The links your supplied support his point. Not yours.
AMD Ryzen 5000 launch: "Fastest gaming CPU," higher clocks, higher prices
- Thread starter Julio Franco
- Start date
The links your supplied support his point. Not yours.
I pointed at the known fact that their Ryzen 2 gaming slides were lies and there was quite a huge uproar about this after the 3900x review because people were expecting it to match 9900k in gaming which didn't happen even remotely.
Also, yes, AMD has quite long history of lying when comes to benches, may I remind you the famous FX 8150 fail where they tested it with a mainstream gpu so they were gpu bottlenecked and thus they could claim in their slides that their cpu is as much fast as the Intel six core counterpart i7 980x and if you go AMD, you save so much money you can afford additional monitors for Eyefinity? Yeah, it makes sense buying 250 USD gpu and investing over 1K -2K into monitors as they proposed.
Sorry to break it for you.
JimboJoneson
Posts: 310 +507
He didn't say double, he said nearly ... here lets work it out together ...
1080ti sold for $700
2080ti sold for $1200 which is nearly 2 x $700.
--
"Differentiating singular vs plural?" WTH are you even talking about? Why do you seem to be raging? What is there to rage about? Zen3 reveal didn't go as you expected?
Last edited:
JimboJoneson
Posts: 310 +507
I don't recall this huge uproar ... perhaps you can present some sources for your claim?
What my points? Maybe learn to read.
I MERELY said, that AMD was comparing 9900k with 3900x and claiming they were on par in gaming.
He said, I AM WRONG and that Amd ONLY compared their cpus with 9700k. Which is a lie.
And within the context, he is ALSO suggesting that I said that AMD was telling something about having the fastest cpu.
Again, which is ALSO A LIE, because I never suggested something even remotely close to that, so he is making stuff again and moving the goal post.
So maybe you know, reading comprehension.
JimboJoneson
Posts: 310 +507
Yup, if was just going for a pure gaming Intel CPU, that's the one I would have bought. Its a good chip and the price is decent.
"Nearly doubled their prices? Oh please tell when they DOUBLED PRICES."
Learn to read. I am using the same dishonest figurative way of speech as he did and I even POINTED AT IT by using capitals so someone like you would comprehend it.
Nvidia nearly doubled the price of one product, he suggested Nvidia doubled PRICES which is again a LIE.
Nice try, you failed.
JimboJoneson
Posts: 310 +507
I dunno ... 5% with the 9900k OCd to 5.0ghz over a 36 game spread actually does seem remotely close to me ... https://www.techspot.com/review/1877-core-i9-9900k-vs-ryzen-9-3900x/
Maybe you have different definitions for the terms "nearly' and "remotely" than everyone else? I suppose that might be possible.
Last edited:
You are trying very hard to make AMD looking bad and failing I
lol look at my post in here then yours nice try boss.
The fact that you don't have a single like on any of your post speaks volumes.
But keep trying..
The next month is going to be real hard for intel fans I will pray for you
JimboJoneson
Posts: 310 +507
"he suggested Nvidia doubled PRICES which is again a LIE".
Er ... lol ... no. He used the exact same math and SKU I did ... I just repeated it in a more simple breakdown for you. It was you who removed the word nearly, removing the part of the whole context to try to make it seem like he was lying ... You are drunk, aren't you?
Last edited:
Avro Arrow
Posts: 3,721 +4,821
Where do you get "almost" Intel performance for "almost" Intel prices? Intel STILL charges more for their CPUs (and you have to buy a damn cooler separately) despite AMD's CPUs now being superior in EVERY SINGLE METRIC.
Look, it's clear that you're an Intel fanboy and you're going to buy Intel no matter what and that's ok, it's your right to get whatever you want. I just don't understand how you can try to shill for Intel when they're so obviously beaten. AMD is beating Intel in desktop, mobile, prosumer HEDT, gaming and in the server space. AMD CPUs are also less expensive (even with the $50 increase that you're crying about) and come with coolers (which is another $30 or so that you don't have to spend). Did you whine and cry when Intel stopped enclosing coolers with their CPUs? Didn't think so.
There's nothing left for Intel fanboys to hang on to so now you're just reaching.
Your post just makes you look sadder than Linus did in the Taiwanese rain.
Looks nice. 32MB on a 6 Core with lower latency, lower watts, etc.
Forgeddabout benchmarks, my 3700X is my benchmark. Not as good as my i7’s but sure looks better now.
Still can wait for the Cezzane.
Okay Intel, want my money? Bring your game..
We are spoiled and it’s not even CES yet.
Forgeddabout benchmarks, my 3700X is my benchmark. Not as good as my i7’s but sure looks better now.
Still can wait for the Cezzane.
Okay Intel, want my money? Bring your game..
We are spoiled and it’s not even CES yet.
Yeah I have a different definition since 3900x is slower than 8700k.
You keep moving the goal post, eventually you will find something you can argue for. I was talking about matching 9900k which didn't happen because 3900x is slower than 8700k. But keep moving the goal post, keep using different words than me so you can pretend we are talking about the same thing and you are right.
Also, I would suggest you to check Gamer nexus to actually see how "fast" 3900x is because he actually knows how to do a proper review. The difference is even higher than 10% and 3900x is often slower than 9600k or 3700x.
To be fair, there is probably even less overclocking headroom for any existing ryzen chips to date and I don't see that changing with the 5000 series.
Draconian
Posts: 158 +63
The 5600X looks most interesting to me. Good price, low TDP, and includes a cooler.
JimboJoneson
Posts: 310 +507
Ok let me take this great chart you cherry picked here and go with that. 11% here on this one, and 5% on the Techspot review. let's cut the difference and go with 8%?
"Not even remotely close ... " - lol. Come'on man. You are just becoming entertainment at this point.
You need to calm down ."he suggested Nvidia doubled PRICES which is again a LIE".
Er ... lol ... no. He used the exact same math and SKU I did ... I just repeated it in a more simple breakdown for you. It was you who removed the word nearly, removing the part of the whole context to try to make it seem like he was lying ... You are drunk, aren't you?
Moving the goal post again.
When I confronted him about his lie about Nvidia nearly doubling prices, he pointed at he had meant 2080ti.
I didn't remove "double", I mentioned double the price first. Then I capitalized it to show I am using the figurative way of speech and his dishonest way of arguing.
You tried, you failed. Get better.
JimboJoneson
Posts: 310 +507
So you are saying he clarified a misunderstanding you had about his post and that is why you started raging? Yes, I think we can all see that ...
BTW ... I never said you removed "double". You removed his word "nearly" ... its all right there in your post. We can all see it.
Squid Surprise
Posts: 5,592 +5,225
So when do the 5000 series Threadrippers come out? I'd love to see a 5990
Ok let me take this great chart you cherry picked here and go with that. 11% here on this one, and 5% on the Techspot review. let's cut the difference and go with 8%?
"Not even remotely close ... " - lol. Come'on man. You are just becoming entertainment at this point.
Please, stop your projections.
Techpower up review is showing 10% difference in performance too.
Since 3900x can't beat 8700k and is consistently trailing 3700x and often behind 9600k, it is not even close to 9900k.
Again, I said AMD showed benches where 3900x matches 9900k whilst in fact, they are slower than 8700k and often behind 9600k.
I know, in the amd world, behind 10% on aggregate and experiencing plenty of games where the performance difference is 20 or even 25% is "close".
Squid Surprise
Posts: 5,592 +5,225
While I won't dispute that the 3900 is slower IN GAMING than Intel's products... I'd like to point out that the person "moving the goal posts" is clearly you. Your argument started with the 3900 vs 9900 and has now moved to the 8700... You also had some nonsense about Borderlands and bottlenecking which, despite me having re-read it 3 times, still can't see what your point is...
Yes, there are plenty of AMD fanboys that think that everything the company makes is made of gold.... but this time it looks like they may be right!
Anyways, no one will actually know whether the AMD claims are lies or not until the CPU is released next month. Maybe wait until then before spouting off?
As to the lack of coolers... most gamers usually chucked the included coolers and bought their own anyways. And while stock users will miss the included cooler, they're pretty cheap and easy to install...
The only "gripe" I can empathize with is the added price. While one fool said that the price has doubled (apparently math wasn't his strong point), a $50 increase (for me closer to $75 as I'm a Canadian) seems like a "we can, so we will" kind of mentality. The thing is, there really isn't any competition for these chips - so AMD could have charged $100 more and they'd probably still sell.
Similar threads
