Okay, so here it is. The latest edition of the Tools series, where Sash gets triggered reading Cancerous comments on various websites, this time VideoCardz. Now, of course, everyone is entitled to their opinions, but so am I! Hence the Tools series. I also have objective reasons, so you shut your mouth! (Disclaimer).
First up:
OK. To be honest, I don't like the Zen2 refresh and they are defintely not worth their price over the existing 3000-series lineup, but this comment is so retarded it makes my eyes hurt reading it. AMD releases 3 new SKUs to cash in on the B550 socket release (it's true), still claims Zen3 with non insignificant gains is coming this year, and suddenly they are responsible for the stagnating the market - with no remark as to what another major CPU manufacturer has done over the last, uh, near-decade? OK.
I stand by the 3600 and 3700X being the best (new) gaming processors on the market right now, but the 3800XT is by no means 'not a potent gaming processor' just because Intel is 5-10% faster - this is funny because the Johsua (sic) dude even states, in his response;
"Who's gonna pay $120 more for an XT model just to gain 5-10% ?"
So...
"Who's gonna pay $120 more for an Intel model just to gain 5-10% ?"
I mean, I don't even. Testing at 1080p with a 2080 Ti and 200 FPS isn't realistic, so shut your mouth. At relevant testing, Ryzen doesn't bottleneck the GPU in any meaningful capacity, even Zen1 and Zen+-based processors don't. Zen2- based processors can easily handle 144 Hz in most games, and in the games where they can't, it's close, and Intel isn't far over it. You decide if the markup and other disadvantages is worth it, to me it isn't, but the market doesn't lie - people don't want to pay the Intel Tax.
The delusion here is real. See my rebuttal above for a general answer, but this guy's claims are twisting the truth at best, and downright inaccurate at worst.
Of course, if you're playing Far Cry 5 at 720p, on low settings, while looking at the sky, his claim might be true. Remember meshes and AI just expose the processor weakness! Just like L3 cache, by the way. Oh, and Playability Doesn't Matter. Remember that.
That was sarcasm for those of you who are like me, and find that shit extremely tedious to decipher.
He also forgets that other e-tailers have reported a similar scenario to Amazon. The people don't want to pay extortionate prices for meaningless gains, on inferior technology (sorry to offend you, I'm sure at this point you will be thinking what a Fanboy I am, and how my website and blog is just a shill-site for AMD, that's OK, if that's how you cope with your delusions, I am OK with that). Sure, there are a few 'elitist' and 'l33t pro gamuhs' who waste their money on the Intel gaming fallacy, but don't go spread misinformation on Zen's gaming credentials online. Because people aren't going to be playing at 1920x1080 medium on an RTX 3080, and if they are, they are getting fantastic, triple-digit FPS just like Intel, except maybe 140 rather than 160.
Zen and Gaming. Frame Latency.
People love to go around and shout how 'weak' and 'slow' Ryzen is for gaming, but they are completely missing the point. The reason why Zen produces lower averages in a specific scene is because games are latency-sensitive, and all Zen-based architectures thus far make some trade-offs in heavy transactional workloads where threads need to sync up a lot, for huge scalability and economics of manufacturing.
In most cases that reviewers test: FPS relies on how quickly you can seek random addresses from memory, caches, or what-not, and then spew those prepared frames to the GPU. User-input further randomises the workload, making it somewhat difficult to pipeline. This doesn't mean Zen is weak in gaming, this means Zen needs somewhat higher frame-latency in certain scenes... but...
In many games, especially newer ones, the bottleneck can widely shift around, and in certain scenes it shifts from API-based render, drawcalls and such, to game-code. Multi-threaded AI, Physics simulation, other types of code that can be pipelined well (in the case of the latter) and scale to multiple cores. In these situations, Zen-based CPUs often hold their averages right in place where a price-equivalent Intel (especially lower-end) would drop minimums resulting in choppier gameplay despite higher overall averages. Intel continues to charge such an unfair premium for its 'K' series CPUs, that even their small, but objectively superior, gaming credentials just isn't worth it for the vast majority of people. Sales figures show that.
Popular Reviewers have a nasty habit of picking scenes that don't really load up the CPU with game-code, instead, they are just showing how quickly the CPU can push through API overheads - or memory latency. Then, you get everyone shouting how 'weak' Ryzen is because it gets 100 FPS rather than, 130, for example.
I used to talk to someone who would beat his chest about how his 8700K was faster than Zen in games, at the time. The difference back then could be up to 30%, due to BIOS and software issues mainly, but even on a 15-20% difference, where both Zen and Intel where producing highly fluid 100+ FPS results, his rebuttal to my reply 'is it playable on Zen though?' was; 'Playability Doesn't Matter'.
If that doesn't express my point, I don't know what else to type.