Posts: 5,100 +5,345
"When it comes to productivity applications we found that the 10900K was up to 35% slower than the 3900X"Pretty impressive, this 10 core is hanging with AMD's 12 core in application benchmarks!
And Intel still rules the roost when it comes to gaming, and now the multi-thread stuff is very close again.
Also, one tidbit....the 8700K is faster then the 3950X for gaming? Yikes!
Is Intel's 10 year old architecture with a paint job battling, beating and matching AMD's new Ryzen? Looks like it!
You do realize you qualify that 35% lead AMD has (while being significantly cheaper) as "hanging" while you then go on to bash AMD for having 3% less gaming performance, right?
The top 4 CPUs are within 3 FRAMES or each other, the top 9 are within 3% for gaming. That's with a 2080 Ti at 1080p. Enough said. Intel hasn't improved gaming performance over 3 generations of CPUs.
You had better hope AMD doesn't improve gaming performance of Zen 3 CPUs, otherwise I expect you to tout a 1-3% lead in gaming as "dominating" as you do with every Intel launch.
The most impressive part of this launch is Intel adding those two extra cores at a high frequency without blowing out the power consumption. Not the gaming performance, or it being 35% slower then a 12 core.