AMD Ryzen 9 3900X and Ryzen 7 3700X Review: Kings of Productivity

[koblongata]

Is there a benchmark for game complie time?

Productivity scores for game programmer/developers please. It's always been like only media creation encoding decoding office photoshop is about productivity...

 

[parowOOz]

https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/...ability-standard-deviation-of-game-benchmarks

You do not seem to understand what margin of error is. It doesn't matter if the i9 9900K is consistently 2.4% ahead in benchmarks, the tests being run simply do not have the resolution to declare one better then the other. CPU benchmarks are not accurate within 3% and the only thing that would change this is improvement to the testing methodology itself. More data does not equal better as it is all limited by how the testing was conducted.

Here's another review from GN that shows the margin of error bars

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3474-new-cpu-testing-methodology-2019-ryzen-3000-prep

"They’re all about the same. The top half of results – that’d be the i5-8600K through the i7-8700K – are all within margin of error"

Given that the 9900K is actually a bit worse then the 8700K, that's enough said on the subject.

The link you have provided doesn't mention a 3% margin of error for CPU tests even once. Their new testing methodology of CPUs in gaming also doesn't state anything of the sort. In fact what they show/mention is that the margin of error depends on the game being tested. If a game produces results consistently without much or any deviation, that game's margin of error is smaller than a game where results vary by a lot from run to run. Have you even read the articles you linked ? If you have, then it's clear you didn't understand their content. Also, it's evident that you have pulled that 3% out of your a-hole.

And again you have latched on to just the opening part of my argument and completely skipped over the latter part where, for the sake of argument, I granted you that 3%. I'm starting to see a pattern with you. So yeah, until you address my point in it's entirety, we have nothing more to discuss here. I'm not going to bother making further arguemnts for you to just ignore the parts that are uncomfortable for you to refute.

So you have used a quote for the very first test they conducted (Total War: Warhammer 2 Battle) as somehow proof of your entire argument ? Seriously ? So not only are you deliberately ignoring points that don't suit you, you also have no problem using select quotes pertaining to a single data point to somehow prove that your more general argument is correct but you are also manufacturing evidence like your whole 3% test accuracy. Dishonest much ?

Oh please, could you possibly manufacture any more false outrage?

CS:GO is the only eSport where below 1080p is common and you tried to pass it off as if every pro player. This is just you creating a straw man (which you ironically accused me of) so that you don't have to answer why every other eSport has a standard resolution of 1080p as shown in the links I provided. FYI steam doesn't at all represent the whole PC scene, not at all.

It wasn't outrage nor was it fake. The fact that you decided to just hand wave a sizeable chunk of pro players (and by extension normal players not considered pros) off gave me a pause. The pattern becomes more clear.

I haven't done such a thing. I mentioned CSGO as proof that your general claim that Pro Players use 1080p and testing anything below is unrealistic is incorrect. Where did you get the idea I was saying that every pro player games under 1080p ? o_O

You are once again arguing a point I have not made. You did it arguing about how multiple runs don't eliminate margin of error when I explicitly stated that they minimize the effect of utliers. And now you're doing the exact same thing. Not once but twice actually as I haven't claimed Steam is a perfect representation of the PC gaming community as a whole. What the hell ? Are you trolling ?

You cherry pick one game
I provide links to every other eSport with a standard res of 1080p

Yep I'm the one cherry picking

OK, so once again you're going to ignore the whole point I was making ? You're on a roll.

Um, I appreciate the evidence that supports my point. If you take the average, that's 21.4% of players who play below 1080p. Yes, my point that 1080p is the standard for eSports player is more valid now then ever.

So 1 in 5 pro players is such insignificant that it's unrealistic to test CPUs at resolutions lower than 1080p ? OK, let's apply that logic to something else and see if you're actually going to stick to your guns. AMD has around 20% of the discrete GPU market in their hands. AMD has even less market share in CPUs. Taking both of those facts we can state that: People use Intel CPUs and NVIDIA GPUs so testing other hardware is unrealistic. Do you agree ?

Moving on. Why haven't you included CSGO in your average ? You gave 2 very extreme examples in OW and R6 where a very small part of the community plays below 1080p so I think it's only fair that we consider at least one example which goes the other way. You woldn't like to seem biased now, would you ?

With CSGO in the mix the average is 33%. So one in every 3 pro players games under 1080p and yet you think it's unrealistic to test such scenarios ? OK.

Yep and my dog loves chocolate so I guess it's ok for all dogs to eat chocolate. You don't seem to realize how utterly illogical your statement is. By the way, in case you really don't know, don't feed your dog chocolate. My dog is a freak that can eat a whole pan of brownies and be A-OK but a single example or a few examples does not disprove the overwhelming amount of evidence that chocolate's effect on small animal's hearts. Your statement is exactly this, you are trying to disprove the vast majority with the minority.

This is pure gold. You have created yet another strawman and now you're accusing me of making an illogical statement based on that strawman. You just can't make this stuff up it's so stupid. Hello there ! I haven't said nor claimed that one example is enough to claim that it is the absolute, universal truth. You made that up. Wake up man, you're clearly in "la la" land. You claimed it's unrealistic to test eSport titles below 1080p, even though the original poster whom you were replying to specificaly stated CSGO in their list of games. That single example, (and many others which we have also discussed) which show that playing under 1080p is real and that it pertains to many pro players and by extension millions of regular players, makes your unrealistic statement void. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. Stop inventing arguments.

You can disprove my statement with a single example? Where exactly did I say "all pros play at 1080p"? That's right, I didn't. At this point, when you read "pros play at 1080p" you assumed it meant "all pros". At this point you are arguing against what you assumed I said. The sentence "Pros play at 1080p" is pretty vague in and of itself. I didn't specify the quantity of "Pros" so the reader can assume any number. A normal person would assume "a majority" or "average" amount. Of course that would be the normal rationalization of a statement like that. This is the internet and you had to assume on the extreme side of the spectrum because you wanted to pick a fight. I'm not going to bother being explicit with my nouns on the internet. There will always be trolls who assume the irrational to try and prove their point. It's honestly more funny to watch them try and rationalize their extreme interpretation to a statement they made a bunch of assumptions on. Suffice it to say, if this were a conversation in real life you would have agreed with my statement long ago, most likely because people would think you need help if you are jumping to wild conclusions like that.

Oh, so now we are arguing semantics, ok, glad to know So you admit that you knowingly used a vague term, purposefully didn't specify what you actually meant, you also agree that people can interpret it in many ways and yet, for some reason, my interpretation is somehow wrong and I'm being a troll ? You can't even stay consistent with yourself for one paragraph. The sheer lack of self awereness on your part is mind blowing. And it could have been assumed that you meant the majority if you didn't follow up with another statement that it would be unrealistic to perform tests under 1080p. Since you did however, it reinforced the idea that you either think every pro gamer or an overwhelming majority of them play at 1080p or above. This is why you clarify your statements, you utter knob.

Yes, please tell me more about what I would do The reality is, that you have tried to pull so many things in this conversation that what would actually happen would be me walking away from someone like you thinking you were an ***** or a troll.

 

[Evernessince]

The link you have provided doesn't mention a 3% margin of error for CPU tests even once. Their new testing methodology of CPUs in gaming also doesn't state anything of the sort. In fact what they show/mention is that the margin of error depends on the game being tested. If a game produces results consistently without much or any deviation, that game's margin of error is smaller than a game where results vary by a lot from run to run. Have you even read the articles you linked ? If you have, then it's clear you didn't understand their content. Also, it's evident that you have pulled that 3% out of your a-hole.

You do realize that 3% figure is a safe average correct? Or do you seriously expect people to list out the margin of error (if the exact margin of error is even known) for each game? There are some games that have a high standard deviation and thus have a much higher margin of error. At this point I'm just happy you actually admit there is a margin of error, which you previously had no idea of. I'm at not surprised you are trying to argue semantics again, you were proven wrong on margin of error so now you are moving the goal posts. It's not like you could argue with Steve's conclusion that the 9600K through the 9900K are all effectively the same in games. Heck, just go ask steve (from techspot or GN) directly.

It wasn't outrage nor was it fake. The fact that you decided to just hand wave a sizeable chunk of pro players (and by extension normal players not considered pros) off gave me a pause. The pattern becomes more clear.

I haven't done such a thing. I mentioned CSGO as proof that your general claim that Pro Players use 1080p and testing anything below is unrealistic is incorrect. Where did you get the idea I was saying that every pro player games under 1080p ? o_O

You can go look at the math in prior posts, the overwhelming majority of pro gamers use 1080p or above. I'm not waving off a sizable chunk of pro players, I'm stating facts. I've already discussed at length and debunked this argument of semantics thoroughly. No amount of emotions fitting will change that.

OK, so once again you're going to ignore the whole point I was making ? You're on a roll.

A comment like this is great because you are doing in it exactly what you just accused the other of doing, all without adding anything to the conversation yourself. I'll repeat, yes trying to represent a single game like CSGO as all pro players is in fact cherry picking. No amount of deflection from you will change that.

So 1 in 5 pro players is such insignificant that it's unrealistic to test CPUs at resolutions lower than 1080p ? OK, let's apply that logic to something else and see if you're actually going to stick to your guns. AMD has around 20% of the discrete GPU market in their hands. AMD has even less market share in CPUs. Taking both of those facts we can state that: People use Intel CPUs and NVIDIA GPUs so testing other hardware is unrealistic. Do you agree ?

My point was that a single game doesn't change the fact that every other eSport game has a standard resolution of 1080p or greater.

Moving on. Why haven't you included CSGO in your average ? You gave 2 very extreme examples in OW and R6 where a very small part of the community plays below 1080p so I think it's only fair that we consider at least one example which goes the other way. You woldn't like to seem biased now, would you ?

With CSGO in the mix the average is 33%. So one in every 3 pro players games under 1080p and yet you think it's unrealistic to test such scenarios ? OK.

CSGO is an outlier. It deviates from the results much more then any other game. OW and R6 aren't "extremes", they are normal and in fact CSGO is extreme. The math clearly shows this. I never said to exclude it from any testing, it just shouldn't be included with other games in regards to play resolution as it is a unique case. And obviously, 33% is still far below 50%.

This is pure gold. You have created yet another strawman and now you're accusing me of making an illogical statement based on that strawman. You just can't make this stuff up it's so stupid. Hello there ! I haven't said nor claimed that one example is enough to claim that it is the absolute, universal truth. You made that up. Wake up man, you're clearly in "la la" land. You claimed it's unrealistic to test eSport titles below 1080p, even though the original poster whom you were replying to specificaly stated CSGO in their list of games. That single example, (and many others which we have also discussed) which show that playing under 1080p is real and that it pertains to many pro players and by extension millions of regular players, makes your unrealistic statement void. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. Stop inventing arguments.

Whooooooooooooooooshh

I haven't seen anything go over anyone's dead that hard in the history of the internet and I've seen some dozies. FYI my claim was never that testing anything under 1080p is unrealistic for every game, it's what you again assumed. I specifically stated the average is 1080p, multiple times. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink I guess.

Oh, so now we are arguing semantics, ok, glad to know So you admit that you knowingly used a vague term, purposefully didn't specify what you actually meant, you also agree that people can interpret it in many ways and yet, for some reason, my interpretation is somehow wrong and I'm being a troll ? You can't even stay consistent with yourself for one paragraph. The sheer lack of self awereness on your part is mind blowing. And it could have been assumed that you meant the majority if you didn't follow up with another statement that it would be unrealistic to perform tests under 1080p. Since you did however, it reinforced the idea that you either think every pro gamer or an overwhelming majority of them play at 1080p or above. This is why you clarify your statements, you utter knob.

Yes, please tell me more about what I would do The reality is, that you have tried to pull so many things in this conversation that what would actually happen would be me walking away from someone like you thinking you were an ***** or a troll.

So when your friends talk to you do that have to give you exact GPS coordinates or is that not explicit enough?

I hope you realize that human language is full of less then specific words that ordinary people use every day. Only on the internet does a troll nitpick you for what is considered normal. Like me saying "I have a couple of Apples", well guess what I didn't mean 2, I meant 3. Or how about "I'm with friends". Just based on the context of that statement alone I could really mean "friends with benefits", "I'm with my gang", "I'm dying and going to meet my friends in heaven", "3 friends", "20 friends". See how that works? This is the internet of course, so you assumed the extreme.

Perhaps instead of attacking everyone, you should instead ask them what they specifically mean before making blind statements based on assumptions. As I see it, you've made a series of incorrect assumptions about what you though I said. All of your assumptions are to the extreme end of the spectrum.

 

[aikenhsiang]

I am going to build a new PC for gaming and streaming. Which CPU should I buy? Ryzen 3600 or 3700x. If I buy 3600 then I can upgrade my graphic card 1 level. Is there any significant difference between 3600 and 3700x while game streaming? It's so hard to find a video test on YouTube about this comparison.

 

[Evernessince]

I am going to build a new PC for gaming and streaming. Which CPU should I buy? Ryzen 3600 or 3700x. If I buy 3600 then I can upgrade my graphic card 1 level. Is there any significant difference between 3600 and 3700x while game streaming? It's so hard to find a video test on YouTube about this comparison.

Depends. If you are streaming using Nvidia ShadowPlay or AMD ReLive you should be fine with a 6 core for now. If you are streaming using the CPU you definitely want the 8 core.

 

[aikenhsiang]

Depends. If you are streaming using Nvidia ShadowPlay or AMD ReLive you should be fine with a 6 core for now. If you are streaming using the CPU you definitely want the 8 core.

My graphic cards is EVGA RTX 2060 XC ULTRA. I always use OBS NVENC setting on streaming. Is it ok with Ryzen 3600? I mainly stream battlefield V.

 

[Evernessince]

My graphic cards is EVGA RTX 2060 XC ULTRA. I always use OBS NVENC setting on streaming. Is it ok with Ryzen 3600? I mainly stream battlefield V.

In that case, yes the 3600 should work perfectly for your use case.

 

[parowOOz]

You do realize that 3% figure is a safe average correct? Or do you seriously expect people to list out the margin of error (if the exact margin of error is even known) for each game? There are some games that have a high standard deviation and thus have a much higher margin of error. At this point I'm just happy you actually admit there is a margin of error, which you previously had no idea of. I'm at not surprised you are trying to argue semantics again, you were proven wrong on margin of error so now you are moving the goal posts. It's not like you could argue with Steve's conclusion that the 9600K through the 9900K are all effectively the same in games. Heck, just go ask steve (from techspot or GN) directly.

No it's not and the fact is you pulled it out of thin air and tried to pass it on as some kind of standard. That's not how it works, sir. If you want to know how benchmarking standards are established go read about how TheTechReport made frame time measurments mainstream.

And no, it's not safe because it will obfuscate results for certain games. DOOM and Metro are good examples. Your 3% unicorn would disregard actual, measurable differences between GPUs/CPUs. It would have been bad practice. Besides, It's made up. Please stop.

Uhm, but GN do list their margins for each game ? Another proof you don't actually know their content. It doesn't stop you from using it to further your points for some strange reason.

What semantics ? Please, specify. From the get go my stance was that Intel CPUs have an advantage in gaming, even in 1440p. You then stated it's impossible to claim advantage because test results fall inside your bullcrap 3% margin of error. I disagreed with that statement and I still do. So where am I arguing semantics ?

I'm fully aware of what margin of error is. Secondly, your whole argument is based on a made up number ! How am I wrong ?

Dude, seriously, what is wrong with you ? Neither Steve nor GN have said what you're claiming. Can you read ? Do you have some mental issue that is making you see stuff that isn't there ? Here, quote from the review we are currently commenting on:

"If you’re exclusively concerned about gaming performance we’d recommend the 3700X and probably the 6-core 3600 models, which we'll be reviewing soon. But if you want the absolute fastest gaming CPU then that’s still either Intel’s 9700K or 9900K, even though value for money they aren’t great and there’s no upgrade path."

Stop making **** up.

You can go look at the math in prior posts, the overwhelming majority of pro gamers use 1080p or above. I'm not waving off a sizable chunk of pro players, I'm stating facts. I've already discussed at length and debunked this argument of semantics thoroughly. No amount of emotions fitting will change that.

What is overwhelming majority in your world then ? Specify.

A comment like this is great because you are doing in it exactly what you just accused the other of doing, all without adding anything to the conversation yourself. I'll repeat, yes trying to represent a single game like CSGO as all pro players is in fact cherry picking. No amount of deflection from you will change that.

But I haven't claimed nor implied in any way that CSGO is proof that every pro player games under 1080p. If you still think I have, please cite where it was. And please don't invent stuff as you have with the supposed conclusion of Steve and GN...

My point was that a single game doesn't change the fact that every other eSport game has a standard resolution of 1080p or greater.

But I didn't say nor imply that it was so why are you arguing this point ? And my question still stands. Care to answer ?

CSGO is an outlier. It deviates from the results much more then any other game. OW and R6 aren't "extremes", they are normal and in fact CSGO is extreme. The math clearly shows this. I never said to exclude it from any testing, it just shouldn't be included with other games in regards to play resolution as it is a unique case. And obviously, 33% is still far below 50%.

Not more so than OW or R6. Just because you consider them to be "normal" doesn't mean it's universaly true. You clearly have no problem including titles which heavily support your point but are quick to dismiss any that stay in opposition to it. This, what you're doing here, is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.

So your point is that anything below 50% is irrelevant and shouldn't be accounted for ? Well, I once again ask you then to read my paragraph about AMD market share and answer the question at the end Here, I'll make it easier for you:

"(...) AMD has around 20% of the discrete GPU market in their hands. AMD has even less market share in CPUs. Taking both of those facts we can state that: People use Intel CPUs and NVIDIA GPUs so testing other hardware is unrealistic. Do you agree ?"

Whooooooooooooooooshh

I haven't seen anything go over anyone's dead that hard in the history of the internet and I've seen some dozies. FYI my claim was never that testing anything under 1080p is unrealistic for every game, it's what you again assumed. I specifically stated the average is 1080p, multiple times. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink I guess.

Liar. Here is what you have said:

I would also like to see those games benchmarked, just not at lower resolutions. Pro gamers play at 1080p, anything below that is not a realistic scenario.

So in fact yes, you have claimed that testing anything below 1080p is unrealistic

Moving on, are you now saying you meant average ? Funny, could have sworn I saw you saying stuff like: overwhelming majority of pro gamers use 1080p or above, every game besides CSGO has 1080p as a standard and the like. So which is it ? Do you even understand the difference or is it all interchangeable in your head ?

So when your friends talk to you do that have to give you exact GPS coordinates or is that not explicit enough?

I hope you realize that human language is full of less then specific words that ordinary people use every day. Only on the internet does a troll nitpick you for what is considered normal. Like me saying "I have a couple of Apples", well guess what I didn't mean 2, I meant 3. Or how about "I'm with friends". Just based on the context of that statement alone I could really mean "friends with benefits", "I'm with my gang", "I'm dying and going to meet my friends in heaven", "3 friends", "20 friends". See how that works? This is the internet of course, so you assumed the extreme.

Perhaps instead of attacking everyone, you should instead ask them what they specifically mean before making blind statements based on assumptions. As I see it, you've made a series of incorrect assumptions about what you though I said. All of your assumptions are to the extreme end of the spectrum.

Dude, you said and I quote: "I didn't specify the quantity of "Pros" so the reader can assume any number." So I did. Why didn't you just clarify what you meant when you saw I had misread your point ? Instead you doubled down and started defending your vague statement implying I was right in my assumption. I mean, why would you defend your claim if I was wrong in my assesment ? Makes no sense.

If you don't clarify what you mean then whatever happens because of that is on you. If you want to get a point across, then it's your responsibility to communicate it in a clear an concise manner. Knowingly using vague and ambiguous terms is lazy and counterproductive. There's also a high probability of it ending in a misunderstandment. That's why we have so many words at our disposal - to clearly describe what we mean. It saves time, makes exchanging of ideas/sharing information faster and more efficient. People aren't mind readers so expecting them to instinctively know what you mean is doomed to fail. We have different backgrounds, life experiences, levels of knowledge etc. and so the way we perceive the world can vastly differ.

 

[Evernessince]

Liar. Here is what you have said:



So in fact yes, you have claimed that testing anything below 1080p is unrealistic

Please read my sentence carefully or else it might trigger your semantics alarm again. I said the following:

"FYI my claim was never that testing anything under 1080p is unrealistic for every game"

I bolded the part you clearly missed. You once again took my statement where I was referring to the average and assumed it meant everything. Who would have thought that you would misinterpret the same part of my comment twice in a row despite my explicit explanation that when I said

"Pro gamers play at 1080p, anything below that is not a realistic scenario."

I meant the average pro gamer, not every last single one. Who would have thought that in fact a large majority do indeed play at 1080p or greater.

I've already stated that sentence was referring to the average pro gamer, at this point you are willfully ignorant.

I'm fully aware of what margin of error is. Secondly, your whole argument is based on a made up number ! How am I wrong ?

I find that hard to believe given you weren't even aware of what it was before I told you. In fact your previous comments tell the story about that well enough.

Made up number? You have clearly been ignoring my links and you clearly didn't contact steve. In fact this whole conversation you've provided little more then conjecture at backup your opinion.

Not more so than OW or R6. Just because you consider them to be "normal" doesn't mean it's universaly true. You clearly have no problem including titles which heavily support your point but are quick to dismiss any that stay in opposition to it. This, what you're doing here, is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.

"In statistics, an outlier is a data point that differs significantly from other observations."

https://www.google.com/search?clien.....0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i67.nyoFp6zctYs

CSGO far exceeds any other eSport in players who game at less then 1080p. Textbook definition of outlier. That's just facts. I've already proven in prior posts that the majority play at 1080p, which makes 1080p normal, average, whatever you want to call it. In the eSports world, CSGO is certainly an outlier when compared to the whole.

So your point is that anything below 50% is irrelevant and shouldn't be accounted for ? Well, I once again ask you then to read my paragraph about AMD market share and answer the question at the end Here, I'll make it easier for you:

Anything below 50% is below the majority, something which you fail to comprehend.

Dude, you said and I quote: "I didn't specify the quantity of "Pros" so the reader can assume any number." So I did. Why didn't you just clarify what you meant when you saw I had misread your point ?

Because it's expected that humans can interpret basic sentences and not jump to radical conclusions and attack others. You have failed all three. You don't even realize what a ridiculous request it is to require everyone to be extremely explicit because some random internet troll might misinterpret their statement and start attacking them.

 

[amstech]

Almost forgot, would have loved to have seen how the i9-9900X does.

 

[Evernessince]

No it's not and the fact is you pulled it out of thin air and tried to pass it on as some kind of standard. That's not how it works, sir. If you want to know how benchmarking standards are established go read about how TheTechReport made frame time measurments mainstream.

And no, it's not safe because it will obfuscate results for certain games. DOOM and Metro are good examples. Your 3% unicorn would disregard actual, measurable differences between GPUs/CPUs. It would have been bad practice. Besides, It's made up. Please stop.

Uhm, but GN do list their margins for each game ? Another proof you don't actually know their content. It doesn't stop you from using it to further your points for some strange reason.

What semantics ? Please, specify. From the get go my stance was that Intel CPUs have an advantage in gaming, even in 1440p. You then stated it's impossible to claim advantage because test results fall inside your bullcrap 3% margin of error. I disagreed with that statement and I still do. So where am I arguing semantics ?

I'm fully aware of what margin of error is. Secondly, your whole argument is based on a made up number ! How am I wrong ?

Dude, seriously, what is wrong with you ? Neither Steve nor GN have said what you're claiming. Can you read ? Do you have some mental issue that is making you see stuff that isn't there ? Here, quote from the review we are currently commenting on:

"If you’re exclusively concerned about gaming performance we’d recommend the 3700X and probably the 6-core 3600 models, which we'll be reviewing soon. But if you want the absolute fastest gaming CPU then that’s still either Intel’s 9700K or 9900K, even though value for money they aren’t great and there’s no upgrade path."

Stop making **** up.



What is overwhelming majority in your world then ? Specify.



But I haven't claimed nor implied in any way that CSGO is proof that every pro player games under 1080p. If you still think I have, please cite where it was. And please don't invent stuff as you have with the supposed conclusion of Steve and GN...



But I didn't say nor imply that it was so why are you arguing this point ? And my question still stands. Care to answer ?



Not more so than OW or R6. Just because you consider them to be "normal" doesn't mean it's universaly true. You clearly have no problem including titles which heavily support your point but are quick to dismiss any that stay in opposition to it. This, what you're doing here, is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.

So your point is that anything below 50% is irrelevant and shouldn't be accounted for ? Well, I once again ask you then to read my paragraph about AMD market share and answer the question at the end Here, I'll make it easier for you:

"(...) AMD has around 20% of the discrete GPU market in their hands. AMD has even less market share in CPUs. Taking both of those facts we can state that: People use Intel CPUs and NVIDIA GPUs so testing other hardware is unrealistic. Do you agree ?"



Liar. Here is what you have said:



So in fact yes, you have claimed that testing anything below 1080p is unrealistic

Moving on, are you now saying you meant average ? Funny, could have sworn I saw you saying stuff like: overwhelming majority of pro gamers use 1080p or above, every game besides CSGO has 1080p as a standard and the like. So which is it ? Do you even understand the difference or is it all interchangeable in your head ?



Dude, you said and I quote: "I didn't specify the quantity of "Pros" so the reader can assume any number." So I did. Why didn't you just clarify what you meant when you saw I had misread your point ? Instead you doubled down and started defending your vague statement implying I was right in my assumption. I mean, why would you defend your claim if I was wrong in my assesment ? Makes no sense.

If you don't clarify what you mean then whatever happens because of that is on you. If you want to get a point across, then it's your responsibility to communicate it in a clear an concise manner. Knowingly using vague and ambiguous terms is lazy and counterproductive. There's also a high probability of it ending in a misunderstandment. That's why we have so many words at our disposal - to clearly describe what we mean. It saves time, makes exchanging of ideas/sharing information faster and more efficient. People aren't mind readers so expecting them to instinctively know what you mean is doomed to fail. We have different backgrounds, life experiences, levels of knowledge etc. and so the way we perceive the world can vastly differ.

Take a look at this

"Now I say this all the time but I'll say it again but the titles where the margin was 5% or less I deem those as a draw. This is because you are generally looking at margin of error type differences"

So what was that about margin of error again?

 

[evilhf]

I have my R9 3900X on an MSI X370 board and 3733MHZ CL14 memories.
The processor is amazing, the PBO works like a charm.
I get 330 fps on QUAKECHAMPIONS, although I set the fps at 250.
Everything runs smooth and instant.
Below is a video of the incredible latency I got using my hardcore memory.

Its Lovelly Lisa Su ❤

 

[kmo911]

Now im on asus prime x570-p. https://www.userbenchmark.com/ will be used when I build it. so all info will come up later. using now a gigabyte x299 ud4-CE 2400 mhz ram module rtx 2070 phoiniex gpu i7-x7740 windows 10 18970.1005. but no pcie 4.0 gpu yet. that will come in nxt turn. links can be put here.

on a x570 MB x3600 cpu and 3200 ram modules. from www.amazon.com (z)oon.

 

[dannyo969]

I build PCs as a living and always ryzen was the cheap choice for gaming, finicky, hard to deal with. I pretty much only game on my setups and I swapped both my 9900k in my 2 rigs which both have 2080ti and thats coming from a guy who never owned a ryzen chip never thought I would. It doubles the benchmark of multicore score of the 9900k, and loses by a few points in single thread. I notice no difference in gaming, actually increased FPS in a few games.
heres my current bench and this is on an itx board I put in my corsair one! Im about performance and competition not brand. I hope intel comes out with a crazy cpu that will beat AMD ( likelyhood almost 0%) Yes the 9900k has a better single threaded score but its like 20 points max, the 3900x beats the 9900k MT by over 3000 points, and you can finally leverage that fast ram you got. And clock speeds are lower on the 3900x as well. Im just amazed what AMD accomplished and am excited for future tech because competition is great for us enthusiasts

http://valid.x86.fr/nk4yup?fbclid=IwAR0GWL1H_zj3m4fMdkOm4ihAzxCTIk7tGM80ojrNaPccxpsCiwI08dG1oTo

 

[dannyo969]

It comes down to what yourre using your PC for but no one can notice the gaming difference from 3900x and 9900k, I have them both and tried and tried blindly. From what I see AMDs 3900x is faster than the 9900k overall. with the single thread score being about 30 points in intels favor, and multithread 3000+ points in favor of AMD, and again, coming from someone who said hed never own an AMD cpu.

 

[Evernessince]

It comes down to what yourre using your PC for but no one can notice the gaming difference from 3900x and 9900k, I have them both and tried and tried blindly. From what I see AMDs 3900x is faster than the 9900k overall. with the single thread score being about 30 points in intels favor, and multithread 3000+ points in favor of AMD, and again, coming from someone who said hed never own an AMD cpu.

It gets even nicer when you pair that Ryzen with high end RAM as well. DDR4 3600 CL14 gives the processor an extra 5% single thread over 3200. That's just using XMP, you can tune it even further using Ryzen DRAM calculator.

 

[hahahanoobs]

$75 cooler versus free cooler.
Um, no.