I kicked intel to the curb, I'm a Ryzen boi now.

[Pemalite]

JRPGfan said:

Random_Matt said:
How pointless, not many enthusiasts even game at 1080p. It is mostly 1440p/144Hz, it is where playing at is best.

^ this.

You dont buy a monster PC to game at 720p, with low settings.

Thats why I linked a 1440p bench, with that ~1% differnce between the 3900x and a 9900k.
It shows real world, situtation (where it matters).

The fact is if you have a overclocked 2080ti, theres many CPU's able to fully feed it.
For gameing its a waste of money currently to buy alot of these upper limit CPUs.

Why waste money on a beefy cpu (for gameing) just to run into a GPU bottleneck?
(maybe with next gen games, and stronger GPU's than are currently on the market, this will change, but right now? just a waste imo)

Because some people run programs in conjunction with their games.

And the CPU tends to outlive the GPU, you will upgrade a GPU more than once per CPU, so it makes sense to get a good CPU to start with.

fatslob-:O said:

720p gaming benchmarks are dumb and don't have any real world performance correlation. How does one know if they're not hitting some I/O bottleneck or game/graphics code framerate scaling issues ? Trying to eliminate one source of bottleneck like the GPU does not eliminate the other potential sources of bottlenecks in isolation to measuring CPU performance ... 

As for other tasks besides gaming, AMD has a clear advantage in productivity so this is a moot point and mechanical complexity can also do more than just hit the CPU. What if the newly complex game logic hits the GPU most ? 

720p benchmarks might as well be synthetic benchmarks in a sense since that resolution has severe image quality issues according to most gamers ...

That's exactly right. In saying that, it's not entirely useless... Especially if you game at 720P.

It more or less shows the CPU differences in the best possible scenario, not a real world one... It's an extra datapoint to base a purchasing decision on.