inb4 not good enough 
Thatās how boost clock works. Thatās how Intel works too. Going outside of that setting is outside the offical spec but will still work.
Hereās something to educate you on how to actually get the clocks to work(pictures since you canāt read apparently):
AMD deserves a kick in the nads for their stunt. That doesnāt mean your uneducated comments are correct.
Stop taking if youāre going to continue to spread false hood. God a single google should educate you:
Spec speeds of Intel 9K CPUs (4.7Ghz all core boost for 9900k):
images.anandtech com/doci/13401/9thGenTurbos.png
3800X reaching all core boost out of spec at 4.45Ghz all core (just like Intel):
i.redd it/nc22x2gzy8e31.jpg
i.redd it/nc22x2gzy8e31.jpg
Seriously spend 5 min googling and you wonāt have to keep making up BS.
So basically, your evidence isnāt actually numbers, it is a reviewer mid-video saying āthe 3600x fps is about the same as the 9900kā. and from that you are telling everyone that it outperforms the 9900k. you even said somewhere, i think, that the 3600 is 2% worse than the 9900k. thatās based on the same?
The only thing I can think of is you either didnāt watch a single video or are viewing them on a smart watch where you canāt see the numbers.
Hereās the time stamp of him playing the game with the WoW FPS counter:
If you look at his channel he has 9900K, 9700k, 9600F, 2700X, 2600X and more benchmarks. His 3800X and 3600X benchmarks are being compiled. Thatās why he has graphs for the Skylake chips and the Zen3 ones arenāt done yet.
Numbers for 2% difference for the reviewerās griffin run:
Hereās the 9900Kduring the griffin run 145 fps (i.redd it/u68w0kk14c931.png).
Hereās the 3600X during the same griffin run 142 fps (https://youtu.be/MgHGCSLxagw?t=847)
That time stamp and the others you gave just show 3600x in-game frame rates. so thatās great but it doesnāt show me that it is better than anything at all. weād need to see some sort of actual average fps comparison, not him sitting there looking at a current fps number and saying āseems about the same as the 9900k.ā and actually the main point of that video is you can tweak memory timings to improve performance of slower ram and buying faster ram isnāt necessary, and tweaking memory timings is something even enthusiasts rarely do. iām curious how much impact that tweaking had.
your second links are great. I canāt figure out how to see your first picture though, and I canāt find the video it came from, but iāll take your word for it. do you happen to have a link to 9900k testing that might show some similar sorts of tests in painstakingly long video format? we are getting dangerously close to having some actual evidence here, iām getting excited.
Keep in mind, drivel-mouth is now moving her goalposts to compare overclocked, murderously overvolted golden-sample AMD chips vs stock 9900Ks with no overclock.
You can go see Silicon Lotteryās results offering overclockable Ryzen 3 chips in about two seconds. The number that will hit 4.4ghz is sub 10%. The number of 9900Kās that will hit 5ghz is near 100%. Thats still a 600mhz difference between a basic 9900K and a golden-sample Ryzen 3. Or almost 800mhz for where most Ryzen 3s landā¦ with IPC parity. But somehow it performs better.
The sewage spewing continues.
(it also doesnt appear hes OCing the Intel chips in the comparisons with Ryzen 3, only the earlier video when he was comparing them to Ryzen 2. Seems legit.)
1 Like
Itās really a shame. Itās like people canāt accept that Ryzen CPUs are more of a price/performance leader and not an overall leader. If you want the best gaming CPU money can buy, you donāt buy an AMD CPU.
2 Likes
Faster RAM helps depending on the app and CPU. At a certain point increasing the compute clocks have diminishing returns. You have to OC another component to get better performance.
reddit (dot) com/r/overclocking/comments/bxuqay/ram_overclocking_should_you_tighten_subtimings/
That really depends on the app and cpu in question. How the tweaking is done on memory also matters. The reddit poster above talked about months of tweaking but his gains are pretty small on a 8700k for the games he plays. Something like membase might scale better (theory no proof on this one).
His initial 9900k tests were before 8.1 (before multi-core patch). The best weāve gotten from him is an 8.1 video of multiple chips:
The inital pic I linked was actually from Uldir, my bad. Iāve provided both Uldir and Griffin runs in the 2 links above.
Iām excited to see why a 3800x performs better than 9900k in world content and worse in raids per initial testing. Iād expect the exact opposite given the the 3800x is better at MT and 9900K better at MT. Exciting times for people who care about analysis for sure.
Itās really a shame people make asssumptions without any testing or proof. Those people are welcome to stay ignorant while the rest of us move on with a better gaming experience.
Are you illiterate? The 1st data point on the graph is a golden sample 9900K OCed to 5.2 GHZ.
Your inability to read is staggering. The 3600X boosts to 4.4Ghz at stock:
en.wikichip org/wiki/amd/ryzen_5/3600x
turbo_frequency 4,400 MHz (4.4 GHz, 4,400,000 kHz)
so, basically there is no like vs like comparison that he has ever done. the reason why i keep having so much trouble getting an actual comparison from you instead of circumstantial arguments or video links is because one doesnāt exist.
i appreciate your effort, but IMO you continuously make claims that far exceed available evidence. i donāt think weāre going to come to an agreement here.
2 Likes
Dude, when I posted the SL binning stats for Ryzen 3000 on these forums, the fanboys got triggered so hard. You know, the same ones that said Ryzen would overlock from 4.6-5.0GHz and shared unsubstantiated and incorrect Reddit leak after leak.
You are far too nice.
This pretty much. Tons of us with Intel chips advocate for this approach, but there is a very vocal minority on this forum that canāt handle this fact. They also donāt seem to be capable of understanding that, in most cases for a WoW-only build (which tons of people ask about on this forum), Intel is usually going to be the best bet, even at lower core counts, because of the role of frequency in running the game well.
If youāve got a small to modest budget for a gaming PC or youāre dumb, go AMD. If youāve got the money, get the better performing, longer lasting, less buggy Intel CPUs.
Poor OP lol. I guess you wonāt really get your answers, your thread ended up in one of those debate storms that happen often here.
OP got lots of useful info.
Uldir Raids and Griffin runs of the 9900K on 8.1 has graphs and not full scenes. Itāll turn into too large a video. Zen3 equivalent is still being compiled. The info provided is data before the graph youāre looking for.
Fair statement and I think we can live amicably with that. The statements are not from me. Iām relaying the information from community benchmarking the game. I can appreciate you not wanting conclusions until you have clean numbers but those numbers are being gathered now, the testing isnāt finished yet.
Which āfactsā are you referring to? Youāve provided 0 data of any kind. All the links provided of WoW testing and indeed show exactly what Iāve said.