Does TUP use the same quality settings as the ‘suspicious’ review?
-
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 Ryzen 7 5800X3D retail processor has been tested ahead of launch
- Thread starter Dave2150
- Start date
Idk but lowering quality settings should lessen any GPU bottle neck so if a CPUs topping out at 200fps with higher settings yet can do 360fps with lower settings then that would imply it's not CPU bottlenecked at the lower fps.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,578
Really? But you said:
Where is the 7700K and 8700K comparison or were you just making things up again?
Did you miss that the 7700K is actually there and proves you were making things up as the 7700K scores the same as the 8700K in both 1440p and 720p!
Last edited:
What difference does it make? You asked for a 720p benhmark that predicted future performance, and I gave you 3 examples, not just one.What difference does it make which CPU it is?
As for the 8700k vs the 7700k, here is a video review from digital foundry. In cpu bound scenes the difference between them is 50% (07:30 of the video for example). Yet you cant see that in 1440p benchmarks cause the GPU has bottlenecked way earlier
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZIVaGcax70
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,578
Why didn't you use the 7700k and 8700k in the graphs you posted? They're both BF1 and 1440p and 720p which you originally used in your evidence?
What difference does it make what CPU I use? Are you saying that low resolution benchmarks predict future performance for every other CPU except the 7700k? What exactly are you trying to say?
You can check gamersnexus. In 2017 with a 1080ti he found no difference between the 7700k and the 8700k. Fast forward to 2018, the 2080ti was released. And there ya go, 30+% difference (09:28 of the video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuUwLuQGPj4
So what exactly is your point? If a CPU performs better at 320*240 resolution it WILL perform better at 1440p 4k and 8k as well, provided you pair it with a fast enough GPU. Meaning, when you buy a GPU that is fast enough you can pair it with the CPU that was faster at 320*240 resolution. It's that simple, I don't get why you are arguing about something that is self evident. What are you suggesting, that the CPU that is faster at 320p is NOT going to be faster at 1440p with a more modern GPU?
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,578
My point is I want you to provide evidence of this exact point made by you
So by extension then tests on a 7700k and 8700k run at 720p should have highlighted the difference that weren't there at 1440p of which you are saying now exists today.
If you can't then just say so rather than going off on tangents. Stop making stuff up that is not precisely factual.
Its a very small but loud segment.
They suddenly cared about, it a lot, when AMD started winning in gaming performance.
When you think about it for more than a second the "BecAuse I wANt to KonW how it rUns wiTh my GPU" is a ridiculous argument, if it get 300 FPS at 720P with an RTX 3090 then the CPU will have no issues running your RTX 3060, and you also know it has that headroom if in 3 years you want to upgrade to a much faster GPU.
The point is that CPU bound gaming benchmarks predict future gaming performance at higher resolution with modern GPU's. I provided plenty of evidence for that, like the pentium G example. You just don't want to admit it.
The 720p is irrelevant. Resolution doesn't matter, what matters is for the benchmark to be CPU bound. It can be at 1 pixel or 8k, if it's CPU bound it's fine.
What you are saying doesnt make sense. Youve called me an intel shill plenty of times but here i am defending CPU bound benchmarks. So it has nothing to do with amd or whatever. Also, what do you mean "suddenly started winning"? AMD is behind alderlake in gaming, lol
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,578
My point is that your overall point might be right but you make stuff up that is not factual to try and prove that you are right. Do you understand this now? Stop making stuff up!!!
What stuff am i making up? I already linked you a CPU bound benchmark (digital foundry) where the 7700k was losing by 30 to 50% to an 8700k at CPU bound gaming. I also linked you another one where at 1440p they were pretty much equal (techpowerup) . So wtf are you talking about?
Let me show you something.
Steve Walton from Hardware Unboxed, he was really peeie about the price of the 5600X at launch, banging on far too much, like a lunatic about how AMD had no right to price it at $299.
To bolster his argument he even went as far as to claim it was no better than the Ryzen 3600, and to prove that he produced a slide, the first one of the two here.
Notice that yes, according to that slide the Ryzen 3600 is no better than the Ryzen 5600X, Steve Burke from Gamers Nexus ran exactly the same benchmark in his review, the second image here.
Notice in the Gamers Nexus slide the Ryzen 5600X is a whopping 46% faster than the Ryzen 3600. If you look again Steve Walton and Steve Burke got almost exactly the same FPS on the Ryzen 3600, its right on its performance limit, how ####'ing contrived is that?
Can you guess how Steve Walton created this lie to bolster his angry argument? Notice there is no GPU listed in his slide?
#1, it was not aimed at you.
#2 this argument started up again because someone on twitter posted a screen cap of the 5800X3D beating the 12900KS.
Oh yeah, those results are with 4800c40 ram on the 12900k , lol. That's the equivalent of 2133c19 on ddr4, imagine if they ran the 5800x3d with 2133 ram. The pitchforks...
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,578
For the last time you said:
So by extension then tests done at 720p at that time should have shown how poor the 7700k is compared to a 8700K but guess what, they don't. From your own graphs that you posted.
1440p
720p
If your original point about the 7700K and 8700K was factually accurate and not made up nonsense then there would have been a difference between the 1440p and 720p benchmarks but they are virtually identical.
That is my whole point. I can't make it any clearer than that and I have better things to do with my time. You were using made up 'facts'. So you can now talk about Pentium G4560's etc but that doesn't change the fact you were making stuff up, again!
Guys, you should probably know TPU used a GTX 1080 in that ^^^ review.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i7-8700k/4.html
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i7-8700k/4.html
For the last time you said:
So by extension then tests done at 720p at that time should have shown how poor the 7700k is compared to a 8700K but guess what, they don't. From your own graphs that you posted.
1440p
720p
If your original point about the 7700K and 8700K was factually accurate and not made up nonsense then there would have been a difference between the 1440p and 720p benchmarks but they are virtually identical.
That is my whole point. I can't make it any clearer than that and I have better things to do with my time. You were using made up 'facts'. So you can now talk about Pentium G4560's etc but that doesn't change the fact you were making stuff up, again!
There is no difference because the run is not CPU bound? I feel like you are trolling me right now man...As i've already said, the resolution is irrelevant. The point is the test should be CPU bound. If that's at 4k / 720p / 240p doesn't matter. It's so freaking obvious when there is a 2 fps difference between a stock 4.3ghz 8700k and the one oced to 5ghz. But whatever...