3900x cannot be overclocked for all intents and purposes

>3900x cannot be overclocked for all intents and purposes
>i9 can be overclocked at least 20%

what am I not seeing here? is this not a blatant win by intel or am i just fucking retarded?

Attached: ryzen-3900x-gaming-benchies.jpg (1919x1440, 105K)

Yes, the i9 doesn't have 12 cores 24 threads

Buy i9 for gayms goy kek

Attached: MHW.png (1373x1413, 49K)

>4.7 to 5.0 is 20%

With math that good it's no wonder you shill for Intel

>i9 can be overclocked at least 20%
Please show the class your 9900K overclocked to 5.5GHz on air.

intel chips dont boost when more than 2 cores are being used. so it's 1.2*3.6= 4.32Ghz
where 3.6 is the base clock

Yes they do, you fucking retard. The all-core boost of the 9900K out of the box is 4.7GHz.

>muh cores
This is bulldozer all over again.

>b-b-but muh intears cope!!!!

if anything its bulldozer for intel because intel will try to push the clockspeeds to ridiculous speeds while not improving their IPC
intel is already behind amd when it comes to IPC so the only thing to improve performance now is to raise clockspeeds to 5.3ghz and consume 300 watts or more

>am i just fucking retarded?
you don't have to ask, user.
you are a complete retard.
have you forgotten the
>delid kits
>don't overclock
>throttling even on 7700k
>5GHz cpus running at 3GHz when it comes to avx workloads
>200+ Watt on a "95" Watt TDP cpus

there's no benefit from overclocking your Ryzen. In fact, overclocking is so complex on those chips that all retards are going to have negative results on it. That's why you let it boost to whatever it can get out of your VRMs and your cooling.

overclocking CPU in 2020

Attached: file.png (481x591, 313K)

Only an amdjeet will spin not being able to overclock as something positive.

Attached: ryzen.png (801x1500, 1.05M)

why would you want to overclock when the result will still be worse than PBO in most workloads and consume a shitload of power? literally what's the point? bragging rights?

overclocking, by itself, has no value

>worse in most workloads
lol. zen 2 is unironically only better than intel in 3 specific workloads
1. encoding videos and blender rendering (but not in the more commonly used rendering program that is adobe after effects)
2. cinebench
3. cs go

post benchmarks faggot. margin of error victories mean fuck all when your cpu costs $100 and 70W more

How does the 3600x oc? Why is Zen 2 binned so aggressive?
Reee
Zen 1 and 1.5 oc OK but 2 is weird and I doubt it's a bios thing like everyone says it seems to be architecture related

9900k is 5% better at after effects.
so there's a good chance you'd have 10%
better performance overall if you get a 5Ghz overclockable chip.
starcraft 2, another example performs 17% better on intel without overclock. that's 22% better with overclock.

Attached: pic_disp.php.jpg (800x1263, 192K)

>3900x performs the same as an i9 overclocked to the limit wasting more than 1000W

>StarCraft 2
You mean the game that uses the Intel compiler version that force non-Intel chips to 386 instruction set?
The one Intel got fined a boatload of shit for?
The one no one uses anymore for that exact reason?

So basically Intel is
>shit in gayms
>shit in productivity
>shit in efficiency
And yet intel fanboys defend their diseased cpoos LMOA

Attached: 1536694146733.png (1200x800, 164K)

the only thing that matters is brand loyalty and thats why i buy intel regardless if they are shit in everything and overpriced

I buy Intel because it's faster

wow someone watched LTT

shut up bitch

You're missing the point you fucking retard.

If AMD can only match Intel stock vs stock by squeezing out every single last bit of headroom, while Intel still have plenty of headroom left for OCers to exploit, then Intel's chip is obviously better. Furthermore, for the future, Intel can look into implementing the same techs that aggressively exploit any available overhead, and end up having that 10-20% overclocking advantage right out of the box instead.

Now, clearly price has to fit into this as well if we're going to talk value, but I'm putting cost aside in order to point out what should be blindingly obvious to everyone.

Turning on MCE or setting the max boost frequency to apply to all cores has never been regarded as an overclock, to Intel it might be regarded as an OC but not to the community

>the only thing that matters is brand loyalty and thats why i buy intel regardless if they are shit in everything and overpriced
Kek that describes Intel fanboys perfectly.

Attached: 1560228829446.png (519x543, 151K)

>tfw someone buys up all the spare available 9900KS and bins them to find one golden rare chip capable of 5.5 on air all cores

Attached: 1564493092017.jpg (251x242, 10K)

you dumb shits wouldn't pick up a CPU at 1Ghz but still utterly obliterate anything intel could throw at.

overclocking is really only good for ram and vram anymore. core overclocks on both cpus/gpus just aren't worth it.

undervolting and tdp limits are the way to go now. boost algo is smarter than you'll ever be.

yeah in cherrypicked avx scenarios

even then i doubt someone will be capable of doing 5.5 on air
maybe 5.5 on liquid cooling but even thats pretty extreme

So is everyone going to oversee the fact that you lose like 40% single and multi-core performance + 50% SSD performance after you fully apply ALL 30+ BIOS/windows security mitigations and turn off hyperthreading to have BASIC security?

Attached: 1558039242262.jpg (700x421, 33K)

>Starcraft 2
You do realize you can get 30% better framerate in that game if you fool the game into thinking your AMD CPU is an Intel CPU vs running it as normal on AMD? It's literally useless for benchmarking unless you're comparing two Intel processors.

>brand loyalty

Attached: 1516382878540.gif (512x481, 631K)

Bugmen like you need to be exterminated.

>i9 can be overclocked at least 20%
>300MHz extra from 4700MHz to 5000MHz is "at least 20%"

only raging homosexuals overclock shit

>20% overclock at least

Spotted the LARPr

Fuck no. You're going to get like 5.0-5.3, depending on how lucky you are. Only the top 7% of 9900K samples reach 5.1GHz, according to Silicon Lottery, so that should give you an image of how lucky you need to be. 5.0 will be fairly easy to get with enough cooling though, the cores are able to run at 5.0 since that's the single-core boost.

This, even if you get it to 5GHz you'll most likely get it at 1.3-1.4 volts and without a refrigerant industrial grade water chiller you'll constantly be hitting 80-90C

ALL that hard work for like 5% better FPS at 1080p when a card like the 5700XT will get you 100+ FPS or more in most games at high 1440p settings

Attached: 5.1GHz_attempt_at_the_intel_labs.webm (640x360, 2.94M)

SSD speeds don't matter))))))))))))))

DELET

Attached: 1544667387109.png (813x1402, 324K)

>"CSGO doesn't matter!!

Puget Systems actually showed that in AE it's a mixed bag due to VRAM latency.

>what is HPC
>what is power efficiency
>what is compilation environment
>what is virtualization
>what is computer aided design

heh but uh 10% faster at SC2 at 960p is worth it rite, also don't remember to turn off hyperthreading, goys!

>intards are this bad at basic math
Holy shit.

This. I've got a Bulldozer box sitting around. Here's what it says on the back.
>Unlocked out of the box
>Achieve ultimate power with up to 5.0 GHz and 8 cores
>Overclock your system for supercharged performance
Sounds like an i9-9900k to me.

and the funny thing is that both the fx 8-9k and 9900k have 8 cores and 8 threads

IPC is not comparable between architectures. clocks≠true performance
Not defending him. Just wanna make sure you know you're retarded.

>that's what the community thinks
Sounds like it's time for your dilation.

>20% overclock
>4.7GHz to 5.1 GHz is only 8%
based retard

>IPC is not comparable between architectures
People have been comparing ipc between architectures since they first realized that cpus were different at the same clocks. Just how retarded are you?

if 4.7Ghz is what it gets on all cores stock then why do they even mention the base clock of 3.6Ghz? sounds pretty unjewish to me

Because 3.6 GHz is what it'll run in the worst case scenario, which is if it's forced to stick to the 95 W rated TDP. All modern processors go higher if thermal and power delivery conditions are favorable.

Because base clocks more closely adhere to the rated """""95W""""" TDP label slapped on it. If you unironically try to boost ALL cores to 4.7GHz 3 things will happen:
A.) Your cooling will be insufficient (ie not a high end AIO) and it will throttle to 4GHz
B.) Your cooling is sufficient but you don't have a high end enough Z motherboard to push ~200 AMPs to the CPU
C.) Your cooling and motherboard are both very high end and your intel CPUs chews through 200+ watts like an obese american at a buffet

Most intards dumb enough to buy an i9 fall into the A or B category.

Attached: aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9DLzkvODA1MjU3L29yaWdpbmFsL2ltYWdlMDA3LnBuZw==(1).jpg (755x561, 109K)

through the power of algorithms amd chips are designed to use up all of their power/temp overheads without any intervention by the user
with intel you have to spend hours doing this manually and it's not something your typical consumer does

so which one is actually a better product? if you chose the autism gated one, you might be wrong

Overclocking is like getting a tip: it's nice, but not guaranteed. The vast majority of users never overclock anyway.

i9-9900K gets 4.7 GHz out of the box. With air cooling you ain't getting higher than 4.9 GHz, maybe 5.0 on the best chips. That ain't nowhere near 20%, brother.

but you are assuming that the benchmarkers used a high end cooler

Not on an all core load, see

>Comparing IPC Doesn't Matter!!!!!

Jesus Christ, good job on not actually refuting anything. Go walk wrist first into a box cutter.
>at least 20%
Go jump into a volcano. Or stand on a 100% utilised 9900k IHS, same same

>Aio is better than a noctua nhd15

That bug was fixed long before sc2 was benched on zen2 recently. The reason for the still extant gap in performance is that sc2 was highly optimised for the ring bus architecture

Why is 9900K even called i9 when it doesn't use the HEDT platform?

Attached: 2d6ee8077d8977ac8b913e99d8a42672.jpg (600x800, 72K)

What makes the "i9" moniker exclusive to HEDT?

Best AIO>Best air cooler

4. compiling
5. gaming with proper multi-thread support

>muh niggahurtz
This is Netburst all over again.

>b-b-but muh 5ghz beated by 4.2ghz!!!

yes you are retarded
3900x is a 12 core processor
9900k is an 8 core processor
intel has security flaws, is a shit company and you spend more on motherboard + cooler than a 3900x which comes with an acceptable cooler at stock
if you care about gaming only you would buy a 3700x and spend the extra savings on a better GPU

AMD is the best choice in basically all scenarios. only people who buy intel are normies who are still stuck in 2015 and shills

straight outta reddit

>desperately giving yourself a (You) because no one bothered responding to your shitrpost after 50 replies

>idiot can't read the spec sheet
9900K has 16 threads

The higher-end Intel desktop chips have almost overclocking headroom. Their maximum turbo runs really close to the hard ~5Ghz wall of the 14nm+ process. You have to get a sliver-golden sample get anything beyond that without resorting to suicide voltage.

Overclocking is pretty much dead anyway. Turbo-clocking makes arm-chair overclocking pointless. Intel/AMD have gimped their bargain-basement stuff so no more sleepers that can rival their high-end SKUs for a fraction of the cost.

not after zombieload

>water cooled witch industrial chiller
So hot it needed witchcraft.

That's some Jojo tier hair.

>spend more on motherboard
>X570 exists
(lol

With AMD you're spending on an expensive motherboard, special gook RAM and a high performance cooler so your 1.5v at idle doesn't turn into a housefire.

With Intel you just buy a high performance cooler and everything works out of the box, no need for special gook RAM and it won't idle at 1.5v. You also aren't required to play BIOS beta testing 2019.

>muh B450
Nice COPE, not everyone is an old Ryzen owner and not all 450/350 boards work properly.

>i9 can be overclocked at least 20%
uhhh... what?
The i9 at stock does 4.7GHz all core. Therefore if you OC it to 5GHz you have about 6% improvement.
The stock 3900X apparently does 4-4.1GHz on all of it's cores, so if you OC it to 4.3GHz you will get a 7% improvement over stock.

Can you even do basic math?

Attached: pink_waifu.jpg (1280x1600, 448K)

you do realize he meant intel with both of those clocks? just wanna make sure you know you're retarded.

no, thats only with MCE enabled, which isnt stock behavior.

zen 2 has gpu boost like behavior, so retards dont need to OC anymore, just slap a good cooler on it and youre good

>because x570 exists x470 no longer works
>ram is still expensive
>tfw ryzen reaches boost clocks so fast monitoring software will trigger it
could ryzen get any more based
>muh dogshit MSI motherboards

for high end CPUs FPS is not so much relevant because they all measure close to eachother,what matters is DPC lattency and how hard the CPU stutters due to its mobo/internal design, and trust me Ryzen w its cucked CCX has huge DPC latency and stutters compared to intel, it will be fixed for zen3 once windows and games and mobo manufacturers get their shit together, right now you are beta testing a new socket that has more cores than anything on the market, which puts u in upper 0.0001% of PC users and shit wont get fixed for 2-3 years

Lmao put the 2700x stock cooler on it and it turbos to 4.4ghz single core I preferred the way my 2700x just lazily sat at 4ghz allcore but using fuck all voltage not the 1.44 stock the 3600x did
2700x runs cooler at 1.32 stock lmao

retest it with the new chipset driver

>trust me

Attached: 1466256637624.jpg (293x125, 9K)

>windows published some CCX thread scheduling tweaks
>people cant boot, all mobos need BIOS upgrades
>people posting DPC latency measurements are dogshit over 400us
>people cant hit advertised boost clocks on single cores due to mobo BIOS being dogshit
>people couldnt even boot 5.2 Linux on AMD until recently

If what you're saying is true then I'm interested in how you can explain how Ryzen 5 3600 has better 1% lows than the 9600K if Ryzen's design leads to stutters.

benchmarks are a racket

ITS NOT ABOUT FPS U INCEST INBRED WORM, ITS ABOUT INPUT LATENCY DUE TO IRQS/DPCS BEING SCHEDULED TO OTHER CCX SO IT WALKS ACROS THE I/IO DIE INTO GAME INPUT/GAME LOOP THREAD, INPUT STUTTERS NOT THE FPS BECAUSE THE PAID PROMO DOGSHIT YOUTUBERS WILL NEVER SHIT TALK A PRODUCT THAT THEY GOT FOR FREE OR RUIN HALF OF THEIR FANBASE SHEKKELS BY SAYING THE TRUTH.

Do you have any evidence of there being significant input latency or stuttering in games or are you just speculating based on other factors?

Did Intel ever fixed the shitty TIM from the 7xxx cpus?

Attached: intlel.webm (736x416, 1.96M)

Attached: 1564830686317.jpg (3295x1458, 239K)

do u want me to link you 10 articles about Ryzen retard? go find it urself, if u werent this retarded u wouldnt buy it
>windows thread scheduling unoptimized
>unoptimized games
>unoptimized BIOS
>unoptimized MOBO w 150us+ input latency

What RAM was used for the 2700X in this test?

Attached: 6ZSDax7.png (767x441, 45K)

I thought we were talking about Zen 2 here?

No evidence then, got it.
If you actually had any I'm sure you'd post it, since you seem frustrated enough about it

>w 150us+ input latency
so not even 1 millisecond? lmfao