Have you read this
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-5-3600/4.html ? You only loose around 5% using ryzen 3000 prosessors while using fastest gpu today. If you downgrade to something like 1080 gtx or lower you won't see hardly any difference in fps. And if you are using 2080ti that 10-30 fps increase is pretty useless. You're still getting over 140fps almost in every game.
I have intell 9700k and my brother has ryzen 3700 and both have 1080ti. I have better fps in every game but you cant tell difference in game if fps display is not on.
Yes, I can easily tell the difference between 80-120 fps and 100-140 fps. Difference between fps drops to 80 and 100 is like night and day for me. The magic with a high refresh rate monitor happends at 100+ fps for me and pretty much everyone I know who also uses HRR monitors. I prefer 120 minimum tho and will most often lower graphical settings till this happends. I don't tolerate drops below 100, it feels like stuttering when this happends. FPS over IQ any day. Smoothness is number one. Something many Ryzen owners seems to not care about, and it's fine, some people just like putting everything at Ultra and stay in the 40-80 fps range (GPU BOUND). I simply won't.
When you run games like I do, and most serious or competitive players do, CPU will be the bottleneck, the end. Ryzen has much lower min, max and avg fps when CPU is bottleneck for gaming in pretty much every game outthere and this is a fact.
Go watch this video instead -
9700K easily beats 3900X in gaming. Especially in minimum fps. There is simply way too many games that perform much worse on Ryzen compared to Intel (when looking at CPU bound / high fps gaming instead of GPU bound). Yes, some games perform decent on Ryzen and people love to mention these titles, just like they love to talk about Cinebench numbers (except single thread it seems), in reality, the overall performance is lacking. With Intel you get
solid performance across the board, not just in a few titles. There is not a SINGLE GAME where Intel CPU results in subpar performance. Every game performs flawless using an Intel chip, 8th + 9th gen at 5+ GHz, as good as it gets for gaming and emulation.
This is why 120-240 Hz monitor owners should choose carefully. Nothing new here. Ryzen 3000 is doing better than 1000/2000 but Intel 8th/9th gen is beating Ryzen 3000. In some games we're talking 25-40% higher minimums (again, watch the 40 min video instead of simply denying this fact - Watch current fps instead of avg and watch carefully when he talks about minimums, AMD is simply not on par.) Avg. fps is "only" 10-20% better but minimum can be 25-50% higher at times, only for a few seconds sometimes, but you will feel it instantly. I know I will.
Watch how much behind the 2700X is too ... ALOT - And people claimed 2700X was only 5-10% slower in gaming ... Yeah right. 1st gen Ryzen was (and is) terrible for high fps gaming, 2nd gen was better but still much slower than newer Intel chips. 3rd gen Ryzen is somewhat "fine" but Intel is clearly still better, especially true if you're not a 30-60 fps gamer using a 60 Hz monitor.
High fps gamers knows what I'm talking about..
