It's not that simple for online retail, the ASA guidelines mean that you can actually put a price up for any amount of time, and then say it is reduced by X as long as the amount of time it is lower than it was higher, e.g. 7 days at £349, and 6 days at £299 is allowed.
-
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 ***
- Thread starter Jamin280672
- Start date
It's not that simple for online retail, the ASA guidelines mean that you can actually put a price up for any amount of time, and then say it is reduced by X as long as the amount of time it is lower than it was higher, e.g. 7 days at £349, and 6 days at £299 is allowed.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 895
My apologies. lol
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2019
- Posts
- 617
Apology accepted.
Edit: in all seriousness though, games should be benchmarked in realistic scenarios. It's too easy for reviewers to test with the best of everything, but that just simply isn't representative. Most folk that game will only be interested in the minimum and recommended specs for any particular game. They alter their resolution and settings to meet their own individual needs in terms of fps. Ultimately "is the game playable?" is about the only thing that matters, otherwise no-one would even bother with the Xbox One or PS4.
Edit: in all seriousness though, games should be benchmarked in realistic scenarios. It's too easy for reviewers to test with the best of everything, but that just simply isn't representative. Most folk that game will only be interested in the minimum and recommended specs for any particular game. They alter their resolution and settings to meet their own individual needs in terms of fps. Ultimately "is the game playable?" is about the only thing that matters, otherwise no-one would even bother with the Xbox One or PS4.
Last edited:
most people who play games in mp lower settings on high hz monitors as they want the raw fps not the graphics. single player totally different.also it gives you better advantages. like seeing people easier also less fps drops in action. which is the last thing you want in a battle.
orange nexus benched numerous systems on pubg . also 20-30 of us on discord daily playing it with said pcs. we know the performance difference. i used to do 1 minute timed benchmarks on various systems to see the difference in min max and avg fps. ideally if playing pubg and you want the best fps you want intel and a nvidia card 16 gb ram and a ssd. i5 8400 and above. they give better performance in pubg than anything amd currently. 2700x is a great cpu but it doesnt even match the 8400. you dont need to show me benchmarks i know the fps. play with people daily since pubg came out.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 895
So, you want me to just take your word? lol. I play PUBG too. Not saying you are lying but I have no fps drops that will make the game unplayable and not win. Not competitive at all. Gaming is just a pass time for me. Besides, with just a GTX 1060, no need to aim for high settings. In PUBG, you don't want set the settings too high anyways. It gets harder to see the enemy.
I will take what I see in other sources, especially actual gameplay, over just put together words. No need to respond - Im out.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2013
- Posts
- 4,132
- Location
- Scotland
Are you trying to peddle Intel cpus and state that AMD are much inferior because of taking one game and turning all settings down to minimum?
Surely there are more apt forums for your comments.
Surely there are more apt forums for your comments.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,840
Well obviously you need to choose a resolution first, not nessasarlity a monitor first. It also depends how often you upgrade. If you replace both your CPU and GPU every couple of years, then you should aim for a perfectly balanced system so there is 0% bottleneck between the CPU and GPU. However, if you intend to keep the CPU for over 5 years, then you should aim for a system with a big GPU bottleneck. Then when you upgrade the GPU after 2 or 3 years years, it becomes a balanced system without a bottleneck. Then when you upgrade the GPU after another 2 years, it becomes a CPU bottleneck system. Then obviously your next upgade would be a new PC.
I think there is room for both, and really part of it is down to educating the consumers. Most reviewers test with unrealistic specs and setting in order to stress specific parts of the system. They have to do this to find out what the ultimate performance difference is, but they need to do a better job explaining to people that they are effectively turning games into synthetic tests. And that in real world tests cpu performance in games is going to tighten up considerably. The problem with only showing real world gaming tests for cpus is you end up not testing the cpus performance, all you're showing is if the cpu is capable of running the game at all.
Truth is gaming is not a good test for cpu performance.
I'm finally starting to see a shift from the "10000000000 fps in a 14 year old resolution is all that matters!" mindset. I'm sure there's plenty of wannabe pro fps folks still nudging that mindset along but in other places I spend time, there's more finally moving to 1440p. Pegging any CPU at 100% and having your graphics card terminally bored, doing next to F all is becoming a thing of the past, rejoice!
unless there's a certain artificial slant being pushed
Truth is gaming is not a good test for cpu performance.
unless there's a certain artificial slant being pushed
I almost feel sorry for Intel as they don't have much planned to take the fight back to AMD right now. If AMD take the IPC lead, I still believe Intel will be behind on their first 10nm products, they will probably need a refinement to close the gap. By this time AMD will probably be on a refinement of their own potentially pushing the bar higher.
Intel will 100% need to fight AMD at their own game, more core's, better IPC, lower prices.
If AMD released a mythical unicorn chip that was 5ghz+ on 16 core's and had a healthy IPC lead, Intel better come back swinging.
Almost makes me laugh when I remember people saying Intel had a super chip in the wings ready to release if AMD released anything that beat them.... Still waiting on this chip, the 9900k ain't it BTW
but but but the 9990xe
I'm with you on this, guess i need to add more to my Ignore list, some people around here are easily baited, which is just adding to the 'drivel'.
Might be nothing official for a few months but more leaks might happen and some of us dont want to sift through the drivel to find them.
just lock thread down until decent reliable info comes through. the thing is without speculation what is there to talk about ?
so its listen to people talk nonsense 90 percent of the time until something new drops or...lock of threads until actual details roll out.
so its listen to people talk nonsense 90 percent of the time until something new drops or...lock of threads until actual details roll out.
Nice opinion. Glad you are willing to throw speculative discussion and critical thinking straight out the window because, err, raisins...
I see PCI-SIG have now finalised PCI-E 5.0 version 0.9 which means that manufacturers will start making the move towards supporting it by the end of 2019 beginning of 2020, obviously it is backwards compatible with 4.0, but it will be interesting to see if the 4.0 support only lives through the B550/X570/X499 chipset range, and is replaced the following year with 5.0 support especially on the TR4 and EPYC platform.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 2,521
If AMD push pcie 4 i can see intel quickly using pcie 5 just to spite them.
I'm not saying they wouldn't anyway, but I see them adopting it much faster.
Hooray for competition \o/
Well given Intels' next desktop CPU's on 10nm more than likely won't land now until 2020, they certainly have the opportunity to implement it, however given the testing and ratification involved they might not be able to support it officially on release, but possibly with a BIOS update, if the hardware meets the requirements.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 23,552
- Location
- Hertfordshire
Do we even need PCIE 4, let alone 5? What benefits to your average computer user will they give?
If you need to use other slots, you have more bandwidth for it. Think NVMe and M.2 for SSD’s.. also future proof as PCIE3 has been around for 6 years now.
I for one welcome it.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 23,552
- Location
- Hertfordshire