Originally Posted by Unkzilla
I wonder what determines this 'real world gaming crown'.
I've got a 2700x and 9900k machine at home. At 4k there's no difference. I would say even a chip like the 2600 is a 4k contender.
That being said trying to hit 144 or 165 fps with a high refresh monitor is a different ballgame. There's some older titles that I am getting 170-180 fps on the 9900k and the 2700x will continously drop under 110 (Destiny 2)
I doubt a highly clocked 9900k will be beat- I am going to assume the new Ryzen chips are like the old ones and that the all core OC will be lower than the advertised 'max speed' . Going to assume maybe 4.5 or 4.6ghz OC'd on all cores for Ryzen 3000 which will not be enough to match the 9900k at 5kghz/higher
thats all about that mem latency... i can have a intel at 41x-45x doing better than a 50x combined with 3200 cl16 ram on low res when cpu bottleneck starts. the frequency its not helping it . the mem latency does
i would net around -2ns on a frecuency boost of 1.2GHz for example.. thats barely nothing and margin of error