Seems like it's still not faster than Intel when it comes to gaming. Guess Intel will keep their fastest gaming CPU title.
With the lowest boost clock of the line-up, it's way too soon to be declaring that. It's going to be a lot closer when you compare the 3800X against the 9900K, to the point that Intel will lose some of them, hence their need for the 9900KS.
Eh, doesn't seem that much better than the 2600X (which is pretty similar to a 2700X in games). Their benches for Far Cry seem pretty off though; the 2700x should be at 114 or so fps. https://www.guru3d.com/articles_page...review,20.html - test systems pretty similar.
1. This is only a 3600 at 4.2 not a 4.6 ghz part
2. What was the intel machine boosting to?
Gotta be honest a lot of those scores (except GTA) are close enough now that the story might be different with a 10% clock boost.
Really hoping all Ryzen 3K chips can OC an extra 10% at least (my 1800x does that, granted on high voltage, but still).
Originally Posted by Ha-Nocri
It's noticeable faster than 2700X in games. And ofc it's slower than Intel, we expected that. The fastest Zen 2 CPU (3950X I guess) won't catch 9900K, but it will be close enough ppl won't care.
Eh, I think there may have been something wrong with their 2700X (based on other reviews of similar systems). https://www.guru3d.com/articles_page...review,20.html Take out Far Cry 5 (which is really low for the 2700X) and they are pretty identical. Heck, it doesn't seem all that much different from a 2600X (which is pretty similar to the 2700X in most games.