And this is exactly what I mean. You got the same performance on your 4770k as what they got on the 2700x. I'm pretty sure the 9900k will be plenty faster at 1080p. But whatever, let's wait for some proper reviews rather than jump to conclusions based on zero legitimate evidence.
Thing is, these guy: got 104 fps in AC:Origins with 2700x which is not possible. So telling that Intel benchs are wrong and posting these ridiculous bench numbers is misleading and dumb.
If 104fps in not possible for 2700X in AC:O, how did those 2 TR chips got 104 and 106fps in those "principled" benchmarks? Mind that 104 is 24% higher fps than they shown for 2700X. I do not think that TR has 24% clock advantage. And I am quite sure AC:O performance does not scale with multiple available CPU cores by 24% above 8C/16T.
I'm only talking about 2700x. Also there's benchmark videos on youtube to prove that. And by the way, I don't want to defend Intel or AMD, I just don't like fake news and clickbaits.
So, are you saying that "Principled" had good results for 2700X, but had some bad scores for both TR chips they tested? (Kind of weird narrative.) And apparently, yours "only talking about 2700x" means that you intentionally take those results out of context. As all those numbers are from same site.
Your CPU is not comparable to 2700X. All you have there is your belief that your chip is superior to 2700X. Which is especially wrong in case of AC:O which uses quite a few threads.
https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-review,1.html Look at those 1080p numbers and compare it to 4790k.
Forget it man. Stick to what you believe or do some research. https://digiworthy.com/2017/10/29/assassins-creed-origins-cpu-benches/
I actually know quite a few things about AC:O and people with 4C/8T CPUs realizing that their CPU utilization is 100% and they bottleneck their 1080Ti cards. 4C/4T CPUs are severely bottlenecking even 1080.
I would like to propose a Purchase Satisfaction Rule which states: One's satisfaction with his purchase is inversely proportional with the amount of time he spends arguing, whether defending his purchase or trashing others. Please ignore, if such rule already exist.The reason why I'm calling it a rule, is because I'm too modest to call it a law
Even redditors on the Intel subreddit aren't pulling any punches on this. And indeed they shouldn't - this completely overshadows yesterday's product release and makes it seem like Intel has something to hide. The enthusiasm and momentum that Intel gained yesterday is completely reversed - and it's entirely their own fault! Does anyone at Intel's PR department have any common sense at all? How, in this day and age, with information readily available at your fingertips, did Intel think they could get away with posting and endorsing such flawed data? Either they thought people wouldn't check (which would make them extremely ignorant) or they thought people would go along with it anyways (which would make them extremely foolish). Did they think negative coverage is better than no coverage? What's the angle here, because I really don't see it. We all knew what the 9900K would be. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how this CPU would perform - it will certainly be the new gaming king and there was really no need to try to ham it up with "the 9900K performs up to 50% faster than the 2700X!" This is reflected in the stock price as well - AMD gained 3% today while Intel declined 1% (yesterday, it was the opposite). What a way to ruin a release. With all the bad news that they had received in the past few months - the 10nm delay, the 14nm shortages and the resultant price hikes - they had a chance to turn all that around with a successful fall refresh... and then this happens. I'm finding it increasingly difficult to believe that Intel is a fortune 500 company at all.