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

[LogiGaming]

A lot of people on here are admitting that Ryzen 2 is slower at games than Intel but saying it doesn’t matter because you can’t tell the difference. Well, you’re right in that in most cases you won’t be able to tell the difference. However, if you’re buying a CPU purely to game with - and it’s clear that a lot of people will be. It doesn’t really make any sense to choose the slower part. It’s like saying don’t buy a 5700 over an RX590 if gaming at 1080p because you won’t be able to notice the difference. Also, it’s likely that in say 3 years time or whatever you will be buying a GPU upgrade that will be considerably more powerful than anything available today and that will shift more games to bottlenecking on the CPU. Games will also become more CPU hungry with time as games become more comprehensive. When these things happen, there’s a good chance you will be able to notice the difference in these games.

But really, it still doesn’t make any sense to me to buy a weaker performing part at what you are planning to do with it. There are some productivity tests that show Intel very close in performance to Ryzen to the point where you probably wouldn’t notice but that doesn’t mean you’d pick Intel over AMD if you’re planning to use it for that particular application. Such a suggestion would be ridiculous.

And I don’t buy the value gamer argument, Ryzen 2 has poor value compared to the now discounted ryzen+, which you also won’t be able to tell the difference between - many claimed this between Ryzen+ and Intel so why not just buy that if you’re after value? Ryzen is cheaper than Intel but neither is cheap, if you’re buying for gaming only then I can’t see why you would pick Ryzen 2 over either Ryzen+ for value or over Intel for absolute performance.

Don’t get me wrong of course, Ryzen 2 is clearly a much better family of CPUs than Intel’s 14nm stuff practically across the board - for 19/20 users perhaps. But not if you’re a performance minded gamer. I don’t understand it, the graphs are black and white and if you’re an AMD fan you should be very happy that AMD are now dominating Intel in almost every area. It’s like you want it to be perfect to the point where AMD is literally better at everything. You can’t have everything!

Basically be happy AMD fans. All Intel have got now are the gaming performance enthusiasts like me. We are pleasure users, not people actually using this stuff for work. Those guys should be buying Ryzen.

The problem is that you just shown too much IQ for some people to handle. I personally give up, let them live in the ilusion and on the hypocrisy. Imagine buying a CPU to play games in 2019, paying 370€/500€ and competing with a 3 year old 6700k.

 

[GreenNova343]

Wow such a major disapointment! Awful overclockers, can´t even sustain acceptable clocks with acceptable voltages. They run hot and still underperforming in games compared to Intel CPUs at 4,8ghz. Meh, I was expecting AMD to completly obliterate Intel but this is just a major let down!

Bro! You just posted cringe!

Dude cringe?? Look at the benchmarks, some games have 20%/30% differences on the 1% Lows compared to Intel and that´s at 1440p!! Weren´t you expecting better gaming performance from these chips after everything that AMD promoted? Cmon, this can barely compete with a stock 7700k in games. The 9700k/9900k completly obliterate these Ryzen chips in games, by still a large and noticeable difference.

I think you misread those results. This is the actual math based on the charts above:

All at 1440p resolution, looking at the 1% Low results only:
-- Assassin's Creed: Odyssey: 3-4FPS less for 3700X, 1-2FPS less for 3900X = <5% drop vs. 9700K & 3-6% drop vs. 9900K
-- Battlefield V: 6-7FPS less for 3700X, 5-6FPS less for 3900X = 5-6% drop vs. 9700K & 5-7% drop vs. 9900K
-- Shadow of the Tomb Raider: 2FPS less for 3700X = <3% drop vs. 9700K & 9900K; 3900X has identical performance
-- The Division 2 (1440p): identical performance for both compared to 9700K; 2FPS higher vs. 9900K
-- Far Cry New Dawn (1440p): 9-11FPS less for 3700X, 5-7FPS less for 3900X = 5-10% drop vs. 9700K & 7-12% drop vs. 9900K
-- World War Z (1440p): 13-12FPS less for 3700X, 12-11FPS less for 3900X = 10-11% drop vs. 9700K & 9-11% drop vs. 9900K
-- Rage 2 (1440p): identical performance vs. 9700K & 9900K
-- Hitman 2 (1440p): 8-6FPS less for 3700X, 7-5FPS less for 3900X = 8-9% drop vs. 9700K, 6-7% drop vs. 9900K
-- Total War 3 Kingdoms (1440p): 2FPS less for 3700X, 1FPS less for 3900X = < 3% drop for 3700X & < 2% drop for 3900X vs. both 9700K & 9900K

Summary of the results (aka "TLR" version), with 9 games tested
3700X vs. 9700K
-- identical performance in 2 games
-- Roughly 7-10% slower in 3 games
-- Roughly 6% or less slower in 4 games
3700X vs. 9900K:
-- Better performance in 1 game
-- Identical performance in 1 games
-- Roughly 7-10% slower in 4 games
-- Roughly 6% or less slower in 3 games
3900X vs. 9700K:
-- identical performance in 3 games
-- Roughly 7-10% slower in 2 games
-- Roughly 6% or less slower in 4 games
3900X vs. 9900K:
-- Better performance in 1 game
-- Identical performance in 2 games
-- Roughly 7-10% slower in 2 games
-- Roughly 6% or less slower in 4 games

Nowhere in the 1440p results was there a 30% drop (or even a 30FPS) between the 1% results for the 3700X/3900X & the 9700K/9900K...& the only games where the Zens showed a 30FPS gap between their 1% & Average rates were the same games that the Intel chips showed similar gaps in their performance.

 

[meric]

AMD is on the right track here. Lots of talk on gaming here but the real profit lies in server and workstation market. AMD's arch favors these kind of workloads. Even when the subject is gaming AMD has come a long way fixing their defects, fighting against 2 market behemoths on the way, despite having very limited resources. Once they gain more market share in server market, I'm sure they'll make better "mainstream" products too. By the way kudos to Jim Keller for designing such a nice cpu arch.

 

[LogiGaming]

Ryzen 5 3600 can´t even sustain 120fps locked on Battlefield V multiplayer! While even a 150€ i5 9400F can lock it to 144h. Watch the video. I knew this would be more and more obvious as reviewers started to test the CPUs on "competitive games" scenarios. I think it is completly unaceptable that in 2019 you buy a 230€ CPU and you can´t even use your 144hz monitor to its full potential. The CPU can´t even stay at 100fps steady!!! Awful!

Here you have the same game, with an i5 8400 and a gtx 1060. Compare the two videos and make your own conclusions.

 

[wiyosaya]

TPU, Anand, Tom's all come to exact same conclusions as this review.

Ryzen 5 3600 can´t even sustain 120fps locked on Battlefield V multiplayer! While even a 150€ i5 9400F can lock it to 144h. Watch the video. I knew this would be more and more obvious as reviewers started to test the CPUs on "competitive games" scenarios. I think it is completly unaceptable that in 2019 you buy a 230€ CPU and you can´t even use your 144hz monitor to its full potential. The CPU can´t even stay at 100fps steady!!! Awful!

Simple: buy something else, and contact Lisa Su and tell her you know how to run AMD better than she does.

 

[Puiu]

The problem is that you just shown too much IQ for some people to handle. I personally give up, let them live in the ilusion and on the hypocrisy. Imagine buying a CPU to play games in 2019, paying 370€/500€ and competing with a 3 year old 6700k.

Except that you are not just beating that particular CPU but you are within 5 to 10% of Intel's best CPU while dominating in every other area by margins as large as 50% basically destroying even HEDT CPUs.
By your own definition, Intel is competing with CPUs it released years ago in games.

 

[LogiGaming]

Yes, the same old "5% to 10%" that we hear since Ryzen 5 1600. Sure. Even a 9400F has 40fps more than R5 3600 on Battlefield V multiplayer as you can see on the videos I linked above. Whatever. I´m out, cya on the 7nm+.

 

[Puiu]

Ryzen 5 3600 can´t even sustain 120fps locked on Battlefield V multiplayer! While even a 150€ i5 9400F can lock it to 144h. Watch the video. I knew this would be more and more obvious as reviewers started to test the CPUs on "competitive games" scenarios. I think it is completly unaceptable that in 2019 you buy a 230€ CPU and you can´t even use your 144hz monitor to its full potential. The CPU can´t even stay at 100fps steady!!! Awful!

Here you have the same game, with an i5 8400 and a gtx 1060. Compare the two videos and make your own conclusions.

Here's what a real benchmark looks like for the 9400F, not your random videos (hint, it's nowhere near locking at 144Hz):

From what you can see, the 9400F has an 1% of 98 when you use a Z class mobo with 3400MHz RAM, the same as the 2600x. The only difference is that you can OC the 2600x and get better 1% lows.
And if you use a cheap mobo which forces you to use 2660MHz ram you are basically getting stutters and lower 1% results.

The 9400F and the 2600x are basically identical (within 2-3 FPS of eachother). The only difference is that the 2600x still has the advantage in other areas because of SMT. You can blame intel for artificially restriction features on their CPUs (like HT or ECC memory support).

 

[Evernessince]

@Evernessince lol Plenty of people turn off HT and SMT. Do you not know how to do research? SMT has been recommend as being turned off for years since Ryzen came out. You would know this by researching.
Even TechSpot had articles on this.
You can search just about any forum and you will see people have smt or ht turned off. Some will even recommend it off.

I personally never turned HT off as I never ran into issues like some did. My 9700K doesn’t use HT so it no longer means anything to me.

Also I never said wide spread. That’s you. I simply said that people turn off ht and smt, cause they do. Users do these things, more so gamers.

How about a link instead of conjecture on the HT subject? If it's so widely recommended, you should have no problem providing evidence

You never said widespread? Oh please argue semantics all you want, we all know what this statement means

"The Ryzen platform has been plagued with reported "game stuttering" issues since release"

I’m not “complaining” about the bundled free cooler I’m just stating that for me and probably quite a few others it’s not a value add. It looks like it’s pretty reasonable cooler but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t buy a better one. And you might sell it for $30 on eBay but chances are you won’t, I just looked and there are quite a few listings for the wraith prism at $10. What’s $10? It’s not a big deal at all, it’s not a problem they included it but the value graphs on this review are a bit unfair to people who are going to buy some kind of AIO or a big Noctua tower etc for this thing regardless. I mean in the case of a 3900X, this is a $500 CPU, are you telling me that there aren’t going to be people who won’t be happy with a bundled $10-$30 (whatever you want to value it at) cooler?

People are getting a minimum of $30, if not more. And that's the wraith prism, not the max which goes for $40+ right now. Please provide a link to these wraith prisms that are at $10. I did not see a single one yet that's what you based your value assessment off without proof.

Second, it doesn't matter whether you are getting an aftermarket cooler or not, the included cooler is FREE. You are sitting here complaining about that.

Who talked about CS? You again with this non sense just like when we talked about Ryzen 2000 vs Intel. you also said in that time that the difference was minimal, now Ryzen 3000 is out and the difference is minimal, so afterall 2000 was far right? Yeah....

Do yourself a favor and go check what happens when you play games like:

- Battlefield V Multiplayer COnquest Large 64 players
- Black Ops 4 Multiplayer
- Quake Champions
- Escape from Tarkov
- Arma 3
- Apex Legends

Use 1080p with Low/Medium settings with a good GPU. Watch the comparasions between AMD and Intel on that scenario, specifically the 0,1% lows. Even on this review with GPU bottleneck and SINGLE PLAYER, you can see Intel leads on Battlefield. 125fps 1% lows vs 111 on AMD, 168 average vs 155. That´s with GPU at 100%.

You DO NOT need a 2080 ti to take advantage of a faster gaming CPU. Most people that play shooters online use lower settings to get the highest fps possible, and on those scenarios the GPU usage is already lower than 100% for the most part, wich also reduces input lag as any FPS player knows (100% usage = more Mouse latency, you want the GPU at 85% max, preferbaly lower than that).

There are some nasty differences on that scenario, this is just an example, with a whooping 40fps difference:

Another example, from GN with a whooping 50fps difference:

Talk more about "5%" difference.

You guys have problems admiting things as they are. I have no problems saying 3900x obliterates any Intel offer productivity wise as it costs same as 9900k and does WAY more at most productivity tasks, but saying AMD RYzen 3000 is as good as Intel in games or that "You won´t notice" is straight BS. Sorry.

And you guys want to talk about GPU bottlenecked situations? Fine, go grab a R5 2600 for 120€ then, it will offer same performance or within 5%, costing 2 to 3 times less.

Here, let me link the page instead of cherry picking like you love to do: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/14.html

The 9900K is 8.3% faster at 720p with a 2080 Ti. Now if you are talking about a resolution people might actually use, 1080p cuts that lead in half. Now 1080p is GPU bottlenecked? Oh I better go alert the Overwatch and DOTA league that they are doing it wrong. LogiGaming knows more then the people who do it for a living. The only reason you take snippets of benchmarks without links is because cherry picking is all you have.

Ryzen 5 3600 can´t even sustain 120fps locked on Battlefield V multiplayer! While even a 150€ i5 9400F can lock it to 144h. Watch the video. I knew this would be more and more obvious as reviewers started to test the CPUs on "competitive games" scenarios. I think it is completly unaceptable that in 2019 you buy a 230€ CPU and you can´t even use your 144hz monitor to its full potential. The CPU can´t even stay at 100fps steady!!! Awful!

Here you have the same game, with an i5 8400 and a gtx 1060. Compare the two videos and make your own conclusions.

Oh really? Because reviews have the 3900X over the 9600K, let alone the 8400.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/15.html

 

[LogiGaming]

Here's what a real benchmark looks like for the 9400F, not your random videos (hint, it's nowhere near locking at 144Hz):

From what you can see, the 9400F has an 1% of 98 when you use a Z class mobo with 3400MHz RAM, the same as the 2600x. The only difference is that you can OC the 2600x and get better 1% lows.
And if you use a cheap mobo which forces you to use 2660MHz ram you are basically getting stutters and lower 1% results.

The 9400F and the 2600x are basically identical (within 2-3 FPS of eachother). The only difference is that the 2600x still has the advantage in other areas because of SMT. You can blame intel for artificially restriction features on their CPUs (like HT or ECC memory support).

1- That video is from May, not from July after the latest Battlefield V big patch

2- Those are single player benchmarks. not actual Conquest Large 64 players maps

3- My video is not "random", is from the most known Brazilian benchmarker channel.

Keep making excuses, the numbers are there, the dude even captured the screen. 100fps average on the R5 3600 is shocking.

 

[144hzGamer]

Here's what a real benchmark looks like for the 9400F, not your random videos (hint, it's nowhere near locking at 144Hz):

From what you can see, the 9400F has an 1% of 98 when you use a Z class mobo with 3400MHz RAM, the same as the 2600x. The only difference is that you can OC the 2600x and get better 1% lows.
And if you use a cheap mobo which forces you to use 2660MHz ram you are basically getting stutters and lower 1% results.

The 9400F and the 2600x are basically identical (within 2-3 FPS of eachother). The only difference is that the 2600x still has the advantage in other areas because of SMT. You can blame intel for artificially restriction features on their CPUs (like HT or ECC memory support).

Lol you again... My cpu is the ryzen 5 2600 and how many times you seen me here complaining about the fact I get 80fps to 90fps with 50% gpu utilization on my favourite franchise, BF V online? You keep talking about single player tests or not conquest large benchs. Have you ever played bf V conquest or firestrom? I bet you didn't.

Plus you seem too desperate to prove a point wich no one knows what's about really. Intel is better in games, AMD is the best buy for 99% of the people, just freaking deal with it and move on. And I see you on every damn website or youtube comments section defending AMD all the time (providing it is the same username and avatar and same person as you). How embarrasing is that? Cmon.

 

[MonsterZero]

So basically for gaming the i9 is still better.

 

[Evernessince]

1- That video is from May, not from July after the latest Battlefield V big patch

2- Those are single player benchmarks. not actual Conquest Large 64 players maps

3- My video is not "random", is from the most known Brazilian benchmarker channel.

Keep making excuses, the numbers are there, the dude even captured the screen. 100fps average on the R5 3600 is shocking.

1. The Brazilian video you linked doesn't even have an average at the end or even for each game. You are basing your numbers off a single subjective observation. In otherwords you make an observation with preconceived bias, which disqualified any observation you would have made as admissible as any kind of data.

2. I doubt you know Brazilian, so in fact you are taking everything out of context without a care for the words of the reviewer.

3. If the most known brazilian benchmarker can't even both to do basic charts and instead relies on mere observations (of which have a huge margin of error), I'm extremely disappointed in brazil.

 

[Shadowboxer]

Except that you are not just beating that particular CPU but you are within 5 to 10% of Intel's best CPU while dominating in every other area by margins as large as 50% basically destroying even HEDT CPUs.
By your own definition, Intel is competing with CPUs it released years ago in games.

tbf, I’d say Intel are competing with their own older CPUs in games, their better now but not by a huge amount. Games don’t benefit that much from higher core count, which is all we have really had from Intel. The thing is this new Ryzen stuff falls just short of that single core performance Intel has been serving us for years. And for me, looking at the results that’s purely down to clocks, if Ryzen 3 was hitting the boost clocks I thought we’d get from the leaks (4.7 for the 3950X for example) then I think it could have matched or even edged the 9900k. I’m a performance buyer who when buying will tend to buy the best, even if I can’t tell the difference right away to a cheaper component. But I have a 4790k (was the best a few years ago!) and game at 4K so I’m not CPU bottlenecked so I’m not buying anything new. However, if something can come along and offer a serious improvement over what Intel/AMD are delivering now I’d be tempted to upgrade. If I did I can assure you I’d be buying whichever is best at gaming, even if it’s only by 10% on average.

However this is more Ryzens problem I think. Any gaming user with a fast Intel quad (hyperthreaded) from the last 2-8 years or so is unlikely to bother with a 9900k or a Ryzen 3 part as it’s not a huge upgrade for not a small amount of money (more for Intel). If AMD want market penetration in the gaming space it needs to offer those users a bigger upgrade for $350 or so - which is more than they probably paid for their older i7. Older i5, i3 and FX users (and obvs older chips that those) are prime fodder for AMD right now. Unless they want the absolute best whatever the cost, then I can’t see why they wouldn’t pick a 9900k.

 

[LogiGaming]

1. The Brazilian video you linked doesn't even have an average at the end or even for each game. You are basing your numbers off a single subjective observation. In otherwords you make an observation with preconceived bias, which disqualified any observation you would have made as admissible as any kind of data.

2. I doubt you know Brazilian, so in fact you are taking everything out of context without a care for the words of the reviewer.

3. If the most known brazilian benchmarker can't even both to do basic charts and instead relies on mere observations (of which have a huge margin of error), I'm extremely disappointed in brazil.

There is no "Brazilian" language. It´s called Portuguese, and I´m Portuguese, so yeah, I do understand what Brazilians say. Nice try tho.

 

[Evernessince]

So basically for gaming the i9 is still better.

Yes, for ultra-high end rigs that are only used for gaming. For anything below ultra-high end though, Steve from GamersNexus recommends a Ryzen 3600. If you doing anything else with the PC though, you should look at the Ryzen CPUs.

There is no "Brazilian" language. It´s called Portuguese, and I´m Portuguese, so yeah, I do understand what Brazilians say. Nice try tho.

Right, and I'm chinese. See how that works, saying I have a qualification doesn't make it true.

 

[wiyosaya]

1- That video is from May, not from July after the latest Battlefield V big patch

2- Those are single player benchmarks. not actual Conquest Large 64 players maps

3- My video is not "random", is from the most known Brazilian benchmarker channel.

Keep making excuses, the numbers are there, the dude even captured the screen. 100fps average on the R5 3600 is shocking.

IMO, all your posts are sounding like sIntel - filled with desperation. How much is sIntel paying you to post here?

 

[LogiGaming]

So basically for gaming the i9 is still better.

The i9 9900k, i7 9700k, i7 8700k, i5 8600k and i5 9600k. All better, providing you overclock them to the 4,7ghz-5ghz range.

 

[LogiGaming]

Yes, for ultra-high end rigs that are only used for gaming. For anything below ultra-high end though, Steve from GamersNexus recommends a Ryzen 3600. If you doing anything else with the PC though, you should look at the Ryzen CPUs.



Right, and I'm chinese. See how that works, saying I have a qualification doesn't make it true.

Aquilo que tu tentas fazer para justificar os teus pontos até ao limite, como sempre. Sempre o mesmo e com os mesmos argumentos ridículos. Agora até metes em causa quando te dizem que são de um certo país. Que coisa mais ridícula!!!

This is Portuguese, you can translate if you want. If there is any other way that I can prove Portuguese is my native language let me know. Maybe copy a text on here and let me translate it on 5 minutes and with a completly different result from google translator one?

You are silly dude... very silly.. the stuff you do to try to win arguments is unreal

 

[LogiGaming]

IMO, all your posts are sounding like sIntel - filled with desperation. How much is sIntel paying you to post here?

I wish they pay me! Maybe they could have paid my 2nd Ryzen 2700x PC aswell, the one I use for streaming. Hardware is not cheap

 

[Evernessince]

Aquilo que tu tentas fazer para justificar os teus pontos até ao limite, como sempre. Sempre o mesmo e com os mesmos argumentos ridículos. Agora até metes em causa quando te dizem que são de um certo país. Que coisa mais ridícula!!!

This is Portuguese, you can translate if you want. If there is any other way that I can prove Portuguese is my native language let me know. Maybe copy a text on here and let me translate it on 5 minutes and with a completly different result from google translator one?

You are silly dude... very silly.. the stuff you do to try to win arguments is unreal

Google translate is a handy tool

 

[wiyosaya]

<...>If AMD want market penetration in the gaming space<...>

Here is something that I have said before. The gamer market is far smaller than the enterprise, workstation, and productivity markets. It is clear to me, anyway, that AMD has targeted enterprise/workstation/productivity markets because they are far more lucrative - and that is what AMD needs is money to stay alive and continue development. IMO, AMD cannot survive on the gamer market alone.

That their gaming performance has increased in recent generations is something that I see as a side effect of the markets that they are targeting. Personally, I do not see it as wise for AMD to specifically target the gamer market at the expense of all else.

With this and other reviews, AMD is trashing sIntel in the productivity space; this is what is important. This will earn them the cash to continue their improvements.

 

[Shadowboxer]

Here is something that I have said before. The gamer market is far smaller than the enterprise, workstation, and productivity markets. It is clear to me, anyway, that AMD has targeted enterprise/workstation/productivity markets because they are far more lucrative - and that is what AMD needs is money to stay alive and continue development. IMO, AMD cannot survive on the gamer market alone.

That their gaming performance has increased in recent generations is something that I see as a side effect of the markets that they are targeting. Personally, I do not see it as wise for AMD to specifically target the gamer market at the expense of all else.

With this and other reviews, AMD is trashing sIntel in the productivity space; this is what is important. This will earn them the cash to continue their improvements.

Can’t disagree with that. These CPUs clearly aren’t for gamers. Even from Intel side of things, they market for gaming because they do win there but these companies aren’t spending billions developing silicon so I can play metro at 144hz consistently.

 

[wiyosaya]

I wish they pay me! Maybe they could have paid my 2nd Ryzen 2700x PC aswell, the one I use for streaming. Hardware is not cheap

I agree - hardware is not cheap. I'm running an E5-1650V2 and I will continue to do so for a while. What I have works well enough for me.

I'm sorry it sounds like you feel you got the short hardware straw; however, that is a chance we all take. For me, I research pretty much everything I buy, however, even that does not always mean that I end up with something that totally satisfies me.

As I see it, the important thing about AMD is that they are slapping sIntel around a bit in some very lucrative markets like enterprise/workstation/productivity. To me, this competition is the most important aspect.

As to designing high performing hardware, it is not a easy task. Perhaps this is why sIntel's performance improvements over the recent generations has been nothing to speak of.

Honestly, as I said in another post, I do not think it would be wise for AMD to target the gamer market alone. They need the productivity/enterprise space to make money. Will AMD ever top sIntel again? Who knows. For now, I think it is great to have a competitor in the CPU arena again; otherwise, sIntels next generation prices would likely be astronomical.

 

[Puiu]

Lol you again... My cpu is the ryzen 5 2600 and how many times you seen me here complaining about the fact I get 80fps to 90fps with 50% gpu utilization on my favourite franchise, BF V online? You keep talking about single player tests or not conquest large benchs. Have you ever played bf V conquest or firestrom? I bet you didn't.

Plus you seem too desperate to prove a point wich no one knows what's about really. Intel is better in games, AMD is the best buy for 99% of the people, just freaking deal with it and move on. And I see you on every damn website or youtube comments section defending AMD all the time (providing it is the same username and avatar and same person as you). How embarrasing is that? Cmon.

You've posted so many troll stuff here and in youtube comments too. All you've done is waste my time having to link you stuff that disprove all of what you said.

You getting 80-90 fps in a game is none of my concern (if I even try to believe you after so many lies). It could be because of so many reasons. Go to any reddit cs:go or bfv thread that has performance discussions and you'll see people with the same specs reporting wildly different FPS.

1- That video is from May, not from July after the latest Battlefield V big patch

2- Those are single player benchmarks. not actual Conquest Large 64 players maps

3- My video is not "random", is from the most known Brazilian benchmarker channel.

Keep making excuses, the numbers are there, the dude even captured the screen. 100fps average on the R5 3600 is shocking.

The only thing I found in terms of performance about the latest patches from BF is that people keep complaining that their performance is now worse and that the game is such a buggy mess that it basically became a meme on it's own reddit page.

You are lying about the fact that the R5 3600 is getting 100FPS average when the 2600x was already getting above 100 FPS average in 64 player multiplayer in the relatively better controlled benchmarks done by Steve here (119 FPS to be more exact). Are you telling that this July update made the FPS worse for AMD and better for Intel? O_o ok