35% off @ $259.99 Intel Core Ultra 7 Desktop Processor 265K - 20 cores (8 P-cores + 12 E-cores) up to 5.5 GHz

[Tyler-98-W68]

Relative performance at 1080P (gaming)


5070Ti = 19% faster than 5070

Relative performance at 1440p (gaming)


5070Ti = 23% faster than 5070

Relative performance at 4K (gaming)



5070Ti = 28% faster than 5070

So if what you are saying is correct, going with a 265K would mean that it be

19% 23% and 28% slower than the 9800X3D with a 5070

Except....... The relative performance 1080p (gaming)



9800X3D 14.1% faster than 265K

The relative performance 1440p (gaming)


9800X3D 7.8% faster than 265K

The relative performance at 4K (gaming)



9800X3D is 2.9% faster than the 265K

So the math doesn't math here, a stronger GPU results in better performance with a 265K vs a 9800X3D with a weaker GPU

Spoon fed because you can't admit the numbers were correct

 

[LazyGamer]

...so you're back to using Average FPS again...?

Really? I thought you had a point to prove...

 

[Tyler-98-W68]

It's relative performance, sad you just can't admit your theory is wrong. Face it a 265K and 5070Ti games better than a 9800X3D and a weaker 5070 GPU, and the 265K kicks the 9800X3D to the curb outside of gaming.

 

[LazyGamer]

It's relative performance, sad you just can't admit your theory is wrong. Face it a 265K and 5070Ti games better than a 9800X3D and a weaker 5070 GPU, and the 265K kicks the 9800X3D to the curb outside of gaming.

So you're still ignoring 1.0% and 0.1% lows then?

 

[Tyler-98-W68]

Yes i am because a difference of a few fps i n1% lows is not going to be noticeable, but what is noticeable is how much lower the fps is with a 5070 vs a 5070ti

 

[LazyGamer]

Yes i am because a difference of a few fps i n1% lows is not going to be noticeable, but what is noticeable is how much lower the fps is with a 5070 vs a 5070ti

Ah, so you agree that you weren't paying attention. Glad we had this discussion!