Intel relies on Single Threaded programs, Nvidia relies on <DX12/Vulkan

>>58639076
Neither of those statements are true though

>>58639076
Except they don't, retard.

>>58639138
>>58639170

Are you implying that a $120 FX 83** won't beat a $120 i3 in a multithreaded workload? Or that an RX480 won't beat a 1060 in a Vulkan or DX12?

What is denial for $400?

File: image.png (437KB, 541x538px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 541x538px

>>58639328
>$120 and $200 lowest end hardware (and highest end AMD hardware)
>The entire company practices and relies on these comparisons

>>58639328
go be poor somewhere else pajeet
people needing MT for work get xeons

>>58639328
Are you implying that you don't literally have shit for brains?

Kill yourself. Retard.

>>58639352
2012 CPU vs 2017 CPU.

And the $200+ range is the majority of the GPU market bruh.

Thanks for admitting that I was right though, I appreciate it fanboy.

File: image.png (248KB, 1132x1000px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1132x1000px

>>58639328
For $400 Nvidia literally has no competition

>>58639388
Give it a year and the 1070 will be bested by a 480 :^)

>>58639383
>2017 goal for AMD: Match an over a year old Intel CPU that isn't even top spec

>>58639417
>2017 goal for Intel: Progress in the CPU market since Sandy bridge.

>>58639414
Yeah I used to believe that then I sold my 290x and never looked back

>>58639431
>It is time gentlemen, to release a new chipset, it will increase performance 1% thus beating AMD by 60%

>>58639328
>Are you implying that a $120 FX 83** won't beat a $120 i3 in a multithreaded workload?
Yes, and this has been proven before.

>>58639431
>>58639383
So yeah, isn't that technically a 2011 CPU by your standards? A sandy bridge i7 still beat a 8350

>>58639483
Not multithreaded. Only gaymen.

>>58639546
Of course multithreaded, most real CPU benchmarks are