AMD Ryzen 4000 Rumored to Offer Around 17% Increased Performance

[Valantar]

1. AMD does not have better 1%

Tom's Hardware 9900KS review. Look at Far Cry 5 and FFXV. In pretty much every other title there's no noticeable difference in 1% numbers.
GamersNexus Ryzen 5 3600 review. Look at the AC:O 1440p graph and SoTR. Everything else is very even, the only major outliers are cases where Intel CPUs lag in 1% and .1%.

2. It may be a dead horse from your point of view, but for me it is not, as the only intensive task I do on my PC at home is game and I do not stream.

Gaming is the main intensive task for me too, but I nonetheless don't see the point of going for a dead-end platform with zero upgrade path just to get a ~3.5% advantage at the resolution I play at (1440p). That number is from TPU's 9900KS review, btw. That is in no way a noticeable difference, and the tradeoff is getting no upgrade path and a less powerful CPU for everything else - so I'll gladly pass on that.

3. It is completely relevant to thread as Intel's advantage in the OP was referred as virtual and I was the one who disagreed with it and first brought it up.

Not really. The news post is about the rumored IPC improvement in Zen3. While IPC is always averaged across different workloads, it would be very hard to reach 17% without also improving gaming performance by a bit. And they only need to improve by a bit to match or beat Intel across the board, even with next-gen Intel chips boosting clocks by another 2-300 MHz. Nonetheless, a post about IPC improvements need not devolve into a rehash of the stale "but Intel is still best at gaming" "yeah, but not by enough for it to matter" "but it DOES matter!" exchange that we've all seen a thousand times.

 

[billeman]

You guys are so funny debating over something that really doesn't matter. To each his own, use/buy what works for you. There's no need to convince others I compare it to my veggy brother who tries to harass me because I love to eat meat......