123x1249, 962K)

/thread
Idiot.

But it's aaa garbage?

how is a competitive FPS game from 2015 considered a NEW AAA game?

It's made by a major studio with a huge budget? Next you are goinf to say that bf and is not aaa.

>and
and cod

WHY WON'T ANONS SHIW ME ANY DESTINY 2 BENCHMARKS WITH THE NEW RYZEN CPUS?

My point was older AAA games need an intel CPU, just because they're older doesn't mean AMD works with them now.

because it wont run at all

can someone explain me why does it matter if you get 210 or 150 fps if your monitor wont show as many frames due to refresh rate anyway

Neither is 9900k by that graph.

some people play at 240hz

Also, 1% lows need to be above 144hz for smooth 144hz gaming.

yet still better than a BRAND NEW 3700x/3900x on 7nm

How does that matters if both of them can't run at 240hz?

Yea let's see how well the GAMING KING does against the workstation power house. Oh is that all, 3 fps more? I guess if that's all the king can muster.

Attached: kingrofl.png (1232x506, 685K)

I see, thanks for answer

alweys buy cheapest

The reason he structures his benchmarks like that is because his channel focuses on sffpc. A case can be an enormous difference.

because at least the 9900k is closer?


G-sync and freesync work decently, especially when you're getting CLOSE to the target framerate.

Any drops below 240fps are easier to handle with a 9900k since those drops are far less drastic than the AMD CPUs, which could result in visible stutter, or tearing.

If you have $500 dollar to spend, why wouldnt you just do the obvious thing and buy a 3900x?

Attached: 7zip.png (1451x1975, 640K)

>drastic
>218 vs 228
>drastic
Holy strawman.

Moving from a Ryzen 1700 to a 3400G has been better than I anticipated.

The AI turn time benchmark in Civ VI gave me 15.55 seconds on my 1700, which the 3400G cut down to 10.58 while the iGPU was running a video encoding load (windows game DVR) in the background, which I would assume doesn't let XFR work to its full potential.

How is this possible?
Only with the 9900K the GPU is working fully, but not even a single core is at 100%, for any CPU.
What functions does the game use that requires a 9900K? In what way is the 9900K better for those? Latency between CCX alone? Thread count is not enough since the 2600 has more of them than the 8400.

Because I don't care about 7zip compression time

>3900x
>183fps 1% low

lmfao

>poorfag cope
getting old

And 332 avg. Considering 90% of incel tests in this thread are averages, don't you love them? It's a clearly botched test.

>it's a clearly botched test

No, Ryzen is just so fucking garbage at inter-CCD latency that performance suffers if a game actually tries to use cores from a different CCD.

Just wait until you try to make a 500 gb zip of your porn.. Disk encryption and decryption is also twice as fast on the 3900x. But I'm sure you aint got nothing to hide user.

Attached: 2013%2F06%2F18%2F89%2FNSASurveill.e70b7.jpg%2F950x534__filters%3Aquality%2880%29.jpg (950x534, 91K)

Then why is 9900k worse than 9700k?

>all the AMD cope ITT

...lmao is child porn such a blase affair that you assume EVERYONE has a collection?

Jesus, get help

Because hyper threading can sometimes cause more harm than good in poorly optimized implementations.

So in intel's case it's a poor implementation, while it's ryzen's fault at the same time?

>p-p-people who prefer their 500 dollar cpu not be slow as shit are PEDOPHILES

9700k and 9900k are identical besides hyper threading

>9700k
>240fps 1% low

>9900k
>228fps 1% low

3700x and 3900x are similar, the 3700x has a single core chiplet, the 3900x has two core chiplets that require a lot of latency to talk between the chiplets

>3700x
>218fps 1% low

>3900x
>183fps 1% low


A 35 fps difference despite the higher core count and higher clockspeed, it's obvious the reason is the inter-chip communication latency.

If you really want to cope, go to Jow ForumsAMD

The specific example given alludes heavily to illegal activities.

>wait until you try to make a 500 gb zip of your porn
>Disk encryption and decryption is also twice as fast on the 3900x. But I'm sure you aint got nothing to hide user.

>picture of NSA

The latency across chiplets is the same as from one CCX to the other inside the same chiplet. The difference is that 3900X has 4 CCXs with 3 cores each while 3700X/3800X have 2 CCXs with 4 cores each.

>The difference is that 3900X has 4 CCXs with 3 cores each
>while 3700X/3800X have 2 CCXs with 4 cores each

The 3900x has four CCXs across TWO CCDs

The 3700x/3800x has 2 CCXs on a SINGLE CCD.

You're not contradicting anything I said.

If you think there is ZERO latency difference between two CCXs vs two CCDs, you're an idiot.

Attached: ryzen_3000_topology-100800998-orig.jpg (2466x1305, 429K)

Fuck off retard, look up some actual tests before proudly exposing your stupidity next time.

Attached: mvo9nk2r94931.png (822x777, 539K)

>nothing to hide
Nice try glownigger, you can't get me to associate commonsense information security with pedophilia

No one sane gives a shit about their porn being secure or not.

A NORMAL person doesn't have illegal porn to begin with.

Nah intel and and basically do the same thing but in a different way that's why they're both x86 architectures at their core.
Things that affected intel have affected amd.
Hyperthreading and multi-threading are the exact same thing just implementated differently.
Intel is vulnerable due to oversight and poor implementation. Where as AMD was able to fix the flaws.that intel and and shared.
Remember when this all started both intel and and had the same flaws revealed?
Your right but still intel is shit.

World War Z was patched recently and now the 3900x is >200 FPS.

5% of that score on cpu benches is because the 9900K overclocks higher than the 3700K, it isn't related to performance. LMAO

In what scenario does the 3900x surpass the 9900k?
So far all I see is the 9900k winning in pure gaming performance, with the counter only being the ever vague "but the Ryzen is better at everything else". I don't stream, I don't render Overwatch porn, what things is the 3900x actually better at that will be noticeable?

And the 9900K is getting >250 FPS

>9900k and matching motherboard is actually ~100 euros cheaper here compared to a 3900x with motherboard
Very nice

Because disabling HT improves performance in games.

>Buy B450 Tomahawk
>Use the flashback feature
>No reason to buy X570 boards anymore

Very nice

Quite nice indeed.

Let's look at it differently, you have no upgrade path, your CPU did not come with a cooling solution, 9900k is Intel's best offering, and AMD has a CPU that boosts to 5GHz on the way. IF your goal was to render slightly more FPS in World War Z then I guess you are satisfied, but for anyone else there isn't a reason in the world to buy a 9900k.

>So if YOU'RE an attack, trying to steal information, or break into a system, do you research hardware vulnerabilities for intel, or AMD?
If you're an attacker, you don't PUBLISH the security flaws you're intending to use, fucking retard.

True, buy a 9700k

>but for anyone else there isn't a reason in the world to buy a 9900k.
There's no reason to buy a 3900x either. If the edge in gaming performance doesn't matter, then a few minutes in heavy rendering that hardly anybody does (up until a week ago anyway, sudden increase somehow?) doesn't either

imagine believing that
hahaha

>Do you think older games are MAGICALLY gonna work well with a 16 thread 3700x?
Do you think older games are MAGICALLY not going to work well with a CPU more powerful in single-core performance than those they were developed for?

>Just buy the more expensive one, with more back doors, the one with more heat, the one you have to buy a cooler for too

Fuck you are dumb