>Intel can't into 4k gaymer >can't into power

File: Screenshot from 03-03-2017 05:40:37.png (788KB, 1265x610px) Image search: [Google]

788KB, 1265x610px

Remember to buy a $500 CPU to game at 640x480 because that's the PROPER way to test a CPU and not in the few hundred CPU benchmarks out there.

640x480 is the real world, not 4k.

File: 1488517326652.jpg (294KB, 917x1625px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 917x1625px

I wonder why 4k benchmarks have been suspicously gone from reviewers, must have nothing to do with Intel.

Human eye can't see higher than 720p anyway

>>59216375
Lol, 7700k which costs $350 is on par with 6950k which costs $1000+. The jewry is real. Intelfags will defend this.

>>59216375
Why is the 7700k such garbage for 4k? It literally loses everyhwere.

>>59216375
This test make me question the low res testing credibility. it seem low rest it all about muh ghz

File: AMTmlFw.jpg (355KB, 1846x1923px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 1846x1923px

Boy it sure feels shilly in here.

>>59217368
>low rest it all about muh ghz
Congratulations, you uncovered Atlantis.

File: 1487643043155.jpg (58KB, 734x587px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 734x587px

>>59216356
>>59216367
>>59216375

DELET THIS!

>8 IPs
Pooojeet OP is working overtime

>>59216367

This chart just tells me my FX-8350 is good to go for a while

>>59218355
At 4k.

8350's problem is the old chipset.

>>59216356
when intel release new shit
/g/
intel is awesome here we are playing on our monster pc that costs 10.000 euros has x2 cpus quad titan x setup 128gb of ram and im playing on 720p to really stress my cpu ON MY 24 SETUP MONITOR

when amd release new stuff
/g/

AMD CANT DO SHIT ON 1080P OR EVEN ON 16Kp THEY ARE LOOSING FOR 5 FPS SO DONT BUY AMD INSTEAD BUY A 1000 EUROS INTEL CPU OR EVEN WORSE BUY A 330 EUROS CPU THAT IS HIGHLY CLOCKED WITH ONLY 500 MHZ OF ROOM TO PLAY TO LOOK KOOL AND IN 1-2 YEARS BE SURE TO HAVE 1200 MORE TO SPEND CAUSE YOU GONNA HAVE TO BUY YET ANOTHER CPU AND A MOTHERBOARD FROM INTEL BUT IT DOESNT MATTER YOU ARE HELPING OUR LORD AND SAVIOR INTEL

Serious question - is there ANY CPU overhead for pushing more pixels?

>>59216356
See OP threads like these are the reason why your kind is considered the most illogical, rabid and butthurt fanbase on the Internet. AMD fans are the extreme libtards of technology.

>>59218898
Did my own research... Looks like actually yes, sometimes - because sometimes a game uses CPU for on-screen effects, like shadows, that have to be more intricately rendered at higher resolutions. So it that sense it makes total sense for AMD to want to test at higher res, because those threads will be separate from the game logic threads and thus put more strain on quad cores than octocores. Of course GPU bottlenecking is unfortunately also at play, but it seems like if i7+1080 beats you (R7+1080) at 1080p in one game, then loses to you in the same game at 4k... Sure, the GPU is bottlecking in both systems at 4k, but one CPU is suddenly handling it better...

Just food for thought I guess... I'm not totally sure myself.

>>59219353
Says the guy "gaming" on 800x600

>>59216455
they really need to fix dx12 i mean the minimum fps are just retarded

>>59219469
There isn't anything strange that certain parts of the game get clobbered by intense physics or effects, these dips are normal.

Funny how, just 2 days ago, my thread about 4K monitors was memed to death over the course of 4 hours because 4K "is a meme".

Now suddenly, it's the only thing that matters because this boards designated shill AMD force had to flip flop to suit the narrative.

>>59218388
This. Consumers need no more than an 8350 raw power. But it's just a shitty chip all around.

>>59219509
This, benchmarks are 1366x768 are more real world for $500 CPUs

>>59219509
4k monitor is meme, just play 4k upscale

>>59219571

>gaymer trash

>>59216356
Oh look what do we have here

File: 1.jpg (144KB, 1276x686px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1276x686px

>>59216356
Oh look

>>59219604

>4K is the same thing as 1080p
>Comparing benchmarks with Overwatch
>Being 12

I took the bait but I wanted to help you young man.

>>59219604
>overkike on 2009 resolutions

Can't say I expected anything from Intel poorfags.

>>59219648
>>59219708
Do you fucking retards actualy think that 4k is a more relevant resolution to benchmark on when 90% of the people games at 1080 and maybe 1 % at 4k?

Fuck off with your 4k bullshit, you stupid motherfuckers don't even realize that at 4k the cpu matters much less than at 1080p because the GPU is the limiting factor at 4k not the cpu

>>59216356
>Intelfags have degraded to defending 800x600 gaming


I uniroinically play CS:GO at 800x600.

>>59219844
>I buy a $500 GPU, $600 GPU and a top of the line gsync monitor to play at 1080p

Stay poor, reslet.

File: Intel reslet in his natural 800x600 habitat.jpg (39KB, 468x631px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 468x631px

>>59219844
>It doesn't matter that my shitty quad core loses at 4k it's important that it wins at 2008 resolutions I mean everyone has a $300+ CPU and plays on $100 monitors you fucking shill just you wait in another 6 generations the GPU won't be a bottleneck for 4k and you'll be sorry

>>59219844
>you shouldn't benchmark at high resolutions for people buying new expensive hardware


Right, I hope you enjoy your 3000FPS in 640x480

File: 4.jpg (309KB, 2501x1428px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 2501x1428px

>>59219937
>you shouldn't benchmark at high resolutions
You should

File: 5.jpg (140KB, 1500x843px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1500x843px

>>59219872
Keep ignoring reality fanboy

File: redditors wont remember this.png (64KB, 537x409px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 537x409px

I will be buying ryzen for temple OS gaming
True multithread from Terry

>>59219604
Dem minimum rates on a 2-thread game tho