Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
sorry but intel have been caught napping and sleeping by ryzen. all you 9700k 9900k and 8700k user out there sould be thanking amd u really think 8700k and 9700k would be what they are and not just 4 core 8 thread cpu? 
amd have allready stuck it to intel
What's the point of B550? What is it going to offer over B450 that you can buy now (and in a couple of months should support Ryzen 3000 out of the box)?
So are you saying that B550 does support PCIe 5.0? Do you have evidence of that? IMO it has to, otherwise it's worthless, but we don't know this yet.
Yes roughly 20% averaged across the GN 1080p test results, it narrows at 1440p as things become gpu limited and is practically nil at 4k.
The gap is 16.5% over a range of games
The gap is 16.5% over a range of games
Use your common sense please. The 9900K they are using there is overclocked to 5.1Ghz, it says right there. The 3900X is stock. The gap between the two at stock is 5%, hardly anything, and that's when gaming at 1080p and with a 2080 Ti. Not only does hardly anyone do this, out of all the people out there, few own a 2080 Ti too.
TechpowerUp tested with a large suite of games. It's funny, when AMD was losing bad, TPU were the go-to benchmarks. Now when the gap is tiny or margin of error, we got people quoting the amatuers over at Tom's Hardware!
Overclocking a 9900K, which is already power hungry and pushed to its limit, to 5Ghz on all cores results in massive heat and power draw, so it doesn't matter that it can overclock that high (and around 50% can't even get there without massive voltage), it's not a viable comparison.
Use your common sense please. The 9900K they are using there is overclocked to 5.1Ghz, it says right there. The 3900X is stock. The gap between the two at stock is 5%, hardly anything, and that's when gaming at 1080p and with a 2080 Ti. Not only does hardly anyone do this, out of all the people out there, few own a 2080 Ti too.
TechpowerUp tested with a large suite of games. It's funny, when AMD was losing bad, TPU were the go-to benchmarks. Now when the gap is tiny or margin of error, we got people quoting the amatuers over at Tom's Hardware!
Overclocking a 9900K, which is already power hungry and pushed to its limit, to 5Ghz on all cores results in massive heat and power draw, so it doesn't matter that it can overclock that high (and around 50% can't even get there without massive voltage), it's not a viable comparison.
Do you know how long it takes to optimise a codebase for a new CPU architecture? Most software never gets updated, let alone updated within a short timeframe (say a few months). It's a bit much to expect AMD to give game developers access to chips months before launch and for those studios to prioritise performance on new AMD CPUs at all. To be honest I think we've done well to get several high profile games updated since Zen 1's launch.
