Yup, i have intel....but its ok...sad face crying in the cornerI'm actually laughing. Imagine being an Intel fanboy today.
Yup, i have intel....but its ok...sad face crying in the corner
it makes total sense if you do more than gaming but i only game and browseI'm right there with you bud. 9900K and I won't change.
Just super happy that AMD are finally curb stomping Intel.
it makes total sense if you do more than gaming but i only game and browsepornhub( youtube)
jokes aside these cpu's are the strongest there is and probably will be for the next 2 to 3 year unless a new threadripper launches
I agree completelyThird-Gen Threadripper Lands: AMD Threadripper 3970X & 3960X Review
The latest 32-core and 24-core high-end desktop CPUs from AMD have now landed. And yes, we've benchmarked the heck out of them. The Threadripper 3970X is a...www.techspot.com
Its from the same guy, just written review. AMD and Intel are essentially equal in Gaming with AMD winning some and Intel winning some. And I highly doubt that someone can see the difference between 160 fps and 158fps. There's no reason, that if you were buying new, to choose Intel, even "because you only game" is not a valid reason.
But if you already have a 9900k and you only game, then fair enough.
I'm actually laughing. Imagine being an Intel fanboy today.
Humans are experts at wasting their money.
Also " Absolute power corrupts absolutely "
Your need for power is a reflection of the darkness that pervades your psyche
Got no money to waste , hence no powerPete-ster. Are you talking from experience?
Third-Gen Threadripper Lands: AMD Threadripper 3970X & 3960X Review
The latest 32-core and 24-core high-end desktop CPUs from AMD have now landed. And yes, we've benchmarked the heck out of them. The Threadripper 3970X is a...www.techspot.com
Its from the same guy, just written review. AMD and Intel are essentially equal in Gaming with AMD winning some and Intel winning some. And I highly doubt that someone can see the difference between 160 fps and 158fps. There's no reason, that if you were buying new, to choose Intel, even "because you only game" is not a valid reason.
But if you already have a 9900k and you only game, then fair enough.
Why? I don't think there is a lot of room for consoles to influence PC's in the CPU department.Don't think buying hardware a year before console release is smart - Red or Blue...
Price vs Performance. The older generation (me) and the more technically inclined (us) would prefer the PC Masterrace, whereas someone that is classified as a week-end gamer usually has PC/equipment provided and need a single function system. A PC these days is going to cost you FAR more than a console, even if the games attract a significant premium.Why? I don't think there is a lot of room for consoles to influence PC's in the CPU department.
I don't think anybody considering a HEDT or even 3950x would rather buy a console...Price vs Performance. The older generation (me) and the more technically inclined (us) would prefer the PC Masterrace, whereas someone that is classified as a week-end gamer usually has PC/equipment provided and need a single function system. A PC these days is going to cost you FAR more than a console, even if the games attract a significant premium.
Not sure what I mean? Compare a single RTX card (not entire PC) to the price of a console.
I wouldn't compare the price of today's newer hardware to consoles anymore because of Nvidia's RTX tax and above 100% Mark up on those cards. Even AMD is now trying their luck with higher prices (as seen by the pre and post launch pricing of the 5700 (xt) and how they embarrassingly had to reduce prices before launch.) If you watch Coreteks he details how AMD originally wanted to sell the RX 5500 for obscene prices ~$240 for a card similar in Performance to the Rx 580. This stands in contrast to the pricing model of the consoles that have high volumes to reduce unit costs in combination with razor thin margins (or are ever sold at a loss) that are offset by the income from services like xbox live gold and others.Price vs Performance. The older generation (me) and the more technically inclined (us) would prefer the PC Masterrace, whereas someone that is classified as a week-end gamer usually has PC/equipment provided and need a single function system. A PC these days is going to cost you FAR more than a console, even if the games attract a significant premium.
Not sure what I mean? Compare a single RTX card (not entire PC) to the price of a console.
No, but generalizing to the mass population would reveal the price sensitivity. The preceding quotes insinuated the statements based on non-HEDT buyers (9900K).I don't think anybody considering a HEDT or even 3950x would rather buy a console...
You are technically correct (best kind of correct), but most end-users are not technically minded and would stare at the price before making any type of buying decision (albeit not the HEDT-crowd). There is unfortunately a premium to pay when PCMasterrace has to be on the ultimate gaming performance, consoles do not have this problem.I wouldn't compare the price of today's newer hardware to consoles anymore because of Nvidia's RTX tax and above 100% Mark up on those cards. Even AMD is now trying their luck with higher prices (as seen by the pre and post launch pricing of the 5700 (xt) and how they embarrassingly had to reduce prices before launch.) If you watch Coreteks he details how AMD originally wanted to sell the RX 5500 for obscene prices ~$240 for a card similar in Performance to the Rx 580. This stands in contrast to the pricing model of the consoles that have high volumes to reduce unit costs in combination with razor thin margins (or are ever sold at a loss) that are offset by the income from services like xbox live gold and others.