It's not just a 1% FPS difference man, I've watched enough benchmark videos and read enough data on the subject that quite often there's a much larger FPS gap than that; sometimes by as much as 15 to 20 FPS difference. That's a huge difference in performance in games.
Oh sure, when's that going to happen? Wake me up when that happens because I don't see that coming any time soon. Most users still have only a quad-core CPU in their systems and will for a long time to come. There's no way in hell that game developers are going to alienate an entire segment of the market just because some people have more cores in their systems than four. No, they're going to program to the least common denominator so that a majority of gamers will be able to play them without having to go out and build an entirely new system just to play the game. Sure, they might need a new GPU but that's to be expected.
That's nowhere close to being the truth and you know it, that's pulling numbers out of thin air and you know it.
Most people keep their machines for more than eight months, they build for the long term like 4 to 5 years. Which if you look at Intel vs AMD's IPC numbers it shows that Intel is still going to last you longer than an AMD chip regardless how many cores your AMD chip has because when it comes down to it single core performance is and will be king for years to come which is where Intel is king.
Not only that but there's still RAM issues on the Ryzen platform months after it was released. And then let's not forget that AMD Ryzen's clock speed limit appears to be a hard 4.0 GHz wall with a majority of people unable to even crack past 3.8 GHz due to shit silicon (except for the Ryzen 7 1800X which is already heavily binned). They keep ramming their heads into it and not making a dent other than in their own heads. Meanwhile Intel chips are clocking past that. The Core i7 8700K has a boost clock of 4.3 GHz and if you have good cooling like a good water cooling system that CPU is bound to stay at 4.3 GHz the whole damn time and when you combine that with Intel's superior IPC numbers that means Intel is going to positively wipe the damn floor with AMD's Ryzen.
Sorry you AMD fanboy, that's just the way it is; Intel is the undisputed king of CPU performance. AMD is once again trotting out the tired "moar cores!" because that's all they can deliver.
"Oh sure, when's that going to happen?"
It's happening now... or have you ignored TechSpot and other outlets CPU scaling benchmarks.
"It's not just a 1% FPS difference man, I've watched enough benchmark videos and read enough data on the subject that quite often there's a much larger FPS gap than that; sometimes by as much as 15 to 20 FPS difference. That's a huge difference in performance in games."
You are quoting best case scenario in a benchmark situation at 720p. Congrats, you pulled up data with context that is irrelevant. I don't see that as a viable way to use your $300+ CPU.
"That's nowhere close to being the truth and you know it, that's pulling numbers out of thin air and you know it."
lol, no
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11170...review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700/20
It should seem pretty obvious that an easily threaded task like encoding is nearly doubled with double the cores. Derp. By the way, I have my Ryzen OC'd to 4.0 GHz, so it actually gets better encoding performance then an 1800X.
"Most people keep their machines for more than eight months, they build for the long term like 4 to 5 years. Which if you look at Intel vs AMD's IPC numbers it shows that Intel is still going to last you longer than an AMD chip regardless how many cores your AMD chip has because when it comes down to it single core performance is and will be king for years to come which is where Intel is king."
That's exactly what I was saying. Intel just released a 2nd forced mobo upgrade in a single year. AMD does not require you to upgrade your mobo every year. Like I said before, Intel and AMD's IPC are neck and neck. Show me a reputable source that says otherwise.
"Not only that but there's still RAM issues on the Ryzen platform months after it was released. And then let's not forget that AMD Ryzen's clock speed limit appears to be a hard 4.0 GHz wall with a majority of people unable to even crack past 3.8 GHz due to shit silicon (except for the Ryzen 7 1800X which is already heavily binned). They keep ramming their heads into it and not making a dent other than in their own heads. Meanwhile Intel chips are clocking past that. The Core i7 8700K has a boost clock of 4.3 GHz and if you have good cooling like a good water cooling system that CPU is bound to stay at 4.3 GHz the whole damn time and when you combine that with Intel's superior IPC numbers that means Intel is going to positively wipe the damn floor with AMD's Ryzen."
Lol, I must have missed how my RAM is currently clocked at 3600. Hard clock speed limit of 4.0 GHz? You do realize threadripper is clocked at 4.2 GHz correct? Dam, if only you actually knew anything about what you are talking about...
"Meanwhile Intel chips are clocking past that."
And yet AMD achieves better performance at a lower clock. Oh, did you see those power consumption numbers? I'm sure people love that. Oh, and that lovely thermal paste better the IHS. Good luck cooling that furnace.
https://www.techspot.com/review/1433-intel-core-i9-core-i7-skylake-x/
Yay for throttling with everything but the highest end AIO liquid coolers! Intel is so awesome! For god's sake, just admit when Intel fucks up. At least I have the ball to admit AMD's obvious fuck ups.
"Sorry you AMD fanboy, that's just the way it is; Intel is the undisputed king of CPU performance. AMD is once again trotting out the tired "moar cores!" because that's all they can deliver."
Like I said before, I don't care how is providing the performance. You can keep sucking that Intel cock tho, your obviously attached.
Actually makes my point even stronger since mine had a smaller OC.
