And i will bet you anything that this is not the case in a 30man heroic raid with addons 
It is the case. 60fps @ 4k. It’s more like 100fps but I use vsync. I have tightened my RAM timings to the minimum posible @ 3800MT/s (IF1900). There is no performance difference between my AMD system and an Intel system with a RTX 2080. I am GPU limited. A RTX 2080 ti might be a different story.
Just because you say so does not make it true.
Even the 10900K drops below 60 in raids and other extreme situations, no matter what RAM and timings you are using.
https://youtu.be/X6RSEU1d-g8?t=264
This is at 5Ghz OC, only LFR (which is way less demanding than a proper raid with no AFK players) and NO ADDONS.
So obviously you can tell that there is no way u can hold 60+ in more demanding scenarios.
The main issue with AMD 3800x CPU’s etc, is not the cores being fast enough. It’s the RAM latency and latency across the IF which you can see in aidia64 memory test and Ryzen DRAM calculator. To get high FPS you increase the IF as far as it will go, then tune the RAM for minimum timings. With an IF of 1900 and RAM @ 3800MT/s. You aim for ultra low timings with samsung B-Die. CL14 with all other timings at minmum. Now you reach 11500 cpu score in time spy cpu with the 3800x. Then you overclock the cores to 4.4Ghz all cores for 11800 time spy cpu.
Now you destory most 9900ks systems performance wise. Where the build has 3600MT/s RAM CL16 xmp and stock 9900ks.
If you fully overclock a 9900ks to 5.2 GHz and 3600MT/s CL15 RAM you can hit 12k time spy cpu and beat almost all 3800x systems.
Now when the 3800xt comes out. It’s might hit an IF of 2000 which means 4000MT/s with tightened timings. With the extra MHz to the CPU, it will reach 12k time sky cpu. There are already 3800x time spy cpu scores at 12k.
This is why overclockers (co-uk) in the uk sells a RAM kit called Team Group 8-Pack RIPPED Edition 16GB (2x8GB) DDR4 PC4-28800C14 3600MHz Dual Channel Kit - Black * TDPPD416G3600HC14CDC01
- 3600MHz RAM Speed
- CAS 14-15-15-35 Timings
- 1.40-1.50v VDIMM
- Samsung B-Die
My kit went 3800MT/s with the same timings (this is overclocking, so don’t expect every RAM kit to do the same). Then you start reducing the timings and increase the vDIMM towards 1.5 volts. At some point the timings won’t go lower within the safe voltage range. That becomes your RAM OC.
One note: most of the Ryzen cpu’s will do IF1800 (this is why shops sell RAM tuned at 3600MT/s) but not all do IF 1900. RAM speed is two times the IF speed. The new XT cpu’s could do IF 2000 which is a big performance boost to overclockers. Viper Steel 16GB (2x8GB) DDR4 PC4-35200C19 4400MHz Dual Channel Kit (PVS416G440C9K) would then be the best kit.
Specification:
- Capacity: 16GB (2 x 8GB)
- Base Frequency: PC4-17000 (2133MHz)
- Base Timings: 15-15-15-36
- Tested Frequency Profile 1: PC4-35200 (4400MHz)
- Tested Frequency Profile 2: PC4-34100 (4266MHz)
- Tested Timings: 19-19-19-39
- Tested Voltage for Profile 1: 1.45V
- Tested Voltage for Profile 2: 1.35V
- Format: NON-ECC Unbuffered DIMM
- Pin Out: 288-Pin
- Warranty: Lifetime
My Ryzen system is not the same as a normal stock one, even one with expensive RAM. I have overclocked my system and have done some extreme RAM tuning.
The 10900k is just going to beat most systems with little effort OC wise. Once you OC things become different. A 3950x with the same overclocking method will hit over 10k in cinebench r20. Normally it would hit 9166 approx. 9900ks and a full OC 3800x 4.4Ghz RAM 3800MT/s are around 5400. 10900k is 6155.
Time spy cpu, 9900ks 11500 and 3800x 11800 OC. 10900k 13k time spy cpu. In games with a RTX 2080 its more a GPU limited issue than a cpu one.
I believe you. But check out that channel from the video i linked above.
He does alot of Ryzen RAM tuning with extreme clocks and timings etc.
He is also one of few who actually benches WoW.
We are talking about WoW here and because of it’s old engine (even with the DX12 improvements) you are mostly CPU-limited unlike most modern AAA games which make efficient use of many threads.
Some AAA games hit the cpu hard. Assassin’s Creed: Origins is one and Far Cry 5 another.
Assassin’s Creed: Origins is a beautiful game, but one that is really CPU intensive.
Far Cry 5 The bigger the gunfight the more strain your computer is going to be under. So it’s recommended you have a powerful CPU before trying to play this game.
Both I am GPU limited.
I have my RAM even more tightly tuned than his benchmarks. My IF and RAM frequency are both higher. His IF is 1866 and thus his RAM is 3733 MT/s. This is the sweat spot for most Ryzen 3000 CPU’s. Once you go as far as I have you have to tune termination resistances like procODT etc. It gets no fun at that point. Just long hours of testing to find one error 10 hours into testing. Then you have to change the right one setting to get the full 12-24 hours+ memtest stable.
Then repeat the process to lower another timing and so on until you have to give up.
WoW is kind of unique in the way it stresses the CPU.
It runs on one mainthread and some on other cores (mostly audio, or when loading stuff).
The mainthread runs the combatlog AND also all of the addons you install.
So when lots of players/npcs are spamming the combatlog with actions, you also have to add all the addons like Details!, Weakauras, DBM etc. which analyze the combatlog in realtime, all at the same time, on top of everything else.
So WoW really cannot have enough IPC/clock.
We have multiplied the number of cpu threads since 2004 several times over and over, but are still running at a max of currently 5.2Ghz (10900K) with normal cooling.
Sure RAM speeds also count and improved the performance alot.
PS: Farcry 5 runs alot better on Intel, it prefers high clocks over threads and the assassins creed games are not really optimized that well compared to other games of the same genre.
IPC is better on AMD but clock speeds are worse. Intel have far better memory latency and don’t have a high latency between CCX’s. So I have one CCD and two CCX’s. 0 and 1. So with the core latency, any data between cores within the same CCX latency is 30ns but if data is between CCX’s then its across the IF and thus 68ns. With the RAM I have reduced the latency from 70ns to 63ns.
When it comes to games the higher latency increases frame times and thus reduces FPS.
By engaging in tightening the RAM timings on Ryzen you gain back the lost FPS because of latency. Were my overclock is at the moment I wont get more fps in far cry 5 by switching to Intel. The limition is my RTX 2080 as well.
My average Far Cry 5 FPS in the builtin benchmark is 147FPS. 1080p graphics ultra. Minimum fps 114fps.
https://youtu.be/ffKHk-M_8eY?t=525
The difference in FC5 is HUGE… unlike most games.
I went to the source website for your video. FC5 The 10900k 1080p ultra is 157fps with a RTX 2080 ti and the 9900k is 147fps. My 3800x RTX 2080 is 147fps.
Assassin’s Creed Odyssey The 10900k 1080p ultra high is 118fps with a RTX 2080 ti and the 9900k is 113fps. My 3800x RTX 2080 is 132fps. eurogamer_net
Stock 3800x or 3700x would not have a chance.
How about a screenshot? 
ibb._co/1vscQms
ibb._co/P4LtTdR
Add the https and remove _ These are the screenshoots from both benchmarks. Hopefully no forums rules get broken.
You can post any link, just use the “preformatted text” option on it.
From what Hardware Numbers benchmarked 9th gen Intel had higher avg FPS in WoW while Zen 2 had higher 1%/0.1% low. 10th-gen Intel improved the 1%/0.1% lows are is the very best but also depending on SKU costs way more. The inter core latency in Zen doesn’t seems to impact WoW performance that much it seems, while more cache on the higher Zen 2 SKUs gave those better 1%/0.1% lows likely. Curious what IF clocks and RAM frequency range Zen 3 will be working with. Right now 4000+ MHz RAM gets cheaper and cheaper.
Without tightening the memory timings and increasing the IF frequency. Then you will see less fps compared to Intel CPU’s. Doing the RAM timings took me weeks.
Stock Ryzen is not that fast game wise. Its decent but not Intel. Most people are going to get a quick and easy OC out of their Intel CPU and just fly past Ryzen performance wise. Maybe get some 3600 CL16 or even 4400 CL19 RAM and be very pleased performance wise.
Meanwhile Ryzen is a ton of tweaking and testing just to get close to a decent 9900ks system.
Yes, that guy did the same thing, at some point with LN2 OC 
so it was brutal - both for AMD and Intel CPUs. Even the 3300X gains a lot from this but it’s less to be expected that a budget CPU will be paired wit solid RAM kit and good motherboard for this.
16GB of good samsung b-die is £140. CL14 @ 3600-3800MT/s
A 3300x is £150.
B450 TOMAHAWK MAX is £130.
5600XT will cause at most £300
Based on the WoW results in that video you linked, I’d rather use the 3800X than the 9900K - better 0.1 Lows & more tightly matched results overall…
The lows get even better with the RAM OC. It moves you closer to the Intel CPUs for both average and maximum fps as well. This happens in all games.
I though the closer together the bars were, the better…?
If not, that’s another reason for me to stay outta these threads…
Intel can also benefit from OC RAM so you can’t just completely outtake Intel with Ryzen by just playing with RAM.
And very little people do anything more than use XMP profile so you want that recommended hardware performs very good without the need for extensive knowledge/interest in overclocking.