>>105844687
The benchmark you posted doesn't even show the CPU you mentioned. Only the 5600x, which is another cpu without an igpu, barely less expensive and gets trounced in any workload that actually uses multicore and barely even beats the 5700g.
The remaining cpus in that list that beat the 5700g by a meaningful margin are all considerably more expensive.
>half the l3 cache
IPC >>>>> cache
There's plenty of CPUs with lower cache but higher IPC that beat older CPUs with more cache.
>significantly weaker CPU
Every time that is brought up, it's a cpu-bound game that hits over 120 or 240 fps on both cpus with any decent dGPU. Why the fuck should I care when the games that peg gpus at 80+% usage all perform within margin of error on both cpus?
Hell, most of the games that don't even reach usage that high perform similarly.
https://youtu.be/N8arD3Z5yRs?si=p1Wu8Fpz36hLKN9d
also,
>buying a LITERAL e-waste dgpu just to have video output through the mb
again, this is why i never listen to /g/
"b-but it is le cheap" I don't give a fuck.
>inb4 just buy one beforehand
No you idiot, even fucking older gen G-series ryzen apus are better than that pos nvidia card and the other crappy 30 series cards that came after it.
>>105844790
Your own video proves the point I made above. But it's actually worse than I thought because it's incredibly misleading.
https://youtu.be/N8arD3Z5yRs?si=p1Wu8Fpz36hLKN9d
@ 13:40, the game's running on 720p, everything set to low, on a card that obviously can handle way more than that
what happens when settings are actually turned up instead? the difference becomes way lower and it turns into a gpu bottleneck
All of this is meaningless anyways because my pc is a mini itx 4L build. I can't push the clocks too high, so the X series cpus are a waste. I also didn't have a dGPU for months. I paid a total of ~650 USD for this build (used 12GB 3060).
The pc fits in a drawstring backpack. The motherboard has 4 sata slots and one nvme.
