Top of the line newest AMD 1800x gets shat on by a 6 year old 2600k in gaming

>top of the line newest AMD 1800x gets shat on by a 6 year old 2600k in gaming
wew!

>overclocked out the ass, compared to stock rival
back in the oven with you.

>4.7Ghz vs 3.9Ghz
>barely beats it out at 2.5x the power draw

What a fucking failure Ryzen is.

>GamerNexus
Oh boy.
Show some reliably benchmarks next time.

oh gee i wonder who'd behind this post..

>muh overclock
Yeah I'm sure that +100MHz would make a world of difference. Also it's not the 2600k's fault that Ryzen can't overclock for shit.

It's the 2600K's fault it needs to hit 4.7 to match 3.9 on AMD's side, with extra voltage and power draw to match that absurd overclock.

It still doesn't change the fact that a 6 year old intel is keeping up with literally the highest end Ryzen cpus with the latest bios and windows updates, and running on the best available RAM its shitty chipset can handle. Even at its best Ryzen is mediocre when compared to intel's offerings. If this isn't a failure on AMD's part, I don't know what else it is.

But it's justified for Intel to shit out virtually the same architecture with only minor revision for 6 years?

it still doesn't change the fact that 6year old intel is keeping up with literally the highest end Intel.

does your mom pay the electric bill?

see the % of utilization, you retarded fuck. all those ryzen barely reach 40% whilst all intels are at 90+%

this yells you two things. your gaymen isn't optimized (not even multithreaded), and you are using your intel at full, so you are pulling massive wattage from the wall socket

>same architecture with only minor revision
And yet it still shits on literally everything AMD has to offer. AMDrones might try to make it about intel/nvidia/"biased" reviewers, but it was AMD's fault and their fault only that Ryzen flopped, and again, because they continually fail to surpass Intel or Nvidia in any meaning/significant way. So with Ryzen they've basically caught up with Intel to where game performance is still considerably worse than Intel (for a higher price) and productivity performance is about equal (for a lower price) to Intel. (I should also point out that all Intel would have to do is lower the price of their high end cpu and it would take away ANY reason to buy an AMD Ryzen cpu) But that's a failure because AMD needed to soundly beat Intel on both fronts, and it couldn't catch up with them despite going up against older Intel chips. Intel will be releasing new chips soon and I have no doubt they will utterly destroy Ryzen.

>+100MHz
i7-2600k @4.7Ghz is a 1200Mhz OC
Ryzen is faster than 2600k per core but has double the cores.

7700k is only 16% faster than its 6 year old predecessor and it's not even any cheaper.

>overclock doesn't matter
Yes it does you mong. You're not comparing stock for stock. Either compare out-the-box performance for all chips, or reliable OC performance for all chips (which would be difficult to do fairly).

You're like a retard who talks about how his civic with "just a few mods" can beat a stock mustang/wrx/etc.

>top of the line newest AMD 1800x gets shat on by a 6 year old 2600k in gaming

but this is also true

top of the line newest INTEL gets shat on by a 6 year old 2600k in gaming

There's no real need of upgrade CPU just for average gaming.
Stick to your core2 quad or i5 750 and just upgrade GPU

I have a 1st gen i5 750, i'm planning to buy a mid-high range card, such as 1060 or 480, i'm expecting good results

Why do people take a personal side to any AMD vs Intel vs Nvidia argument?
AMD isn't going to do any better if you defend them on Sup Forums, taking Intel's side doesn't make you superior in any way.

It should be a discussion of what chip is best at a specific price vs performance point, not:
>AMDRONES BTFO
>INTEL SHILLS RIGGING MUH BENCHMARKS

It is the shills and Sup Forumsirgins

CPU really doesn't matter that much anymore, I use a fucking 8320 with a RX480 and get great performance.

It's just trolls and retards spouting shit at this point. Everyone else has moved on.

Yeah because the OC from 3.9 to 4.0 ghz is going to make insane difference.

And we aren't even talking about the fact the 1800x is using much faster memory 2933 vs 2133 on the 2600k

>one game from one review
>"in gaming"
shouldn't you actually try to work for your money, shill?

>does your mom pay the electric bill?
No I pay it myself, and if you would too you would know the it's a few fucking dollars extra each year.

Not to mention the 1800x is an 8 core, the 2600k is a 4core, I'm pretty sure they are close in power consumption you mouthbreather

>one game from one review
Lets see where you move the goalpost next

with every update you shills are running out of things to bitch about, entertaining to watch.

Really, are you blind?

Obviously he wasn't referencing to the 2600k with the 100 mhz remark idiot.

He said that because the 1800x reaches 4.0 ghz on air when you oc it

My Q6600 still beats poozen in gaming

Only poors buy AMD

>Ryzen barely beating a 7600k
>barely beating a fucking i5
>even after 1 months of updates and optmization
And yet AMD shills still push the "muh cores" meme.

>0.3fps

Oh wow, fucking saged.

A 6 year old cpu
A quad core versus an 8 core
using 2133 mhz vs using 2933 mhz

And it still beats it, oh wow indeed