Why is AMD so garbage?

Intel was industry standard for like 10 years whats not clear to u there?

Unironically Intel runs best on indian garbage game engines.

Do you listen to yourself? Perhaps you should.

A) That's not an excuse for Nvidia.
B) That might have been an excuse on Zen 1 in Feb 2017. We are now at the end of 2019. Devs are well acquainted with Zen.
C) It wouldn't matter either way, since it ultimately the result is games running poorly on AMD CPUs. If they haven't been "optimized" until now, they won't be in the future.
Cry harder

Anyone who believed Intel should be an industry standard after their huge number of fuckups over the years is a fucking moron.

So you're saying a game designed to use only 4 core hardlimit is a properly optimized game?

Attached: Far-Cry-New-Dawn-CPU.png (2190x1610, 58K)

>thank you for your data goyim
t. intel

Attached: 1550247645053.jpg (1273x1273, 651K)

Games pretty much across the board run better on Intel hardware.

pretending to be retarded should be a bannable offense

Depends on the price tier. But for substantial differences between the two would require either crippling of AMD's advantage, high core count or taking advantage of Intel specific optimization. In standard games, AMD > Intel for any price point except the $500 9900K which still remains the best, for now.

but it was clearly
and if u think someone will change their engine bcs new processor is out you're absolute moron

>house fire cpu that runs 5% faster in gaming but 100% slower in everything else for triple the long term price
>marketed intel goyim will buy this

Attached: 1534458869615.jpg (600x600, 49K)

Game engines undergo constant development between major releases, and devs can and do learn over the course of 3 years new methods to work with new CPU uarchs.
At this point in Zen, what you see is what you get. The CPU isn't a mystery anymore.

>AMD's advantage, high core count
If AMD's advantage doesn't manifest, it isn't an advantage.

Please stop posting, it takes at least 5 years for industry standard to shift

so the 9900k does around 20 or 30 more fps than the 3600, how much more does it cost though?

>it takes at least 5 years for industry standard to shift
Source, your ass.

>1.5V
>85C
>perfectly normal

Honest question here: if the only thing you're interested in is playing bibeo gays, why use anything more than a $200 3600 ryzen?

Is it REALLY worth the hundreds spent on cooling, high end motherboards, and having essentially 0 security by fully disabling ALL 30+ bios/windows security mitigations JUST to get 5% better FPS at 1080p when a $279 Vega 56 can easily do medium-high 1440p gaymen?

It just all seems to bizarre to me desu senpai

newegg.com/asrock-radeon-rx-vega-56-rx-vega-56-8g/p/N82E16814930006?Item=N82E16814930006

Attached: ZomboDroid 10082019091808.jpg (1938x2251, 562K)

just spent $800 for the cpu and new mobo you will need goy, its totally worth it for the 15 fps instead getting a 2080ti i promise!

Don't forget your $200+ high end 360mm AIO to keep the chip from fucking melting.

>90+ fps 1% lows
>all around garbage
Yeah, no. Also, some games already max out 8 threads, and CPU-based DXRT is becoming a thing when the new console generations will launch (those will use AMD hardware with no RT cores). Every Intel option except for 9900kelvin will be obsolete in 1-2 years.

Because the 130 dollar 9400f is better lol

Only if you're a retard who enjoys stutters. Even the "worse" 1600 is better in those games because of its smooth transitions.

only 1 valid option out of these 3 unless you're doing productivity work, in that case intel still isn't valid.

Attached: 1565440384803.png (1920x1080, 658K)