Kloppies said: Blanket statements like this makes no sense to me, unless you own a 2080 Ti and 240Hz 1080p monitor? No CPU can deliver "x" extra performance compared to "y" in any game with any GPU at any resolution.







In the last decade, after Phenom, AMD designed both the Bulldozer and Zen micro-architectures from clean-slates, completely from scratch, ground-up. In the same time-frame, Intel has never done that, they have only revised and refined the same uarch for 9 generations now, and even the 1st-gen Core processors weren't designed from scratch. I'm not trying to say Intel has done nothing - their approach makes sense and has brought incremental, albeit slow improvements.



AMD's approach is riskier, and the failure of Bulldozer is the perfect example of it. I think most people don't appreciate how much time and resources it takes to develop a uarch from scratch. AMD started with Zen in 2012, the same year that Ivy Bridge was released! There is no way for them to even know what Zen would be competing against by the time it would be finished. The fact is that Zen 2 is in most cases faster than or at least equal to Coffee Lake in terms of IPC, the only thing holding it back is clock-speed. So who do you really think is moving forward between Intel/AMD? Click to expand...

Blanket statements like that are made by people who don't really care about current performance results but seem them as indicative of performance losses years down the line.Look I don't upgrade CPUs on a set path or for set gains or anything like that. Every single time I've upgraded I've gone from something that I had for 5 years or so that has been rendered borderline unusable for high-end gaming, and each time that's come with a major improvement in technology.3700+ -> Q9550 -> i7 4770HWith the move to the Q9550 I got more cores, a new DDR for RAM and twice the amount as before, and just a really good chip with almost the highest stock clocks on the market.With move to the i7 4770H I got huge IPC gains, HT, again a new DDR with double the RAM and a 600Hz clock bump.What I'm looking at the moment is a another shift in RAM DDR, decent IPC gains but not much else...depending on which chip I go with not even more cores or vastly higher clocks. There's none of that sense of security that I'm making a solid "investment" that will give me many years of happy use because it all still feels so similar. I feel like if any leap forward is achieved again...and with the slowing of gains it feels like we are building to that (alternatively will never seen one again, or at least not for a long time) then all current systems will be left woefully behind, even the 9900K.Add to that that my system still does fairly decently despite how far behind it might be IPC wise and everything still feels like a bad "investment". I mean yes I'd like more frames in Far Cry 5 but not 20-30 more, more like 60+ more. And I know GPUs are perhaps to blame for that too but still.So Ryzen 3 being behind the latest Intel chips is bad news for me, very bad, even if they may be phenomenal value and a super positive step in the right direction.I just want more. And Ryzen3 delivers less, not even more of the same.