Does 'performing worse' actually translate into 'performing poorly'? Because how it usually goes is a 1080 ti at 1920x1080(lol) to force a cpu bottleneck and even though intel pulls ahead Ryzen still gets more than playable fps, when they're both pushing 100+ fps the intel advantage ends up being meaningless in the real world. However more cores and threads meaning much more headroom in the future when gaemz become more demanding or for multitasking now is far from meaningless.

This post was edited by DCSS on May 11 2017 07:14pm

Spotted the AMD shill.

keep believing high end gpu performance at low resolution is a good indicator of cpu performance years from now like those 'tech reviewers' do
or that it's even a realistic indication of now performance, how many people have a 1080 paired with a 1080p monitor? That 15% lead for intel that didn't even make the game feel any different to play anyway all but disappears if you're using an appropriate gpu for the resolution.

This post was edited by DCSS on May 11 2017 07:25pm

Actually many people use 1080p and 144hz monitors now

Why Are you butthurt on the factual numbers

probably not as many as you'd think

human eyes cant see past 15 fps anyway so its moot

This post was edited by DCSS on May 11 2017 07:50pm

Lol wow humans don't technically see in fps but they can notice differences around 200 ez

And guess you think all these high fresh rate monitors are gimmicks



This post was edited by yupitsmeh on May 11 2017 07:53pm

the human eye can't see past 5 fps anyway so yeah

Lol butthurt

its a meme

Ayyyymd