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

Relative performance at 1080P (gaming)
relative-performance-1920-1080 5070.png

5070Ti = 19% faster than 5070

Relative performance at 1440p (gaming)
relative-performance-2560-1440 5070.png

5070Ti = 23% faster than 5070

Relative performance at 4K (gaming)

relative-performance-3840-2160 5070.png

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)

relative-performance-games-1920-1080 9800.png

9800X3D 14.1% faster than 265K

The relative performance 1440p (gaming)
relative-performance-games-2560-1440 9800.png

9800X3D 7.8% faster than 265K

The relative performance at 4K (gaming)

relative-performance-games-38410-2160 9800.png

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

Really? I thought you had a point to prove...
 
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.
 
Tyler-98-W68 said:
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.
Click to expand...
So you're still ignoring 1.0% and 0.1% lows then?
 
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
 
Tyler-98-W68 said:
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
Click to expand...
Ah, so you agree that you weren't paying attention. Glad we had this discussion!
 
Fact, a 5070 can not play some games at playable levels at 1440p and 4k, fact a 5070Ti can play games at playable levels vs a 5070....and the CPU doesn't matter. Why is that so hard for you to understand.

Using your logic, any arrow lake cpu is bad for gaming, yet when I tested my 225 with a 5090, I really couldn't tell the difference between my 285K and 9800X3D systems, but according to you I should have had a trash experience on arrow lake no matter what.
 
LazyGamer said:
But the CPU always matters, why is that so hard for you to understand?
Click to expand...
So you are saying arrow lake cpu's give unplayable frame rates regardless of GPU used? And people should spend 350$ more when they don't have to because if they don't the games they play will be unplayable ?
 
Tyler-98-W68 said:
So you are saying arrow lake cpu's give unplayable frame rates regardless of GPU used?
Click to expand...
Are you changing your argument from "a superior gaming experience" to... "unplayable frame rates"?

Cause I can "play" on integrated graphics just fine, but that doesn't make it "a superior gaming experience" lol.

:coffee:
 
Tyler-98-W68 said:
I'm not changing anything....you really avoid actually making statements that would prove yourself wrong.
Click to expand...

-Bruh you're arguing on the internet, let it go.

Frankly I'd always recommend the stronger GPU/Weaker CPU combo personally, can always increase IQ to make things GPU limited until a better CPU can be swapped in.


1000016560.gif
 
GodisanAtheist said:
Frankly I'd always recommend the stronger GPU/Weaker CPU combo personally, can always increase IQ to make things GPU limited until a better CPU can be swapped in.
Click to expand...
Depends on the games my friend. Turn up graphics settings in many modern titles and you place more load on the CPU, not less. When the CPU can't keep up, your are cooked. Aussie Steve tested it in a video the last week or 2. I would rather use upscaling and optimize graphics settings for the GPU, than be stuck with a lifeless world in games like 2077 or the Spidery games. Or frame capped by the CPU lower than I want to be.

That stated: There isn't a game a 265K can't drive with the appropriately priced GPUs that are the best bang for buck to be paired with it. Same goes for the vanilla Zen 4&5. I don't give a :poop: what any of you build. It is your money, spend it how you want.

To those here in the U.S. have a kick *** Thanksgiving. 🍗🍖🍻🥂

EDIT: And what is this place, run by the Mormons? WTF is *** doing being censored? Weak.
 
Tyler-98-W68 said:
I'm not changing anything....you really avoid actually making statements that would prove yourself wrong.
Click to expand...
You know for being soooo offended at being called a gorilla marketer... you sure do wear the silverback colors quite proudly.
 
Who said anything about being offended? Still waiting on the clarification that a 265K loses more performance vs a 9800X3D even when running a higher end GPU, funny how no one wants to explain how that happens when the numbers don't support that at all.
 
Tyler-98-W68 said:
Who said anything about being offended? Still waiting on the clarification that a 265K loses more performance vs a 9800X3D even when running a higher end GPU, funny how no one wants to explain how that happens when the numbers don't support that at all.
Click to expand...
:waves hand:

you have no numbers
 
Tyler-98-W68 said:
The numbers were posted in post 81

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

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%...
forums.thefpsreview.com
Click to expand...
That's what I mean,

you have no numbers
you never had numbers
1764252031460.png​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Become a Patron!
Back
Top