5 ms·
I’ve looked at a lot of the benchmarks and the difference was in the ballpark of 1-5%, which isn’t dominating from my perspective... did I miss a few?
by indemnity 7y ago
I’ve looked at a lot of the benchmarks and the difference was in the ballpark of 1-5%, which isn’t dominating from my perspective... did I miss a few?
- Funnnny 7y agoDigitalFoundry had an interesting take on frame rate/frame time performance on Intel/AMD. If you look at the graph you can see Ryzen dip down more for a few times when there's more computation or memory throughput needed.
- manbatman 7y agoThat's not true, with more core Ryzen can run game with other apps without any problems it's not the same with Intel though.
- leetcrew 7y agounless you are compiling chrome in the background or streaming, you're not going to saturate even eight cores while gaming. in most benchmarks I've seen, the 9900k still performs better while streaming.
- ivalm 7y agoPart of it is intel k parts have quite a bit of overclocking headroom while zen 2 has none.
- indemnity 7y agoRight. I guess the Ryzen boost clock debacle is also part of it...
- kllrnohj 7y agoIntel has almost no overclocking headroom. It's only about 5% or so. Both AMD and Intel have squeezed everything they can out at this point, there's not really anything left. The main difference is on Intel you get that magical sounding 5ghz number by overclocking, but it's not actually much higher than stock (4.7ghz on the 9900k is the "all-core turbo")