Because I want to (Argument on why Ayymd is better)

I decided to make a post explaining why AMD is better on low, medium, and high end for gaming. AMD only loses to enthusiast ends with a 9900KS from silicon lottery binned to 5.2 GHz.

LOW-MID END:
AMD Ryzen 3600 - $175 - 6C/12T
Intel i5 9600K - $200 - 6C/6T
Here AMD wins because games can use AT LEAST up to 8C/16T for gaming (9900k has that and beats out a 9700k with higher single-core speeds)
Older games that use 2/4, 4/4, or 4/8 are better off too because you can multitask without having to worry about closing down your computer to game.
Costs- AMD wins because the extra $25 and no need to buy a new cooler benefits the end-user greatly.
Winner - AMD

MID END:
AMD Ryzen 3700X - $295 - 8C/16T
Intel i7 9700K - $370 - 8C/8T
Here AMD wins again, as the 8/16 goal has been achieved, as well as for a STUNNING $75 dollars cheaper. This extra money could let you upgrade from an AMD 5600 XT to an AMD 5700 XT, a 26% boost in performance. That's not even counting the money saved on the stock cooler.
Winner - AMD

HIGH END:
AMD Ryzen 3800X - $340
Intel Core i9 9900k - $524
I'm not using the 3900x or 3950x because I will admit games right now have little need for those extra cores.
However, the extra $184 is easily put to use in Water cooling which can boost the 3800x to an un-cooled 9900k quite easily.
Deciding to spend money water cooling the 9900k for the same $180 leads to a price gap of $360, which is the difference between a 5700xt/2070 Super and a 2080 Super/2080 Ti respectively. Both of those are at least a 20% performance gap, which is more than the difference between the 3800x and the 9900k.
Winner - AMD

 

Brake Brake Brake

also love this thread

 

maybe ill do a part 2 on gpus vs nvidia when navi 20 comes out

 

Also, sure when you're comparing a CPU with 12 threads to 6 threads that sure does show a fair comparison, same with 8 threads to 16 threads and so on.
Intel CPU's are far better for gaming, whilst AMD's are good for being a work station, or even better, a foot rest.

 

Go ahead and tell me this logo is ugly

 

You're comparing last gen ryzen, which is worse by a lot compared to 3rd gen.
EDIT: As I have said before, for 1440p+, the graphics card matters more and BOY have I got just the thing for you! with the $25-$175 you save, just upgrade your GPU for a world more of performance!

 

Oh it's okay for you to compare CPU's with different thread counts but not when I compare last gen CPU's? okok

 

That's not the logo which is ugly, as in the meme it says "Ugly AMD hat". This is ugly

 

fair

 

last gen ryzen was admittedly worse than intel. 3rd gen is not.
I was comparing marketing tiers. Ill make a quick comparison of threads to threads
3700x- 8C/16T -$275
9900k-8C/16T -$480
so a 75% price increase for slightly higher clocks okok
understandable
that $205 is from a 5700xt to a 2080 super, which is a 26% speed bump.

 

Let's do GPUS.
LOW END:
5500 xt - $200
1650 Super - $160
The 1650 Super Wins hands-down. Cheaper for more fps. Idk what AMD was thinking! The RX 580 came out three years ago and it is the SAME performance, for a lot cheaper now. AMD has got to get their game together for low-mid end gaming.
Winner - Nvidia

MID END:
5600 xt - $280-300
1660 ti - $290-300
Here it is a big upset. AMD leaves Nvidia in the dust. They learned from the botched 5500 xt and made this beauty, beating not only the 1660 ti but the 2060 ko dispatched to defeat it!
Winner- AMD

MID-HIGH END:
RX 5700 xt - $400
RTX 2070 - $420
AMD wins here, both cost and performance-wise, but Nvidia has the 2070 super for a bit more, around $450, that many claim beats it in performance. Let's find out.
Turns out that for $50, Nvidia manages to pull 2 FPS ahead of AMD. odd, but they lay claim to R(ealtime)T(racing)X, which AMD has yet to be able to do.
Winner- AMD for performance/cost, Nvidia for features.

HIGH END:
AMD has yet to release a card for high-end 1440p or 2160p yet, so I am gonna call Nvidia the winner with the 2080 super.
What astonishes me is the price difference! The 2080 super is $720 ($320 more than the 5700 xt, or 80% more expensive), for only a 19-20% difference in performance.
Winner- Reluctantly Nvidia.

OVERALL: AMD has released some stunning cards, but they have a long way to go before they can claim the crown of best GPU.

 

Finally something I can agree with

 

i wish i understood what y'all r saying

 

yeah AMD needs to get their game together on everything but the 5600 xt, and even then, the botched drivers was kinda weird

 

You should put data for the overclocking, because you can get a lot more kick with some good overclocks, (and a good cooling system)

 

I wish :lol:
I don't own any of these cards; I'm using other benchmarks
If I could, I would put out some OC data but I haven't found any useable sources

 

I thought I was using one of those amd processors, but it appears I am not...
I am using an AMD Ryzen 5 3400G, and I don't know where that one fits in

 

As far as gaming performance goes, This benchmark should give you an idea. For single-core speeds, you do lag a bit behind, but you should definitely be fine.