-
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 is Smoother" Misconception Benchmark & Explanation (Ryzen vs. Intel for Gaming)
- Thread starter RavenXXX2
- Start date
Benchmarks don't matter but power consumption, security back door holes, price, lack of modern features (like PCIe 4, good iGPU, good drivers) all matter and Intel is not good with them, either.
The problem starts if AMD wins in gaming, while Intel have something to latch on to tech journalists just need to focus on that and they wouldn't be doing anything untoward.
But in 3 months if AMD win in gaming? Then what, how do you shill for Intel when AMD are better in every measurable aspect.
If you are a paid shill you have a serious problem that's what.
Whatch out for long sad face's in about 3 months.
Remember folks, the best way to test a CPUs performance is in a way in which you, or no one else would ever use it. 1080P, low to medium details, with a graphics card costing well north of £1000.
CPU reviews are largely useless today for me.
CPU reviews are largely useless today for me.
I suspect that this is a trade-off in the Zen architecture - it's simply not designed to work better than Intel's architectures in today's and legacy games, but is designed to destroy them completely in heavy computing applications.
IMO that is fair, at the end of the day you're testing the CPU's limits in games and you're not getting that if the GPU is the bottleneck.
It doesn't matter, as we now know from known sale's figures 10% more FPS for £100 more, as a 10600K vs 3600 example shows is not worth it for about 70% of people.
And as I said if AMD win that now too with Zen 3 anyone Intel vested has had it.
The issue I have is, not everyone knows that outside of this bizarre use case, there is largely no difference. What does the regular user think when they see these impractical benchmark graphs? The intel CPU is faster. They don’t look at the fact it’s in a 5+ year old game, at 1080P low details.
Me personally, I want to see benchmarks that use games, image quality settings and resolutions that I use.
Rant over.
The issue I have is, not everyone knows that outside of this bizarre use case, there is largely no difference. What does the regular user think when they see these impractical benchmark graphs? The intel CPU is faster. They don’t look at the fact it’s in a 5+ year old game, at 1080P low details.
Me personally, I want to see benchmarks that use games, image quality settings and resolutions that I use.
Rant over.
That is an unfortunate truth, but I do think it's important to know where the limits of the CPU are.
That is where we differ, I have no interest in a pointless use case.
When you are gaming at 4K, you can do it with a potato CPU, it's the last thing that really matters - do it with a 15-watt quad-core and you will be fine. The GPU will be so busy, that the CPU will have plenty of time to finish its tasks.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,392
- Location
- Planet Earth
From my own experience,CPU limited games will show this even at qHD and 4K too. I play Fallout 4,and whether you have an AMD or Intel CPU,a GTX960 or a GTX1080,have the same frame dips in the same places,at any resolution.
This. Try playing BF V 4K MP on a quad core CPU.
Painful
Me personally, I want to see benchmarks that use games, image quality settings and resolutions that I use.
Rant over.
I think that the first major reviewer to compliment their current testing, with actual real world (current) use-case for the 99% would be way better than catering to the 1%, or using the "but faster cards will come in the future excuse", they will be the reviewer that is worth reading/watching when they actually say in the conclusion, it doesn't actually matter unless you are doing it for a living or just like throwing money down the toilet.
I've lost count of how many hundreds of systems I have built/upgraded for end users, and I can tell you that in my professional experience people playing games don't pair a 2080 Ti at 1080p, it just doesn't happen at the frequency people think, and for it to be relevant for a review that covers 95% of the time spent when reviewing that product.
TL;DR - Car reviewers mention a top speed, they don't usually check it as the 99.9% of buyers will never even use it like that.
Well said that man. Glad I’m not the only one that thinks testing a CPU in a way that no one will ever use it is completely pointless and a perfect example of how not to review/benchmark a product.
Totally this. It's the reason I upgraded my lads pc from a i5 2500k to a Ryzen 2600. His frame drops on bf5 were terrible. Not at 4k for him but it would not hold 60fps or anything close at 1080p. Different story now and not just this game.
Even my 7 year old has an i7 as even 4 cores without hyperthreading is a pain when we want to play grounded etc
Completely agree I’m not interested in hypothetical limits that I will never see or experience, I want to see results for the things I will use it for.
Let them test potato resolutions completely separately for all those interested in that sort of thing.
I've never understood why he big-upped the 10600K for exactly this reason. It's a flippin' 6 core, for £250, in 2020, what? How is that different from a 2017 8700? What are you drinking Steve? Why you trying to convince me an overpriced 6-core is a better buy to the 3700X? Let's see in 2022 bro. Frametime me a tenner.
