• 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.

AMD Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000) - *** NO COMPETITOR HINTING ***

~>Dg<~ said:
no one said the performance wasnt good just its not as fast. also if you on lower hz monitor there isnt any point. 144hz and above then you notice it.
Click to expand...

DG you've seen the chart in my quote, i've just googled other reviews and they also show Ryzen no more behind Intel than 10 to 15%, given the clock difference this is completely normal.

PUBG is a poorly optimized game with no real difference between i3's and i7's but the Ryzen CPU's performance as expected for their clock speed.

S8o3KSM.png


ogRuOHl.png


k4hZciC.jpg.png

Nothing wrong with any of that ^^^^^^^^^^
 
it just shows intel cpus are better for pubg like ive been saying especially if you want max performance. what are we even debating ? some of those benchmarks show the performance difference i speak of. also showing i3s beating highend amd cpus. is it unoptimized because intel is faster ? i wonder if it would be unoptimized if amd cpus were at the top ? :D we all know the answer to that it would read like this on here AMD KING INTEL SLAYER !!!!!! :p
 
~>Dg<~ said:
it just shows intel cpus are better for pubg like ive been saying especially if you want max performance. what are we even debating ? some of those benchmarks show the performance difference i speak of. also showing i3s beating highend amd cpus. is it unoptimized because intel is faster ? i wonder if it would be unoptimized if amd cpus were at the top ? :D we all know the answer to that it would read like this on here AMD KING INTEL SLAYER !!!!!! :p
Click to expand...

They are, as they are in most games, the point is Ryzen is no worse in PUBG than it is in any other game, other than CS:GO where it is worse, one of those few outliers.

The Intel CPU's are clocked about <15% higher, the whole point of this current argument in this thread is Ryzen 3000 should make up most if not all of that.
 
Last edited:
which is what i said. if they can make up the 10-15 percent we have a great cpu. otherwise its just intel for gaming as normal. im buying one of the new amd cpus to update my older ryzen rig.so its not that im not interested i am interested and going to buy one i just hope they can close the gap that they been behind for so long in gaming.

pubg it can be upto 30 fps in some situations on a high hz panel if you play it a lot thats just not acceptable especially when a lower end i3 for example can do better what a high end amd cant. as said before if you on a high hz monitor play particular games intel is the only real option unless its down to budget. that may not be the same come summer we will see. hopefully so. more options gives us all a better choice. hopefully a better price aswell.
 
If all you play is PUBG then why not just get a Ryzen 1200 / 2200G and overclock it? that's way cheaper than an i3, eh?

Its one game that doesn't scale with threads, DG.

Ryzen is a very long way from Bulldozer.
 
Last edited:
because i7s are faster ? :confused: as some of your benchmarks show and from playing over 3000 hrs on it i can tell you the difference. depending on where they bench the game what map and how they bench , can mean massive fps differences.ive done it on numerous intel cpus against my amd ryzen rig as said 30 fps difference in some parts. now to some that may not matter especially on lower hz screens or to casual players but for players like me and there is plenty i play with many every day most of the day they want that extra performance and no or as little drops in fps as possible. how i have mine set up im close to 200 fps constant even dips never lower than 150 yet many amd cpus cant even do 144hz solid. that is the difference ! it doesnt cater for everyone im just talking about the players who want that extra performance which amd cant give you. only intel can provide that. so you go with intel. its not a bias brand loyalty. its a performace thing . a tool as i said previously.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
because i7s are faster ? :confused: as some of your benchmarks show and from playing over 3000 hrs on it i can tell you the difference. depending on where they bench the game what map and how they bench , can mean massive fps differences.ive done it on numerous intel cpus against my amd ryzen rig as said 30 fps difference in some parts. now to some that may not matter especially on lower hz screens or to casual players but for players like me and there is plenty i play with many every day most of the day they want that extra performance and no or as little drops in fps as possible. how i have mine set up im close to 200 fps constant even dips never lower than 150 yet many amd cpus cant even do 144hz solid. that is the difference ! it doesnt cater for everyone im just talking about the players who want that extra performance which amd cant give you. only intel can provide that. so you go with intel. its not a bias brand loyalty. its a performace thing . a tool as i said previously.
Click to expand...

720P, Very Low Settings, 1080TI

8700K: 121 FPS, 4.5Ghz
8100: 112 FPS, 3.9Ghz
Ryzen 1200: 93 FPS, 3.4Ghz
 
what you trying to show me ? most 8700s will do close to 5ghz or over aswell. so thats 35-40 fps difference that like going from a 1060 gtx to a 2080ti at same resolution before you mention cost.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
what you trying to show me ? most 8700s will do close to 5ghz or over aswell. so thats 35-40 fps difference that like going from a 1060 gtx to a 2080ti at same resolution before you mention cost.
Click to expand...

8700K vs Ryzen 1200 = 30% FPS Difference with a 25% clock speed difference, that's a 5% difference in IPC in PUBG assuming 0 thread scaling.

8100 vs Ryzen 1200 = 20% FPS difference with 15% higher clock speed, a 5% difference in IPC.

Its not scaling beyond 4 cores, seeing the pattern?
 
humbug said:
720P, Very Low Settings, 1080TI

8700K 121 FPS 4.5Ghz
8100 112 FPS 3.9Ghz
Ryzen 1200 93 FPS 3.4Ghz
Click to expand...

It's ridiculous, truly, we are now down at 720p low settings on a 1080ti :o I have played hundreds of hours of PUBG on both intel and amd hardware and if it wasn't for a frame rate counter I wouldn't be able to tell you the difference. I thought 3k hours is a huge amount of time into PUBG given its release date 367 days ago (23rd march 2017) so 3000/367=8.17.... more than 8 hours a day since release? @~>Dg<~, I think you might have a bigger problem than worrying about 5 or 10 fps here and there.
 
Vince said:
It's ridiculous, truly, we are now down at 720p low settings on a 1080ti :o I have played hundreds of hours of PUBG on both intel and amd hardware and if it wasn't for a frame rate counter I wouldn't be able to tell you the difference. I thought 3k hours is a huge amount of time into PUBG given its release date 367 days ago (23rd march 2017) so 3000/367=8.17.... more than 8 hours a day since release? @~>Dg<~, I think you might have a bigger problem than worrying about 5 or 10 fps here and there.
Click to expand...

To be fair running settings like that is the perfect way to test the CPU performance as the CPU is a total bottleneck to a very high performance GPU like the 1080TI :)
 
Vince said:
It's ridiculous, truly, we are now down at 720p low settings on a 1080ti :o I have played hundreds of hours of PUBG on both intel and amd hardware and if it wasn't for a frame rate counter I wouldn't be able to tell you the difference. I thought 3k hours is a huge amount of time into PUBG given its release date 367 days ago (23rd march 2017) so 3000/367=8.17.... more than 8 hours a day since release? @~>Dg<~, I think you might have a bigger problem than worrying about 5 or 10 fps here and there.
Click to expand...

not all time is play many hrs is minimized or left on. as to the 720 benchmark i agree. all i said is the intel option is the better option currently for pubg players. which it is especially on a high hz monitor. whether people notice that or deem it worth it is obviously upto each individual i only bring it up as many will have you believe amd cpus are currently equal in gaming performance when they are not. close isnt equal . i did say i hope the amd game of performance is closer or better on release of the new cpus in summer as i will be getting one to use.

i dont have a problem i enjoy a game if you reading into the amount of hrs i might put in a game over the topic at hand i worry for you. not me.

humbug all you have shown me is on offer is intel cpus that are far superior in a game i mainly play. nothing else. as said you try to show scale but when you are not going to buy a low end cpu from amd because there is better on amd it doesnt matter. id rather pay a bit more and have the 30-40 fps difference than try and debate on a forum about how close they are when the proof is there showing the intel option is faster. in literally every benchmark. even a i3 beats the amd top tier chip in pubg. so its irrelevent what you offer as its slower.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
not all time is play many hrs is minimized or left on. as to the 720 benchmark i agree. all i said is the intel option is the better option currently for pubg players. which it is especially on a high hz monitor. whether people notice that or deem it worth it is obviously upto each individual i only bring it up as many will have you believe amd cpus are currently equal in gaming performance when they are not. close isnt equal . i did say i hope the amd game of performance is closer or better on release of the new cpus in summer as i will be getting one to use.

i dont have a problem i enjoy a game if you reading into the amount of hrs i might put in a game over the topic at hand i worry for you. not me.

humbug all you have shown me is on offer is intel cpus that are far superior in a game i mainly play. nothing else. as said you try to show scale but when you are not going to buy a low end cpu from amd because there is better on amd it doesnt matter. id rather pay a bit more and have the 30-40 fps difference than try and debate on a forum about how close they are when the proof is there showing the intel option is faster. in literally every benchmark. even a i3 beats the amd top tier chip in pubg. so its irrelevent what you offer as its slower.
Click to expand...

If you're going for a very high end GPU i would argue you have no choice but to go Intel, But, and this is the point that Vince is making, you have to use to pretty uncommon settings in game for that Intel CPU to make a difference.

Look, you wouldn't use a Ryzen 1200 or an i3 for anything above a midrange GPU, that's fine, its perfectly fitting for something like a GTX 1050TI, a Ryzen 2600 is perfectly fine to drive an RTX 2070, maybe even an RTX 2080, if you want the 2080TI get the 9900K.

Its simply a case of 'right' Intel CPU's are better gaming CPU's if you need that performance to drive your GPU, for everything else the Ryzen CPU's are perfectly fine, they are very high performance in their own right at 95+% of Coffeelake IPC and very good value. for most people a Ryzen 2600 is just as good as a 9900K and this is why its consistently the best selling CPU on Rainforest.

This has been the picture pretty much since the 2600 launched.

fYbu0is.png
 
KentMan said:
Yet another thread dragged into a tit for tat off topic bicker session by @humbug and DG..

This gets old
Click to expand...

To be fair I bit yesterday and probably shouldn't have as to be honest it makes little to no odds to me how a given cpu performs in a single game. I just thought there was some common sense conversation to be had. I was wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom