How are they getting such vastly different results?

How are they getting such vastly different results?

Other urls found in this thread:

techspot.com/review/1450-core-i7-vs-ryzen-5-hexa-core/page9.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

ram speed?

>overclocking the 3's, but not overclocking the 7350k

This guy isn't even hiding it anymore

That's because the intel jewpoo will burn down your neighborhood if you overclock it.

Really?

I see a 7350k at 5ghz in the Gamersnexus chart

Meanwhile what happens when you try to push a Ryzen cpu past 4.0ghz (2005 clock speeds)? It will go nuclear

That's a golden sample, your average intel jewpoo will destroy everything in a 100m radius if you overclock it.

Nope, they both ran the Ryzen cpu's with the fastest ram possible

You must be far gone to believe this meming constitutes an argument

Just concede that Intel is the better overclocker if you have any sort of spine

The boiling water, burnt pins and stutterfires say otherwise.

It's settled you're a spineless faggot who likes to dwell in meme fantasies.

The perfect AMD audience

>denying reality
Good to know you admitted defeat.

>memes are reality
A fascinating insight into the mind of the mentally retarded

Feels good knowing intelcucks are so anally devastated they're denying reality. Stay destroyed for eternity.

Intel is paying one of them. Guess which.

Tell us more about your mental ilness

You mean AMD is paying one.

The only clear evidence for fraudelence in those charts is that one of them overclocked both companies cpu's, while one of them only overclocked the Ryzen cpu's

But muh gigahurtz

The only benchmarks you'll ever see AMDtards posting.

Must feel like really reliable results when you can only get them from one source

Glad you realized intel jewpoos are all shit in literally every way.

No, Intel is the one that does shady shit. They got fined over a BILLION dollars for doing this sort of underhanded shady shit.

You're arguing with a braindead intelcuck. He lives in another reality.

Okay, so you are just going to ignore what is in the actualy charts?

meaning: one didn't OC the competitor

Sad!

I guess you are a disengenous person

Y-You too

In what way?

>7350k
>competitor
it's overpriced to begin with and by the time you include the added cost of a Z270 motherboard to overclock it you are talking about a dual core for the price of an i5-7600 or R5 1600.

Kek even i5 beating Ryzen

Many Z270 mobos cost 100-120 bucks already

You can get H270 or B350 motherboards for $70

The bars in that chart and pretty much random. Which fucking retards keep adding mins and averages to skew the graphs.

We know Gn is a shill, anything new

Could you not overclock with a regular low end b250?

you cannot overclock the last 2 K cpu generations on them

youtube fake ones

>muh 30 bucks
k NEET

why is AMD so bad?

...

>Retard Intel shills actually trying to defend the i3-7350K that literally everyone shat on and nobody bought
>Even after a price drop at $160 it's still not worth it

Desperation mode is here.

>The only benchmarks you'll ever see AMDtards posting.

No

techspot.com/review/1450-core-i7-vs-ryzen-5-hexa-core/page9.html

simple
one of them running less demanding parts of the game where higher clock would always win

Serialization means jack shit, nigger.

recent underage amdtards really turned this board into designated indian street

lmao. kys cuck.

fucking kike

This is how desperate they are:

>Multi-core doesn't matter!
>Price/performance doesn't matter!
>Power usage doesn't matter!
>Temperatures don't matter!
>Soldered dies don't matter!
>Stutters don't matter!
>Streaming doesn't matter!
>*NEW* Locked platform features don't matter!
>*NEW* Synthetic loads don't matter!
>*NEW* Burnt pins don't matter!

>4GHz
>2005
You getting ready for puberty?

Didn't HW Unboxed get a lot of weird results where the 1300X was faster than the i7 and R5s?
I wouldn't trust those numbers.

Steve Burke has been on Intel's payroll for who knows how long now.

>no performance per dollar bench
Hmm I wonder why

If you believe HWU results weren't in some way skewed, you need to be put down.

Do you have any other PC Mark 10 digi content benchmark with these cpus showing different numbers?

I don't see the issue here. An oc'd 1600 would do even better.

The test is either irrelevant in its purported performance metric (Photo Editing, Video Editing, and Rendering and Visualization) or HWU screwed up, which is more likely, since the aforementioned scenarios in other benches show the R5 and i7 doing substantially better.

You are now arguing that the R3 beats the R5 and i7 in something like content creation, which is obviously untrue even overclocked.
But of course, you know it isn't true.

shut this down

It is painfully obvious 1600 cannot be worse than 1500x in content creation, yet it is in that benchmark. Obviously in cannot assess more than 8, maybe 4 threads. I don't think that Steve from HW skewed the numbers, more like benchmark itself is redundant, hence no one paying it much attention except you. BF1 on the other hand..

>ayyymd shill posts his pasta in every thread
POO IN LOO

>POO IN LOO
More like POO IN JOO :^)

Go away joopoo