This beauty still top bitch? Or Ryzen's tech holding up to those stats?

This beauty still top bitch? Or Ryzen's tech holding up to those stats?

Attached: 1558636524810.jpg (2700x1803, 1.58M)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=QkM70XFhs10
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

5% better in gaming @ 1080p, but for literally everything else it's another shoah.

Depends what you want to do. Both are good.

the mobos for that CPU work

Same as before, if you want to play games, you buy the 9900, if you want to unzip files, you buy a Ryzen.

Attached: 1562960009950.jpg (2560x1440, 237K)

Guessing my purchase was good then
My setup is all about refresh rate performance, for fps gaming especially

Attached: 449ABE90-7F83-4240-8DD7-5005C15B52AA.png (518x363, 18K)

based 240hz Chad, fuck poozen

But I just looked at 1600 vs 7600K revised and what was once 30% loss is now 5% win for AMD.

I dont think 9900K will hold after 1 year vs AMD.

What a nice selection of games, shill.

Yeah, intel's latest $500+ processors still win on video games. The margin is slim, and older generation intels lose.

>X GAMES DON'T MATTER

well at least the new Ryzens have given me a reason to finally OC my 5820k I've had since release.

Far Cry 5 was literally developed by AMD. It doesn't get any better than that.

It's trash.

why would you buy a 2080 but then play on 1080p
this is the first graph I have ever seen that says "percentage of fps faster"
am i the only one that finds that a weird phrase

>why would you buy a 2080 but then play on 1080p

To get a higher refresh rate.

yes

Attached: 20190712_210724.jpg (1440x865, 449K)

>t. brainlet
The only thing that came from amd's sponsorship was rapid packed math that made it run better on vegas. Far cry games always ran like shit on ryzens.

Intel is for people that actually do things with their computer like gaming.

AMD is for running cinebench and other synthetic benchmarks.

>game literally made by AMD
>game runs like shit on AMD

What did AMD mean by this?

>why would you buy a 2080 but then play on 1080p
But the whole point of doing a CPU COMPARISON in a CPU REVIEW is to COMPARE CPUs, it's utterly pointless to do it under conditions where CPU is being bottlenecked by other components. Though, apparently it's acceptable when it serves to hide AMD's shortcomings.

It wasn't made by amd, you retarded mongoloid, amd paid ubi to implement rpm.

Why can't AMD stop being slow?

youtube.com/watch?v=QkM70XFhs10

i just realized you only did 5 games
lmao

So, ubisoft's employees talks about gpus, what's your point? Are you seriously that braindead?

They literally say in the video that the game was optimized specifically for AMD hardware and they even spend a significant amount of the video zooming in on an AMD CPU you absolutely mentally ill mongloid XD

In gaming yeah but it varies wildly on the title. Ranging from 10% to 20% with the other intel chips, 8700k and 9700k, being only very slightly ahead or just on par with the 3900x. Which is a 500 dollar cpu.

Where? All i saw was gpus.

Attached: ayymd.jpg (1920x1080, 869K)

It shows vega.

No, this is. 28 top tier Intel cores (equivalent to 70-100 poozen ones) at 5GHz all-core and mesh with a chiller.

Attached: intel-xeon-3175x-packaging.jpg (703x559, 88K)

Games and Quicksync compatible apps. That's about it.

>putting long-ass links on the box
Can't they make their own url shortener?

>if you want to unzip files..
>you can run cinebench..
>space heater..
nobody streams, does video editing and encoding, uses drafting software, runs servers or works with ai. yes. keep coping, manchild

Attached: 1549598369323.png (645x1000, 309K)

>actually do things with their computer
>gaming
No user, gaming is what you do on toys like your PS4, or Nintendo Switch. Your PC is for work.

9900K is overpriced garbage-tier. It is marginally faster then its lesser siblings at stock at gayming and mainstream-tier shit while the lesser siblings can easily match it with a little armchair overclocking. At productivity and server-tier shit its gets completely spanked by the majority of Zen2 SKUs. 3900X just laughs it at especially at power efficiency under such loads.

There's almost no rational reason to get a 9900K. If you need to go on the Intel camp, just get a 8600K, 8700K, 9600K or 9700K and overclocked to 5.0Ghz (if you have the cooling for it) and be done with it.

Yes. We all plays Shadow of Tomb Raider and World War Z in here!
Face it 90% of games actually topping Steam charts are Nvidia favored.

They still win against Ryzen in a pure ICP race. It's just that AMD shilling reviewers started pushing obscure Vulkan/DX12 games that support 8cores where obviously old 4C Intel games bite the dust.

>nobody streams, does video editing and encoding, uses drafting software, runs servers or works with ai
Unironically this.

Stop posting your pic

8 cores are the future

lmao at all the poorfags ITT that don't have a 9900K OCed to 5.2 GHz and a 2080 ti. I can totally tell the difference between 135 FPS and 150 FPS. You're all missing out. Stay AMDestitute.

Attached: omegachad.jpg (680x760, 44K)

>you accidentally drop the box on the ground
>it rolls 1
>computer fucking explodes

Yes, we all need $2k PCs to game. Stay AMDespair.

If you want to play games, you buy a Ryzen.
if you want anything else, you buy a Ryzen.
It you only want to play 1080p, than maybe you buy an Intel. But consider a Ryzen.

Why would you ever buy AMD when gaming looks like this on their garbage poorfag CPUs?

Attached: lol.jpg (6995x2471, 1.95M)

they should, it'd give the thousands of diversity hires something to do

Attached: 1549747226939.png (363x364, 8K)

I can't get over how crazy the freaking box for this is. Must be a nightmare to store a bunch of them in a warehouse.

aw shit can't wait to get my lol on with my friends at Jow Forums