-
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
Annihilate at everything including games. Reviewers must change their testing methodologies and start asking how several applications run simultaneously, not to benchmark just a single stupid pointless thread.
Users didn't do it until recently simply because of hardware limitations. Now, when they have plenty of logical processors, they can run everything as much as they like.
users dont really do it much now even without hardware limitations because most people want the best performance . the best performance will always come from running less. regardless of how many cores you have. less running faster it will be. so as said in games most people just run games mainly or not much else. yes they can run other things if they like.
Not true. Many users do listen to music while gaming, and they stream meanwhile.
But users can also do encoding, decoding, etc tasks in the background, too.
Not true. Many users do listen to music while gaming, and they stream meanwhile.
But users can also do encoding, decoding, etc tasks in the background, too.
I must be one of the minority then.
I boot my PC up
I load a game up
I play said game
I close said game
I may then open up chrome and browse the web etc
I close chrome
I shut down my pc
Rinse/repeat as and when I get time
I don't encode, I don't decode, I don't stream, I don't listen to music while playing a game, I want to listen to the game sounds, not music whilst playing.
don't you lose the immersion of the game then though?
I've tried listening to music whilst I'm gaming and it takes me out of the game. I like all my focus and attention on the game itself.
Depends on the game, if its a fast action shooter i don't but something more slower paced, something that doesn't require my undivided attention i always have something playing on youtube in the background.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
This is my typical usage on any given day :-
Load PC up
Open Chrome
Open Slack
Start VirtualBox
Start Apache/MySQL servers
Open Visual Code
Open Sourcetree - Sync repository *
Open Unity - build apk *
Open Blender - render scene *
Open Premiere - render video *
Have a quick game of Rocket League / Planetside 2 while all the starred things are happening - normally all at the same time
When I play a game I've often got a silly amount of stuff open. Normally just leave outlook, chrome instances, visual studio, sql management studio. Basically anything I've been working on in the last week stays open. I close nothing. Normally I just fire up mumble or discord or whatever and jump into a game. My machine also hosts a load of random test stuff like iis sites, a sharepoint instance and also a sugar instance so it has quite high overheads.
Don't ever notice any of it in game tbh. There probably is some difference but so long as I can play most things 4k/60+ and things like cs at like a million fps 4k then I'm not really that bothered.
As above not a standard use case, in fact me and @amigafan2003 have similar rigs I believe.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
I think our use case is actually more common than many believe, which is one reason why Ryzen and in particular Threadripper are doing so well, and as multi core becomes more common, more people will discover that that can launch and run many more concurrent tasks without affecting tier gaming experience.
For me that's the thing I'll happily sacrifice having the fastest gaming rig if I can have a really strong workstation that doubles up at a few fps difference from say a 9900k. I won't miss like 10% or something in games but I would miss everything else I can do with it at the same time.
A 9900k/2700x would have probably done me 70% of the time but that other 30% when I fire up relatively large estates in esxi for testing etc it wouldn't suffice at all so I would need to have multiple machines and more complexity which tbh wasn't nearly as appealing.
I'm still really looking forward to seeing what happens on 3000 series, if the ryzen is good then I'll almost certainly move from my 1950x when 3rd gen TR comes
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
My 2950x is a decent jump from my 1950x (you have it now iirc?) so I'm really looking forward to 3rd gen TR.I'm still really looking forward to seeing what happens on 3000 series, if the ryzen is good then I'll almost certainly move from my 1950x when 3rd gen TR comes
Still on my launch day 1950x which cost like 1k and i still think it was worth every penny. I originaly bought the Taichi then changed to the Asus x399 prime, then back to the Taichi. Currently running 3466mhz memory but only at slower speeds.
I hear rumours that we will be able to offset memory frequency from IF frequency down to like 50% so perhaps 3rd gen will let me run all 8 sticks at that 3466 frequency. That would be nice.
I don't have loads of stuff open, not because it will slow games down, it's because I only use the PC for gaming and a bit of browsing the web. Chucking more cores my way wont suddenly make me want to have more stuff open.
I'm hoping for faster per core performance rather than more cores as to me they are useless. I'm rarely using all the cores on my 1600x now but the few that are being used could do with being faster. I chose Ryzen simply because it was cheaper than Intel
I'd... be shocked if there wasn't a pretty decent number of folks had at least:
Some form of keyboard/mouse/headphone/RGB software running
Some form of Voip running
A browser window or 2 open a good percentage of the time
A few other random miscellaneous bits like windows defender/some other AV + Malware bytes/some other anti-malware
Saying the average user shuts ALL this down to play games with the purest performance focus on the game is like saying the average user has at least a 1070. It's simply not the truth (but while you could then go "ahhh but I'm talking about enthusiast users who'd care about all this"... ok... but they still won't shut all this stuff down to play games. I can speak for.... 10 folks I regularly play with. Not one of us is like "oh, hold on a sec, I forgot to make my system a pure, dedicated FPS pipeline" before jumping on even the likes of "pro shooter" fps stuff.)
It's massively false to paint it like that. Especially when it just so happens to be in favour of your favourite processor brands direction/your purchasing preferences.
If you can't see the bias yourselves, it's fine. Everyone else can.
All that said... I'd be quietly confident this round of AMD will bring it into at least general parity/trading blows with Intel's best for a good while, it'll probably continue to be cheaper or simply have more cores to not have to care about this sort of crap as advantages.
There will be something Intel will be better at and the hardcore blinkered folks will insist on that being the only metric that matters.
Some form of keyboard/mouse/headphone/RGB software running
Some form of Voip running
A browser window or 2 open a good percentage of the time
A few other random miscellaneous bits like windows defender/some other AV + Malware bytes/some other anti-malware
Saying the average user shuts ALL this down to play games with the purest performance focus on the game is like saying the average user has at least a 1070. It's simply not the truth (but while you could then go "ahhh but I'm talking about enthusiast users who'd care about all this"... ok... but they still won't shut all this stuff down to play games. I can speak for.... 10 folks I regularly play with. Not one of us is like "oh, hold on a sec, I forgot to make my system a pure, dedicated FPS pipeline" before jumping on even the likes of "pro shooter" fps stuff.)
It's massively false to paint it like that. Especially when it just so happens to be in favour of your favourite processor brands direction/your purchasing preferences.
If you can't see the bias yourselves, it's fine. Everyone else can.
All that said... I'd be quietly confident this round of AMD will bring it into at least general parity/trading blows with Intel's best for a good while, it'll probably continue to be cheaper or simply have more cores to not have to care about this sort of crap as advantages.
There will be something Intel will be better at and the hardcore blinkered folks will insist on that being the only metric that matters.