How are they getting such vastly different results?

ram speed?

File: 1310483412100.jpg (36KB, 413x395px)

36KB, 413x395px

>>61602658
>overclocking the 3's, but not overclocking the 7350k

This guy isn't even hiding it anymore

>>61602681
That's because the intel jewpoo will burn down your neighborhood if you overclock it.

>>61602708
Really?

I see a 7350k at 5ghz in the Gamersnexus chart

Meanwhile what happens when you try to push a Ryzen cpu past 4.0ghz (2005 clock speeds)? It will go nuclear

>>61602716
That's a golden sample, your average intel jewpoo will destroy everything in a 100m radius if you overclock it.

File: 7.jpg (54KB, 824x349px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 824x349px

>>61602670
Nope, they both ran the Ryzen cpu's with the fastest ram possible

>>61602729
You must be far gone to believe this meming constitutes an argument

Just concede that Intel is the better overclocker if you have any sort of spine

>>61602757
The boiling water, burnt pins and stutterfires say otherwise.

>>61602777
It's settled you're a spineless faggot who likes to dwell in meme fantasies.

The perfect AMD audience

>>61602791
>denying reality
Good to know you admitted defeat.

>>61602794
>memes are reality
A fascinating insight into the mind of the mentally retarded

>>61602804
Feels good knowing intelcucks are so anally devastated they're denying reality. Stay destroyed for eternity.

File: 1472240925301.jpg (32KB, 480x475px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 480x475px

>>61602658
Intel is paying one of them. Guess which.

File: poozen gaming.jpg (547KB, 2531x1359px) Image search: [Google]

547KB, 2531x1359px

>>61602810
Tell us more about your mental ilness

>>61602819
You mean AMD is paying one.

The only clear evidence for fraudelence in those charts is that one of them overclocked both companies cpu's, while one of them only overclocked the Ryzen cpu's

File: 1500555322223.png (2MB, 1920x1440px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1440px

>>61602828
But muh gigahurtz

>>61602846
The only benchmarks you'll ever see AMDtards posting.

Must feel like really reliable results when you can only get them from one source

>>61602861
Glad you realized intel jewpoos are all shit in literally every way.

File: 1480852945729.png (388KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 640x480px

>>61602837
No, Intel is the one that does shady shit. They got fined over a BILLION dollars for doing this sort of underhanded shady shit.

>>61602882
You're arguing with a braindead intelcuck. He lives in another reality.

>>61602882
Okay, so you are just going to ignore what is in the actualy charts?

meaning: one didn't OC the competitor

>>61602907
Sad!

>>61602942
I guess you are a disengenous person

>>61602957
Y-You too

>>61602983
In what way?

>>61602681
>>61602907
>7350k
>competitor
it's overpriced to begin with and by the time you include the added cost of a Z270 motherboard to overclock it you are talking about a dual core for the price of an i5-7600 or R5 1600.

>>61602658
Kek even i5 beating Ryzen

Many Z270 mobos cost 100-120 bucks already

>>61603338
You can get H270 or B350 motherboards for $70

>>61602828
The bars in that chart and pretty much random. Which fucking retards keep adding mins and averages to skew the graphs.

File: 1496876457729.jpg (186KB, 900x1200px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 900x1200px

We know Gn is a shill, anything new

>>61603258
Could you not overclock with a regular low end b250?

>>61603457
you cannot overclock the last 2 K cpu generations on them

>>61603597
youtube fake ones

>>61603457
>muh 30 bucks
k NEET

>>61602846
>>61602828
>>61602658
why is AMD so bad?

File: 1500752065452.jpg (282KB, 752x548px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 752x548px

>>61604173

File: my sides.png (173KB, 640x400px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 640x400px

>Retard Intel shills actually trying to defend the i3-7350K that literally everyone shat on and nobody bought
>Even after a price drop at $160 it's still not worth it

Desperation mode is here.

File: Average.png (38KB, 1309x956px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 1309x956px

>>61602828
>>61602907
>>61604173
>>61602861
>The only benchmarks you'll ever see AMDtards posting.

No

https://www.techspot.com/review/1450-core-i7-vs-ryzen-5-hexa-core/page9.html

simple
one of them running less demanding parts of the game where higher clock would always win

>>61602716
Serialization means jack shit, nigger.

recent underage amdtards really turned this board into designated indian street

File: 7350k vs 1600.png (111KB, 1457x825px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1457x825px

>>61607326
lmao. kys cuck.

>>61607326
fucking kike

File: 1489160516428.png (245KB, 800x612px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 800x612px

>>61605282
This is how desperate they are:

>Multi-core doesn't matter!
>Price/performance doesn't matter!
>Power usage doesn't matter!
>Temperatures don't matter!
>Soldered dies don't matter!
>Stutters don't matter!
>Streaming doesn't matter!
>*NEW* Locked platform features don't matter!
>*NEW* Synthetic loads don't matter!
>*NEW* Burnt pins don't matter!

>>61602716
>4GHz
>2005
You getting ready for puberty?

Didn't HW Unboxed get a lot of weird results where the 1300X was faster than the i7 and R5s?
I wouldn't trust those numbers.

Steve Burke has been on Intel's payroll for who knows how long now.

>no performance per dollar bench
Hmm I wonder why

File: 1501238952177.png (764KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

764KB, 1920x1080px

>>61609260
If you believe HWU results weren't in some way skewed, you need to be put down.

>>61609364
Do you have any other PC Mark 10 digi content benchmark with these cpus showing different numbers?

>>61609364
I don't see the issue here. An oc'd 1600 would do even better.

>>61609392
>>61609395
The test is either irrelevant in its purported performance metric (Photo Editing, Video Editing, and Rendering and Visualization) or HWU screwed up, which is more likely, since the aforementioned scenarios in other benches show the R5 and i7 doing substantially better.

You are now arguing that the R3 beats the R5 and i7 in something like content creation, which is obviously untrue even overclocked.
But of course, you know it isn't true.

>>61605917
shut this down

>>61609455
It is painfully obvious 1600 cannot be worse than 1500x in content creation, yet it is in that benchmark. Obviously in cannot assess more than 8, maybe 4 threads. I don't think that Steve from HW skewed the numbers, more like benchmark itself is redundant, hence no one paying it much attention except you. BF1 on the other hand..

>>61607749
>ayyymd shill posts his pasta in every thread
POO IN LOO

File: lol.png (1MB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x1000px

>>61609614
>POO IN LOO
More like POO IN JOO :^)

>>61609614
Go away joopoo