Coffee Lake is basically a 2018 product, they've just shipped a handful of top SKUs to make people hesitate about buying Ryzen. The non-Z370 motherboards and lower end CPUs won't release until "1H 2018" according to Intel slides. The only problem is that this paper launch will also make people hesitate about buying Kaby Lake. Not sure it's a good strategy from Intel, at least in terms of sales. Probably good in terms of generating a buzz though.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
No CoffeeLake stock?
- Thread starter shankly1985
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
1080p might be the most common overall, but that includes just about every league of legends low end computer with a 1080 screen on a cheap card. 1080p isn't the most common resolution for people dumping £350 on the latest gen CPU on launch day.... 1080p is the common resolution amongst those buying £40-80 low end CPUs and those who bought lower end cpus in the past 5 years.
The idea that millions of people buying the latest £300+ processors with gaming as their primary heavy usage are mostly using 1080p is absurd.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 735
- Location
- West Midlands
Why not? I have just bought all the new kit and a 1080 and have 0 interest in going above 1080p. Literally it's only places like this that anyone cares about 1440p or 4k, I stream and play I need speed over quality most of the time.
I think there is always the assumption that those of us who post on here are representative of what everyone else is doing but it's nowhere near. It's just a small bubble. Streaming is one of those big growth areas as you mention at the moment where 1080p is pretty essential.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 735
- Location
- West Midlands
True, I've literally spent a grand this month specifically so I can run 1080p as fast as possible,..
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
Same here.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 6,064
must admit i find it hard to accept people build higher end systems for what is a relavtively low end resolution.i thought 1440p would be minimum these days for gaming enthysiasts
Erm, why? I sometimes record/stream at 1080p whilst gaming at 1440p.
Towards the end of the month, but with the several hundred they have back ordered already I'd imagine you are looking well into November now.
Stupid really, they should have just launched it in November, and been done with it, I mean it was meant to launch in Jan '18 so it's only really 2 months early, and a proper bodged launch.
Playing at 1440p and downscaling will have some effect on the quality of the output but also, playing at 1440p will stress the system more and again effect streaming performance. Playing at 1080p and streaming 1080p or downscaling to 720p is preferred.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 5,849
Hang on, so playing at 1080p recording at 1080p but downscaling to 720p is ok, but playing at 1440p and downscaling is bad? .... ok im lost here, not sure what point your trying to make as you just contradicted yourself
I would have thought, as long as you can hit a comfortable 60fps while gaming and streaming, regardless if its 1080p or 1440p, then your good to go? are you not limited by other factors like platform your streaming to? (youtube. twitch etc?) forgive me, i dont stream, and have little interest in it, but i am intrigued to learn more about what is actually preferred.
I was under the impression more cores > less cores for streaming? is high gz or IPC more important than more cores? does bandwidth on the network / broadband play a massive part or not at all? Does Software or codecs make a massive difference?
Is it a balancing act is what im getting at? i often read people have a dedicated capture PC for streaming alongside their gaming PC, which means those doing it from 1 PC are doing so *on the cheap* so to speak, and will encounter the most issues i would imagine?
Has core counts on CPU's alleviated a lot of the issues? how important is the GPU in this other than the actual game your playing and seeing as the streamer?
Those cards will easily achieve high fps once you lower settings and lowering settings is par of the course for the fps (first person shooter) crowd. As it often removes bushes/trees etc so easier to see people.The best performance for gaming is with gpu upgrade, like you know majority gamers don't have the best gpu and spending £200 more on cpu (to get the best cpu)while sitting on 1050-1070 gtx is fail..
.and using "I want the best gaming experience that's why I upgrade cpu"
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 974
I can recommend Marigold vegetarian stock which even Tesco sales these days so plenty of supply.
Hang on, so playing at 1080p recording at 1080p but downscaling to 720p is ok, but playing at 1440p and downscaling is bad? .... ok im lost here, not sure what point your trying to make as you just contradicted yourself
I would have thought, as long as you can hit a comfortable 60fps while gaming and streaming, regardless if its 1080p or 1440p, then your good to go? are you not limited by other factors like platform your streaming to? (youtube. twitch etc?) forgive me, i dont stream, and have little interest in it, but i am intrigued to learn more about what is actually preferred.
I was under the impression more cores > less cores for streaming? is high gz or IPC more important than more cores? does bandwidth on the network / broadband play a massive part or not at all? Does Software or codecs make a massive difference?
Is it a balancing act is what im getting at? i often read people have a dedicated capture PC for streaming alongside their gaming PC, which means those doing it from 1 PC are doing so *on the cheap* so to speak, and will encounter the most issues i would imagine?
Has core counts on CPU's alleviated a lot of the issues? how important is the GPU in this other than the actual game your playing and seeing as the streamer?
It's simply more efficient to game at 1080p when streaming and then downscale to 720p if needed. Gaming at 1440p and then down-scaling to 1080p will just use more resources. I think the majority of streamers just use one PC.
More cores helps but the 8700k seems to do pretty well against the 8 cores in a couple of reviews I've seen. Bandwidth plays a part but you'll find the majority of streamers playing at 1080p because as said before, it's more efficient.
That is not enough.
Huh? By that logic, playing at 720p is more efficient if you're going to stream at 720p. Your original point was that playing at 1080p is "essential" for streaming. I don't think it is.
Downscaling does add some extra workload but I don't think it's enough to have to switch to a lower quality profile in x264, for example. There are two ways you can do the downscaling (in OBS anyway) - pre-encode or post-encode. Pre-encode is very fast and adds negligible overhead, post-encode is stupidly costly because the encode basically needs to be done twice. The only thing I've found I can't do is record at 1080p whilst streaming at 720p, because that requires post-encode resizing (1440p -> downscale to 1080p -> encode -> downscale to 720p -> encode). I can do one or the other with no problems though.
Last edited:
Sure but many have a 1080p monitor so game at it's native res? Not sure what the confusion is. Many streamers use 1080p monitors to stream with. It's just better. You can use whatever you like but that is the sweet spot.
I said it's pretty essential and if you are serious about it it is. I used to use a 1440p monitor and downscale to stream and record but bought a 1080p monitor dedicated to it as it's simply better/more efficient/the sweet spot.