AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D retail processor has been tested ahead of launch

[humbug]

I'm used to 32", can't step down to 27"

Having a large screen in shooters is useful, you see more and its easier to aim, swings and roundabouts i guess.

 

[ChocAndGray]

I'm used to 32", can't step down to 27"

Having a large screen in shooters is useful, you see more and its easier to aim, swings and roundabouts i guess.

How long have you had your monitor for?

You liking it is all that matters, not what random people online think.

The good news is it seems like top quality PC monitors are starting to arrive with high refresh rate oled's actually being a thing and (close to) affordable. Prices will eventually lower.

So when you do eventually upgrade the jump will be massive.

 

[humbug]

How long have you had your monitor for?

You liking it is all that matters, not what random people online think.

The good news is it seems like top quality PC monitors are starting to arrive with high refresh rate oled's actually being a thing and (close to) affordable. Prices will eventually lower.

So when you do eventually upgrade the jump will be massive.

3 / 4 years, it looks fine to me but then i don't know any better, its a case of i need to see others to compare it too.

I do like the size.

 

[uscool]

I have the g7 32 inch 1440p 240hz for gaming I can't tell the difference in picture quality in gaming but in general windows use I can see the icons and text isn't as sharp but can live with that

Ideally would like 4K would be better for general windows use but prefer not to sacrifice the fps in games

 

[cliffy]

He will likely not answer. I've made this argument before. PPI & distance to screen matters.

Yeah he is not a fan of logical well structured discussion

 

[Grim5]

I have the g7 32 inch 1440p 240hz for gaming I can't tell the difference in picture quality in gaming but in general windows use I can see the icons and text isn't as sharp but can live with that

Ideally would like 4K would be better for general windows use but prefer not to sacrifice the fps in games

I'm waiting for the g8 Neo, it's 4k 32inch 240hz hdr2000 1152 dimming zone

 

[uscool]

I'm waiting for the g8 Neo, it's 4k 32inch 240hz hdr2000 1152 dimming zone

Sounds good but will wait till we get cards that can push high FPS at that resolution like we do currently at 1440p

Will be interesting to see how the next generation cards do at 4K

 

[Ross Thomson]

I am a little lost as to why 720p is a bad benchmark if it tests CPU headroom without GPU being a limiting factor.

Because that is all it is. You are comparing pointless figures. Same thing for cinebenfh. Great if you submit to hwbot. What does testing at minimal settings and at 720p do for consumers. It’s Willy waving that appeals to fanboys.

 

[Bencher]

Because that is all it is. You are comparing pointless figures. Same thing for cinebenfh. Great if you submit to hwbot. What does testing at minimal settings and at 720p do for consumers. It’s Willy waving that appeals to fanboys.

Makes you see which CPU can support your next graphics card update 3-4-5 years down the line. In 2017 both the 8700k and the 7700k got similar FPS in 1440p with a 1080ti. Fast forward to today, the 8700k is still fine with a 3070 / 3080, the 7700k isn't.

 

[Troezar]

Makes you see which CPU can support your next graphics card update 3-4-5 years down the line. In 2017 both the 8700k and the 7700k got similar FPS in 1440p with a 1080ti. Fast forward to today, the 8700k is still fine with a 3070 / 3080, the 7700k isn't.

Exactly this. I'm not sure why some don't understand the principle. This is just the sort of information is want to know before an upgrade. Currently I'm considering a 5700X, 5900X or 5800X3D as an upgrade to a 3700X. Whichever will provide the most support faster GPUs (gaming priority) in the future will get my money.

 

[MartinPrince]

Makes you see which CPU can support your next graphics card update 3-4-5 years down the line. In 2017 both the 8700k and the 7700k got similar FPS in 1440p with a 1080ti. Fast forward to today, the 8700k is still fine with a 3070 / 3080, the 7700k isn't.

That sounds like made up nonsense to me as it lacks specificity but please prove me wrong.

• Which game exactly?
• Please provide links to the benchmark at 1440p
• Please provide links to the 720p benchmark that shows the difference between the 8700K and 7700k

 

[Ross Thomson]

That sounds like made up nonsense to me as it lacks specificity but please prove me wrong.

• Which game exactly?
• Please provide links to the benchmark at 1440p
• Please provide links to the 720p benchmark that shows the difference between the 8700K and 7700k

probably some YouTuber said once to justify doing pointless tests rather than good commercial advice for users.

 

[Amatsubu]

I have a 1440P 32" screen, is that bad?

I have the same and really like it, I sit a bit farther away and it gives me more or less 24" 1080p sharpness on a big screen.

Of course it's nowhere near as sharp as 32" at 4k but way easier to drive considering insane gpu pricing.

 

[Bencher]

That sounds like made up nonsense to me as it lacks specificity but please prove me wrong.

• Which game exactly?
• Please provide links to the benchmark at 1440p
• Please provide links to the 720p benchmark that shows the difference between the 8700K and 7700k

You can check digital foundry's 8700k review, it shows some huge gains compared to the 7700k.

 

[Troezar]

You can check digital foundry's 8700k review, it shows some huge gains compared to the 7700k.

I think you're fighting a losing battle, you can't beat beliefs

 

[cliffy]

Because that is all it is. You are comparing pointless figures. Same thing for cinebenfh. Great if you submit to hwbot. What does testing at minimal settings and at 720p do for consumers. It’s Willy waving that appeals to fanboys.

I am fed up with perople not understanding the use of testing at 720P. It has been explained so many times and so well yet people still do not understand. I took the below from another users post on another message board and sums it up well

At the risk of a lot of downvotes, I figured I would try to explain why testing CPUs at low resolutions is important. I am seeing a lot of misinformation and rationalizing for why we shouldn't test at low resolutions like gamers playing at high resolutions and all, but honestly, when you test CPUs, you actually want to test the CPU. Including benchmarks at high resolutions can be nice to give people who game at higher resolutions an idea how their system performs, but all in all, to actually TEST the CPU, you want to test at low resolutions.

Benchmarking tests are a lot like scientific trials. You want to link an independent variable, to a dependent variable. In this case you want to test how your CPU runs at gaming. What you don't want interfering with your trials is other variables. You want to CONTROL the environment, and ensure that the only factor at work making a difference is the thing you are testing. EVERYTHING ELSE should be controlled for, as it does not interfere with the result.

When you game at low resolutions, you are doing just that. When you test at high resolutions, you are introducing a third variable into the mix: the graphics card. When you test at high resolutions, it's possible that the GPU is taking on more stress from the system, and this could be the primary variable affecting results, NOT the CPU. This gives the viewer the impression that the CPUs are performing more equally than would in a more controlled setting.

To minimize the stress of the GPU, you want to test at max settings (since settings CAN impact CPU performance), and you want to test at as low of a resolution as possible. I'm seeing joking comments asking, what are tests only valid if you test at 640x480 or something? Well, let me put it this way. If you're running a GTX 1080 at 640x480, you're not going to be GPU bound in most games. You would be testing the CPU, and this would lead to more valid results, since that's what we are testing.

This isn't to say that high res benchmarks can't be good. It's good to test at higher resolutions to give people some baseline expectations to how it will perform in a real world environment, but testing at low resolutions is more important, because it tells you how the CPU will perform under stress, and this could give an indication of the long term performance.

 

[Toasty]

I don’t think they are being genuine at this point arguing why/against including 720p benchmarks it’s been explained so many times why it’s done.

 

[MartinPrince]

You can check digital foundry's 8700k review, it shows some huge gains compared to the 7700k.

So you're making things up, again!

Just provide the link, why do I have to prove your point for you?

If I want to see the difference between CPU performance there are a plethora of single threaded and multi threaded app based benchmarks that will highlight that. I don't need to run a game at 720p or 480p to do that.

The bit I'm waiting for evidence for is that somehow seeing the difference at 720p is predictive of the difference I will see at 1440p in 2 years time when GPU's are more powerful.

Somebody show me actual empirical evidence of this i.e. Nvidia RTX2080 at 1440p with little difference between two CPU's due to GPU bottleneck, benchmark at 720p and then that same benchmark run with the same CPU's but now with say a RTX3090...

 

[Bencher]

So you're making things up, again!

Just provide the link, why do I have to prove your point for you?

If I want to see the difference between CPU performance there are a plethora of single threaded and multi threaded app based benchmarks that will highlight that. I don't need to run a game at 720p or 480p to do that.

The bit I'm waiting for evidence for is that somehow seeing the difference at 720p is predictive of the difference I will see at 1440p in 2 years time when GPU's are more powerful.

Somebody show me actual empirical evidence of this i.e. Nvidia RTX2080 at 1440p with little difference between two CPU's due to GPU bottleneck, benchmark at 720p and then that same benchmark run with the same CPU's but now with say a RTX3090...

Really? That's easy. Here you go


In BF1 with a 1080ti @ 1440p the pentium G 4560 matches the 8700k.
https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i7-8700k/images/bf1_2560_1440.png

Then you drop down to 720p and you see a massive difference (still GPU bound for the 8700k, but doesn't matter)
https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i7-8700k/images/bf1_1280_720.png

Granted, I don't have a benchmark of the pentium G with a 3090, but I think we both agree that it will be severely bottlenecked even at 1440p while the 8700k will do just fine. Actually that review has plenty of the examples you are asking for. At 1440p even a ryzen 7 1700 and a ryzen 5 1600 matches the 8700k. Then you drop down to 720p and you see huge differences. Fast forward to today, an R5 1600 is a bottleneck at 1440p even for a 3070, let alone a 3090

What plethora of single and multi threaded benchmarks can you run to determine the gaming difference between CPU's? If you provide some then of course we will stop using 720p benchmarks. I don't think there are any.

 

[Joxeon]

I am fed up with perople not understanding the use of testing at 720P. It has been explained so many times and so well yet people still do not understand. I took the below from another users post on another message board and sums it up well

I'd be more suspicious of the results tbh, TPU reviewed the 12900k and has data for 720p SOTTR in which it gets around 360fps so how it's topping out at 190 due to a CPU bind is beyond me.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-12900k-alder-lake-12th-gen/15.html