|
K8.0 posted:People keep buying Intel because their CPUs are still dramatically superior for gaming. It's not that complicated. If Zen2 changes that, AMD will sell like mad.
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2019 22:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 15:22 |
|
|
K8.0 posted:People keep buying Intel because their CPUs are still dramatically superior for gaming. It's not that complicated. If Zen2 changes that, AMD will sell like mad. Dramatically superior is an overexaggeration, we're talking in the realm of ~5% to ~15% in the worse scenarios IIRC. Intel is noticeably better, but on a price/perf curve and considering multithreaded performance as well a 2700X is going to carry you further than a 9900K will, especially since it looks like you can just plop in a 3700X or 3800X and get dramatically better performance in what, 5 months, 6 months time? 2020 will be more interesting to see Zen2+ vs Icelake as a comparison since Intel is promising a real difference moving to Icelake. I just don't see Intel as attractive beyond mobile until that time and that's mostly because Intel mobile designs don't suck, not inherently better chips.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
It's not an exaggeration at all, the 9900k takes a giant dump on the 2700X in games. It's more typically in the range of 25-50% faster when you're CPU bound. Yes, a lot of people are going to wind up GPU bound and not have it matter a lot, but it's really silly to pretend that there isn't still a big rear end performance gap between AMD and Intel when trying to explain why Intel still dominates. The appeal of halo products filters down, and AMD is still not even close to competitive at the high end of gaming. e - people buying CPUs expecting they will last through several GPUs is also a big factor. When you expect to become more CPU bound over time, Intel's value proposition improves a lot. K8.0 fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Jan 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2019 22:54
|
|
|
The "it just works" factor also still favours Intel, although they really need to stop cheaping out on stock coolers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
Never mind.
B-Mac fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Jan 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2019 23:20
|
|
|
K8.0 posted:It's not an exaggeration at all, the 9900k takes a giant dump on the 2700X in games. It's more typically in the range of 25-50% faster when you're CPU bound. Yes, a lot of people are going to wind up GPU bound and not have it matter a lot, but it's really silly to pretend that there isn't still a big rear end performance gap between AMD and Intel when trying to explain why Intel still dominates. The appeal of halo products filters down, and AMD is still not even close to competitive at the high end of gaming. How many people are CPU bound though and why would you expect to become more CPU bound unless you mainly play CSGO etc.?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2019 23:21
|
|
|
Why do you buy a new CPU to begin with? You get more CPU bound when you buy a new GPU and/or play newer games.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2019 23:29
|
|
|
How the heck do you manage to be CPU bound in new games unless you're running some weird 1080p/2080ti combo or are turning down settings to hit 144hz?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
Arzachel posted:How the heck do you manage to be CPU bound in new games unless you're running some weird 1080p/2080ti combo or are turning down settings to hit 144hz? I'm. Still running a i5-4670 iirc, quad core 3.4ghz and bad ipc
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2019 23:46
|
|
|
Arzachel posted:How the heck do you manage to be CPU bound in new games unless you're running some weird 1080p/2080ti combo or are turning down settings to hit 144hz?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 00:51
|
|
|
K8.0 posted:Why do you buy a new CPU to begin with? In practical terms most people know they're not going to get held back by a 2700X enough in games vs a 9900K to care especially given the extra cost of going with the latter option and that a maaaybe 5-15% difference also isn't "getting dumped on".
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 00:59
|
|
|
If you're upgrading, the delta from your current CPU to a 2700X is probably similar to 2700X to 9900k. The performance delta per dollar is not great for AMD. AMD makes sense when you're replacing nothing with something, a 2600/rx 580 or whatever is a great first gaming computer for your kid or something. It's not great when you built a nice PC 4-6 years ago and want to replace it with something that can probably last that long again without the hassle of upgrading.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 01:29
|
|
|
K8.0 posted:It's not an exaggeration at all, the 9900k takes a giant dump on the 2700X in games. It's more typically in the range of 25-50% faster when you're CPU bound. Yes, a lot of people are going to wind up GPU bound and not have it matter a lot, but it's really silly to pretend that there isn't still a big rear end performance gap between AMD and Intel when trying to explain why Intel still dominates. The appeal of halo products filters down, and AMD is still not even close to competitive at the high end of gaming. Do you have the benchmarks to back that up? My impression was this, and I can't seem to find good direct comparisons of a 2700X and 9900K at the moment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bD9EgyKYkU
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 02:00
|
|
|
EmpyreanFlux posted:Do you have the benchmarks to back that up? My impression was this, and I can't seem to find good direct comparisons of a 2700X and 9900K at the moment. The only thing I can think of was the gamers nexus review of the 9900k but they also dropped graphics details in a few games down to medium from ultra to purposely try and push as many frames as possible. Of course the gap closes at high/ultra details and as resolution goes up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 02:12
|
|
|
Sure, you can take your pick of trustworthy review sources. Here's essentially the same source as that video doing a review, here's GN's review, I'm sure you can find others. When you get CPU bound, Intel still wins out big. Their hardware is just more refined as well as having a significant process advantage. Zen 2 may well close that gap right up, which would be fantastic for consumers, but it won't bring prices down as much as people expect. Right now AMD is cheaper because it's simply not as good, they're putting their products at the price point where they'll sell in the volumes they can produce them, same as Intel. If you keep in mind what you're upgrading from and look at it of performance delta per dollar rather than simply performance per dollar, and understand that as time passes and your CPU isn't as relatively fast as it used to be (and things like the next gen consoles bump up the load on CPUs), you're going to become CPU bound in more and more places, and similar deltas will start to show up everywhere. Intel certainly isn't terrible value, people aren't just idiots who buy Intel CPUs for no good reason. Also, as an aside, the 9700k is generally a better buy than the 9900k but I'm just trying to show that Intel's value proposition isn't the garbage people seem to think.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 02:13
|
|
|
icecon posted:It's a shame that people are drones and will keep buying Intel because they think it's "the best" because it was the best for so long.  Soon it will be only ‘imports’ in the smaller than SUV category, imported from Canada and Alabama  People will buy what they want to, regardless of whether one is better than the other. Amd will do just fine with mindshare for Zen2.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 02:33
|
|
|
dead comedy forums posted:One thing that I am curious about is with AMD pushing ALL THE CORES for the consumer market, how software development will work from here? I am a student and programming stuff to use multiple cores is waaaaaay beyond my level, but I am fascinated by the implications of software becoming efficient enough (one day) to properly use many cores. If you want to more easily take advantage of high core counts, the first thing you need is to be solving a problem which is amenable to being solved through either parallelism or concurrency. If you find yourself thinking things like "I wish I could split this one big problem into N smaller but otherwise identical problems", or "I wish I could have this processing flow keep going while I handle other things", or "It would be nice to just fire off handlers for these requests as they come in", then you're looking at the sort of problem which plays well with being made concurrent or parallel. After that, just use a language which has features that make it easy to tackle those sorts of problems. Go and Rust are very popular these days. Python 3 has the concurrent futures module, which makes wrangling task workers pretty simple. In these three cases, spreading work across available cores is handled by the language runtime. If you have enough work, you'll just magically get more routines running on more cores. I'm sure (at least I sure do hope) that other languages have evolved threading/coroutine libraries which aren't a bloody nightmare by now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 02:42
|
|
|
K8.0 posted:People keep buying Intel because their CPUs are still dramatically superior for gaming. It's not that complicated. If Zen2 changes that, AMD will sell like mad. I think that you are placing too much of an emphasis on gaming. While it continues to be true that single-threaded performance tends to be king in games..... Gaming is not the only thing that people use CPUs for. It would probably be more correct to say that gaming is still a minority activity on the PC. What *will* make AMD sell like mad, though? Are Intel's continued supply problems, and OEMs like dell switching over to AMD to fill the gap. OEMs switching over will mean more to the average consumer and AMD's bottom line than any benchmarks or actual performance... so long as AMD keeps the relative gap competitive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 03:23
|
|
|
K8.0 posted:It's not an exaggeration at all, the 9900k takes a giant dump on the 2700X in games. It's more typically in the range of 25-50% faster when you're CPU bound. Yes, a lot of people are going to wind up GPU bound and not have it matter a lot, but it's really silly to pretend that there isn't still a big rear end performance gap between AMD and Intel when trying to explain why Intel still dominates. The appeal of halo products filters down, and AMD is still not even close to competitive at the high end of gaming. K8.0 posted:Sure, you can take your pick of trustworthy review sources. Here's essentially the same source as that video doing a review, here's GN's review, I'm sure you can find others. When you get CPU bound, Intel still wins out big. Their hardware is just more refined as well as having a significant process advantage. Zen 2 may well close that gap right up, which would be fantastic for consumers, but it won't bring prices down as much as people expect. Right now AMD is cheaper because it's simply not as good, they're putting their products at the price point where they'll sell in the volumes they can produce them, same as Intel. The first link you posted showing a 2080Ti at 1080p Ultra is basically the worst case realistic scenario for Ryzen and there's still only a single game where the difference is in the 25-50% range you stated. The second link shows a 2080Ti at 1080p and settings turned down which is an ultra niche scenario that would hardly ever be actually ran in real life. If you have to use settings that are barely ever used outside of a GPU review to get a 25-50% difference I would not say that's typical. IMO typical would involve averaging out the results of a bunch of games with at least somewhat realistic settings that someone would actually use. Here with a 1080 Ti and 1080p Ultra the difference is closer to 10% averaged across a bunch of titles. https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i9_9900K/13.html Don't get me wrong if someone wants to push high frames and isn't budget constrained I'd tell them to get a 9700k because it is a meaningful difference, just not 25-50% outside of absolute worst case scenarios. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Jan 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 03:50
|
|
|
K8.0 posted:Sure, you can take your pick of trustworthy review sources. Here's essentially the same source as that video doing a review, here's GN's review, I'm sure you can find others. When you get CPU bound, Intel still wins out big. Their hardware is just more refined as well as having a significant process advantage. Zen 2 may well close that gap right up, which would be fantastic for consumers, but it won't bring prices down as much as people expect. Right now AMD is cheaper because it's simply not as good, they're putting their products at the price point where they'll sell in the volumes they can produce them, same as Intel. Honestly that's not the 50% you we're talking about though, 25% is still larger than expected. Based on the video comparison it seems the 9900K has almost no advantage over the 8700K, and the 8700K and 2700X were compared where the 8700K held only a 9% advantage over a larger number of games @ 1080p, so I think on average despite some serious outliers the 2700X is not the 25-50% behind you claimed and I'm more comfortable with my 10-20% claim being more accurate (lean 15%). I'm not saying 20% isn't large enough for someone to care, but it really only shows at extremely high refresh rates and as noted in the GN review, maybe isn't important to customers considering life of product, monitor and ability to perceive those frames. IMHO this puts the 9900K in a precarious position of basically being a hardcore gaming CPU only, or a purchase to be considered when budget isn't constrained. I just don't see the value in comparison, a 2700 or 2700X are significantly cheaper by ~200USD which is easily going from a RTX 2070 to RTX 2080, and I'd rather an RTX 2080/2700X than a RTX 2070/9900K.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 03:58
|
|
|
You guys are missing the point. The CPU bound tests are the only ones that are telling you the actual performance of the CPUs. The others are just telling you how fast the GPU is, which is not useful when you're trying to determine how many months of acceptable CPU performance you're going to get per dollar, or however you want to look at it. Yes, you aren't going to see 25-50% higher framerates in typical use TODAY, because GPUs aren't fast enough and a lot of current games are very CPU-light because we're at the tail end of a console generation. That just means those games are lovely benchmarks for determining how long a piece of hardware will be relevant to you. The games showing the big performance deltas are the ones that are representative of what will happen as those CPUs age - one will last MUCH longer than the other, whether you're looking at it in terms of "I want to always be GPU bound" or "I want to maintain X FPS in whatever game I play". e - and again, it's always worth mentioning because people never seem to understand this no matter how often it's said - assuming you're upgrading, only performance delta is relevant. If your current hardware does X, everything up to X is not relevant performance. It's only the step up that's benefiting you, everything else is just money you're throwing away. You wouldn't be upgrading if X was acceptable, and the minimum bar for what currently acceptable performance means to you is going to constantly increase over time. K8.0 fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Jan 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 04:37
|
|
|
Ahahaha https://twitter.com/LisaSu/status/1089715760895852545?s=19
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 04:39
|
|
|
There's a relevant real life example here in all those people who bought Skylake i5s (sometimes locked) and ended up replacing it just two years later because they couldn't get 60 fps in Battlefield or whatever. How well a chip will hold up four years from now (and beyond, given the current rate of advancement) kind of matters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 10:23
|
|
|
Llamadeus posted:There's a relevant real life example here in all those people who bought Skylake i5s (sometimes locked) and ended up replacing it just two years later because they couldn't get 60 fps in Battlefield or whatever. How well a chip will hold up four years from now (and beyond, given the current rate of advancement) kind of matters. Are you suggesting this is an argument for a processor with 20% less ST/MT performance? Yeah, I agree with you, the end of Moore's Law and the end of easy uarch gains is a solid argument for buying the chip you need today, instead of waiting 2 years for something 10% better. Right now the best determinant of how long a chip will last, is how much money you are willing to spend. Quit equivocating about an extra 10% on your total build cost and just buy the i9 for the extra 20% performance gain in the long term. If you want to bet on the 12C/16C Zen2 processors scaling just as well in gaming as the 9900K (and whatever AMD's 8C version is) then sure, OK, but that's a Bulldozery kind of bet. Betting that inter-die latency is zero is not going to pan out for you, and consoles are actually making a big leap in single-thread performance in this next generation, not core count. The 12C/16C chips are a bet on "mega-tasking", productivity, or streaming, basically. Your money is going to be better spent on the 9900K, or the AMD 8C for (probably) mildly less performance. Or, buy a 3950X and do that streaming/productivity/megatasking even better. Threadripper is a super obvious move for server-ish poo poo in the next couple years. Gaming is going to favor the 8C chips. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 11:51 on Jan 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 11:44
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Are you suggesting this is an argument for a processor with 20% less ST/MT performance? I suppose this was comparing apples to oranges a bit, since the i5s were limited by lacking hyperthreading and the Ryzens fall behind in single threaded performance. Point is getting more than is currently needed in either axis is probably good and not bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 12:19
|
|
|
Llamadeus posted:The opposite, I think? Just as those i5-6500/6600K buyers would have been better off with an i7-6700K in retrospect (assuming they could have afforded it) current Ryzen buyers might be better off with 9700Ks or 9900Ks in the long run if they're planning to use remotely high-end GPUs. Yeah, we agree, past the sarcastic intro of my post. The way Intel has chopped up their lineup too finely is dumb, but on the other hand you would be stupid not to spend the extra 10% build cost on a better CPU in the long term. Alternative plan: take a $200 writedown on your existing Ryzen CPU, then spend $300-500 on a Zen2 7nm CPU, such great value. How dumb the 9900K is depends on how much Zen2 8C beats it, and how many people buy the 9900K in the meantime (Intel flagships have retained good value so far, even in the face of Zen/Zen+). Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 12:49 on Jan 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 12:47
|
|
|
Cant wait for 8C Zen2 to reach 9900k parity already so we can see how both sides change their tune
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 14:10
|
|
|
Sidesaddle Cavalry posted:Cant wait for 8C Zen2 to reach 9900k parity already so we can see how both sides change their tune same, at that point we can shatter the "people buy NVIDIA/Intel even when they're better than [The Competitor] by like 5% for 2 months or something because If AMD actually wins for once, you will see people start to switch over. People haven't because AMD hasn't, they've been >20% behind in gaming and their GPUs have been equivalently priced at launch to those "overpriced NVIDIA GPUs" for a long time, from Polaris at $300 to Vega at $500/600 up to VII at $700, while being significantly later to market. But, nobody wants to hear that story, they just want to talk about NVIDIA's Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Jan 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 14:35
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Are you suggesting this is an argument for a processor with 20% less ST/MT performance? It's not 20% more performance for 10% more cost, it's 20% more performance for 67% increase in cost. Why do you need to dip into hyperbole so pointlessly when it can make your argument appear weaker? I also think the 12C's will be really useful, more so than the 16C AM4s, since I can forsee things like games scaling out to 8 cores easily and 4 extra cores is enough for background or streaming but it's not so many cores that thermal headroom becomes an issue. I'm personally aiming for a (3700X?) when Zen2 drops and then basically forgetting about buying a computer for 4-5 years again, because lol unless something crazy comes out we've hit rock bottom for CPU performance gains. Like I said, I think the cost savings of the R7s compared to the 9900K are important enough since with equal budgets the AMD option scales to a higher end GPU. If you're budget sensitive the 9900K isn't worth it IMHO, but if it doesn't matter go for it. Why is this so hard to understand, that's basically been the mantra since like Ryzen launched, and I really think budget is too big a factor to be so dismissive of.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 15:07
|
|
|
You _do_ know who you're arguing with?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 15:10
|
|
|
Judging by the PC part picking thread (very anecdotal, of course), the R5 2600 is probably the most common recommendation overall. It's pretty common to try to talk people who aren't interested in overclocking and aren't going for a particularly high end GPU (and they might not even have a high refresh rate display) out of buying a 9600K. They wouldn't really benefit from it at all, and it's much more expensive. The i5-8400 used to hold this "best bang for your buck for pretty much any build under $1500", but now the 2600 is cheaper for basically the same performance (little bit worse in single-thread, quite a bit better in multi-thread). People who build their own gaming PC's are a minority, and out of that minority, people who are prepared to spend more than $1500 on their build (and/or might already have a high refresh rate monitor) is an even smaller minority. Those people are in a position to really benefit from the Intel advantage in single-thread performance, but they're probably not a huge market even though that's where all the attention is focused. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 15:31 on Jan 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 15:21
|
|
|
EmpyreanFlux posted:It's not 20% more performance for 10% more cost, it's 20% more performance for 67% increase in cost. Nah, viewing the CPU as the only component in the system is stupid. A 2080 build with a 1440p screen is probably like a $2000 build right? So the incremental cost of the 9900K over the 2700X is like 10%, right? For 20% performance improvement in CPU-limited game benchmarks? EmpyreanFlux posted:I also think the 12C's will be really useful, more so than the 16C AM4s, since I can forsee things like games scaling out to 8 cores easily and 4 extra cores is enough for background or streaming but it's not so many cores that thermal headroom becomes an issue. if you don't push the clocks then you're not going to catch up to the 9900K in gaming performance, if you do then you will be in the same shithole the 9900K is in temps. Also, dual-6C ("12C") will kinda suck for gaming. Those are going to be the chips that run into the baby-threadripper effect first. If you "foresee" things like games spreading out to 8C16T then you should probably buy whatever single-die Zen2 8C16T AMD offers, or the 9900K. EmpyreanFlux posted:I'm personally aiming for a (3700X?) when Zen2 drops and then basically forgetting about buying a computer for 4-5 years again, because lol unless something crazy comes out we've hit rock bottom for CPU performance gains. So... you stream a lot? But not enough to buy a 3950X, right? Even though "we've hit rock bottom for CPU performance" and you're looking to upgrade your system? What are you currently streaming on? What are your framerates like? Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Jan 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Nah, viewing the CPU as the only component in the system is stupid. A 2080 build with a 1440p screen is probably like a $2000 build right? So the incremental cost of the 9900K over the 2700X is like 10%, right? For 20% performance improvement in CPU-limited game benchmarks? Yeah but it's also stupid to argue for a processor for a worst case scenario basis. Average use case would be a lot more accurate, and most things are not going to be CPU bound.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 16:01
|
|
|
Inept posted:Yeah but it's also stupid to argue for a processor for a worst case scenario basis. Average use case would be a lot more accurate, and most things are not going to be CPU bound. Over time, all processors approach worst-case scenario. That's what happens when you upgrade your GPU. I mean, if you're betting on GPUs staying 1070 performance forever, whatever, you do you. Also, what, you've never played a competitive game at medium settings to get a higher framerate? Ryzen is already flagging in BF:V, The Ideal Multithreaded Title (TM), even an overclocked Ryzen can't pass up 128 fps, so your high-refresh monitor is useless. Same for AC:O (both of them) and FC:V, all of which bottleneck at 105 fps. That trend will probably continue, particularly as console games discover The Magic Of Single-Threaded Performance (TM) as they get processors that are triple as fast per core. If you give consoles desktop performance, they will code engines that run like they do on desktop too. Shocker. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Jan 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 16:04
|
|
|
The cost of the 12C/16C chips are so high that I really have to wonder if it's that goddamn difficult for some people to have a baby streaming computer and use NDI? I have gotten a lot of value from using a 2200G as a 24/7 background activity box. Putting OBS on that isn't too difficult. It really seems like gaming and streaming on the same silicon is just not worth it anymore. Either use GPU rendering if you don't even draw enough viewers for a sponsorship or use another computer if you do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 16:09
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Over time, all processors approach worst-case scenario. That's what happens when you upgrade your GPU. I mean, if you're betting on GPUs staying 1070 performance forever, whatever, you do you. Yes, forums poster Paul MaudDib, 128fps rather than 142 (or 151 if you have the 2080Ti - it's not all CPU bound stuff here) definitely makes high refresh rate monitors (approximately all of which have variable refresh rate support these days) "useless". The difference in frame timing is 7.04ms vs 7.81ms, or about 10%. That's definitely Ryzen "flagging" right there. Read your own loving sources you doofus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 16:20
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:Yes, forums poster Paul MaudDib, 128fps rather than 142 (or 151 if you have the 2080Ti - it's not all CPU bound stuff here) definitely makes high refresh rate monitors (approximately all of which have variable refresh rate support these days) "useless". The difference in frame timing is 7.04ms vs 7.81ms, or about 10%. That's definitely Ryzen "flagging" right there. Read your own loving sources you doofus. Oh no, you said "forums poster", I am defecated. I thought we were talking about future potential here, right? And the ideal future potential literally-coded-at-a-low-level-since-it-was-called-Mantle DX12 game BF:V is starting to fall behind on Ryzen, right? This is the model game that is going to be the template for low-level games going forward? Also, if you looked at the image, Ryzen is bottlenecked on a 2070, aka a 1080. That's actually a pretty serious bottleneck. You do you though, do the All Red Team Build (tm). Nobody ever plays at 1440p medium in a competitive multiplayer game, right? Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Jan 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 16:25
|
|
|
Every time we're approaching a Ryzen release...
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 16:29
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Oh no, you said "forums poster", I am defecated. You made an idiotic statement (regarding the uselessness of high refresh rate monitors at 128fps). Would you be happier if I called you an idiot instead? Not that I really think you're really that dumb, you're just exaggerating your arguments because you like arguing on the internet or something. Therefore, forums poster. The Ryzen 7 2700X is a slower CPU than the i9-9900K. BF V is single thread bound at high framerates like every other game ever and even an i7-7700K will get 140fps in the 1080p benchmark you linked. Nobody is arguing anything else. If you care about 1ms tighter frametimes when you're already 90% of the way to what money reasonably can buy, then yes, Intel is what you should buy. This is not controversial in any way whatsoever. Stop hurfing all this stupid durf. e: I play Rainbow Six Siege at 4K with a GTX 1080 with an i7-8700K and I get ~110fps, gently caress off with your dumbass trolling. (render resolution at 60% or something like that) TheFluff fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Jan 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 16:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 15:22 |
|
|
TheFluff posted:You made an idiotic statement (regarding the uselessness of high refresh rate monitors at 128fps). Would you be happier if I called you an idiot instead? Not that I really think you're really that dumb, you're just exaggerating your arguments because you like arguing on the internet or something. Therefore, forums poster. Apologies for impairing the e-honor of the 2700X. I should not have implied that game CPU requirements would increase over time, especially with consoles making a big jump in single-threaded performance as they jump to the Zen architecture. That was not very politic. Making an example of a couple particular games (particularly the ones that were AMD-optimized) with a high level of optimization was definitely not politic. There is no question that the 2700X is a good processor for today's games. I apologize if you perceived otherwise and were offended. (it is a good value for what it is... but the 2600X is a better value...) Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Jan 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 16:41
|
|