AMD Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000) - *** NO COMPETITOR HINTING ***

[humbug]

We're talking about 144hz at 1080p.

Low Res = CPU bottleneck, Higher Res = GPU bottleneck. the whole point of testing games at low res is to take the GPU out of the equation, see how much the CPU bottlenecks performance, higher res just offloads more work to the GPU and it becomes the bottleneck.

Looking at that chart a 9900K will gain him about 15%, a good amount but not enough for the price diffrence, which is presumably why he owns a 2700X not a 9900K and is hoping Ryzen 3000 is faster than the 9900K, i think that's unlikely but certainly it should get him the same performance as a 9900K.

We are expecting about a 15% performance boost over Ryzen 2000.

 

[~>Dg<~]

exactly and why people are wanting the new amds ipc to match intels. hopefully that is the case.

 

[KungFuSpaghetti]

Low Res = CPU bottleneck, Higher Res = GPU bottleneck. the whole point of testing games at low res is to take the GPU out of the equation, see how much the CPU bottlenecks performance, higher res just offloads more work to the GPU and it becomes the bottleneck.

Looking at that chart a 9900K will gain him about 15%, a good amount but not enough for the price diffrence, which is presumably why he owns a 2700X not a 9900K and is hoping Ryzen 3000 is faster than the 9900K, i think that's unlikely but certainly it should get him the same performance as a 9900K.

We are expecting about a 15% performance boost over Ryzen 2000.

Someone gets it lol.

I want pure gaming performance as that's what these chips are touted as.

 

[humbug]

exactly and why people are wanting the new amds ipc to match intels. hopefully that is the case.

There is little difference if any in IPC, the 9900K is running at 5Ghz, the 2700X at 4.2, there is a 15% difference in performance with the 9900K clocked 18% higher.

 

[~>Dg<~]

lets not do this again.we already know on average amd ryzens are about 15 percent behind modern intels. no need for graphs. thats why amd are doing what they doing to close the gap. they know what they behind and thats why they marketing the new chips as they are to show they closed the gap. whether its hype or not we will see soon.

if a intel chip runs at 5ghz fine and a amd chip runs at 4.2 and the gain is 15 percent regardless of what goal posts you trying to shift. its still 15 percent you behind. thats simple to understand. hopefully amd have this closed down or in the lead. many here like amd more than intel. its just amd cant give what many want. which is the better cpu for what they doing. finally this may change. not long till summer..

my only worry is so many here are trumpetting how these amd cpus are faster than 9900ks for eg what if they not ? going to be some cracked eggs on the floor...i can only imagine the eggscuses if this happens . just like with amd ryzens. ohh...but in this irrelevant benchmarks or unknown game they are quicker. yet everything else slower. hope that isnt the case.

 

[humbug]

lets not do this again.we already know on average amd ryzens are about 15 percent behind modern intels. no need for graphs. thats why amd are doing what they doing to close the gap. they know what they behind and thats why they marketing the new chips as they are to show they closed the gap. whether its hype or not we will see soon.

if a intel chip runs at 5ghz fine and a amd chip runs at 4.2 and the gain is 15 percent regardless of what goal posts you trying to shift. its still 15 percent you behind. thats simple to understand. hopefully amd have this closed down or in the lead. many here like amd more than intel. its just amd cant give what many want. which is the better cpu for what they doing. finally this may change. not long till summer..

my only worry is so many here are trumpetting how these amd cpus are faster than 9900ks for eg what if they not ? going to be some cracked eggs on the floor...i can only imagine the eggscuses if this happens . just like with amd ryzens. ohh...but in this irrelevant benchmarks or unknown game they are quicker. yet everything else slower. hope that isnt the case.

PUBG is 15%, Sometimes its a little more than 15%, depends on the game. That's down to clock speed, not IPC, IPC is the performance per clock, i don't blame people for misunderstanding the difference, even Jayz2Cents touts IPC while producing gaming slides with a performance difference nothing more than the clock speed difference but at this point you should really know better.

 

[Distracted]

Low Res = CPU bottleneck, Higher Res = GPU bottleneck. the whole point of testing games at low res is to take the GPU out of the equation, see how much the CPU bottlenecks performance, higher res just offloads more work to the GPU and it becomes the bottleneck.

Looking at that chart a 9900K will gain him about 15%, a good amount but not enough for the price diffrence, which is presumably why he owns a 2700X not a 9900K and is hoping Ryzen 3000 is faster than the 9900K, i think that's unlikely but certainly it should get him the same performance as a 9900K.

We are expecting about a 15% performance boost over Ryzen 2000.

I'm aware of the reason why low res is used to test cpu performance in games.

I was only refuting the claim that pubg cannot be run at 1080p 144hz by pointing out that those that seek high refresh rates tend to use low graphics settings. This is especially true in esports titles and fps titles.
Lowering image quality at 1080p will further reduce the burden on the gpu and shift it to the cpu. If the cpu is capable then fps will increase, if not then fps will change little.

Again, to be clear, I was responding specifically to the 144hz 1080p pubg post, nothing else in the wider ryzen intel debate or cpu testing in general.

 

[~>Dg<~]

PUBG is 15%, Sometimes its a little more than 15%, depends on the game. That's down to clock speed, not IPC, IPC is the performance per clock, i don't blame people for misunderstanding the difference, even Jayz2Cents touts IPC while producing gaming slides with a performance difference nothing more than the clock speed difference but at this point you should really know better.

all buzz words or confusion. the real point is that amd dont offer the performance of intel in games. which is what we are talking about. ipc clockspeed. regardless. amd are about 15 percent behind ingames. if they can close that down regardless of ipc clockspeed or your next excuse then they got a hot product. thats what we hoping for.

 

[humbug]

No argument from me, other than this is about Ryzen 3000 ^^^^^^^

I'm aware of the reason why low res is used to test cpu performance in games.

I was only refuting the claim that pubg cannot be run at 1080p 144hz by pointing out that those that seek high refresh rates tend to use low graphics settings. This is especially true in esports titles and fps titles.
Lowering image quality at 1080p will further reduce the burden on the gpu and shift it to the cpu. If the cpu is capable then fps will increase, if not then fps will change little.

Again, to be clear, I was responding specifically to the 144hz 1080p pubg post, nothing else in the wider ryzen intel debate or cpu testing in general.

The performance at 1080P does seem a little lower than at 720P so perhaps at that point the GPU is coming into play a bit, granted lowering the IQ settings should yield more FPS.

I wouldn't know, i only have a GTX 1070, i don't play it much TBH, not a great fan of Battle Royal.

 

[Distracted]

No argument from me, other than this is about Ryzen 3000 ^^^^^^^



The performance at 1080P does seem a little lower than at 720P so perhaps at that point the GPU is coming into play a bit, granted lowering the IQ settings should yield more FPS.

I wouldn't know, i only have a GTX 1070, i don't play it much TBH, not a great fan of Battle Royal.

It can make a big difference. In Overwatch (as an example that isn't pubg) you can gain an additional 100fps+ by lowering from ultra to low IQ at 1080p if you have a high end cpu/gpu.

 

[humbug]

It can make a big difference. In Overwatch (as an example that isn't pubg) you can gain an additional 100fps+ by lowering from ultra to low IQ at 1080p if you have a high end cpu/gpu.

Yeah Overwhatch is a pretty light and optimized game, runs real nice, i do understand, i like playing shooters at high FPS even if my screen is only 75Hz, 32" 1440P FreeSync run in G-Sync + FastSync, FastSync takes over outside of the FreeSync / G-Sync? range.

 

[TrixX]

Well it does to a degree. Though with a crappy old Samsung BX2450 at 60Hz I made top ten Duo queue in Oceania, that was when it was popular. Now OC servers are dead. That's with a Threadripper (both similar performance ingame) with a Vega64. Usually don't run lowest settings as low AA gives me a headache. Honestly unless you are truly top end (Pro) the difference between 100FPS and 144FPS isn't going to stop you dying.

 

[4K8KW10]

it wont maintain the same fps as a intel chip. i play with kungfu in pubg. even with lower settings the ryzens cant match anything i5 or above.this is why many hope the amd chips can close the gap and get more cores at the same time. at pubg my fps is never lower than 144fps at any point on the settings i play. to some it seems a waste or not a issue but to the millions that play pubg it can be a big deal. also those that play only a couple of games mainly and pubg is the main you play.

when you in a firefight or big action and that amd cpu drops to say 100 or lower fps and the intel is still over what you want that little difference helps.

I am not sure I must take you seriously. You speak utter lies all the time.

 

[KungFuSpaghetti]

I am not sure I must take you seriously. You speak utter lies all the time.

He's right, whether you want to accept it or not, AMD simply cannot compete with Intel for gaming when you want to push high FPS. Sure, they look even when the GPU becomes the bottleneck, but I personally wouldn't want to play pube g at 60fps locked in on a 4k screen even if I did have a 2080ti, I'd still be playing it in 1080p.

 

[~>Dg<~]

I am not sure I must take you seriously. You speak utter lies all the time.

what lies are you on about ? i play with spaghetti in pubg. he has a 2700x im on intel. he cant keep the same fps like me. you cant on amd . no lies. i want a amd chip that can do what intel can. its just at moment they cant. hopefully that changes in summer and i can get a 12 core amd cpu with intel ipc for a decent price. that means i lose nothing from going from the pubg intel rig and gain more cores for other things. if they cant match intel there is no point upgrading the pubg rig as it will still be quicker.

 

[4K8KW10]

what lies are you on about ? i play with spaghetti in pubg. he has a 2700x im on intel. he cant keep the same fps like me. you cant on amd . no lies. i want a amd chip that can do what intel can. its just at moment they cant. hopefully that changes in summer and i can get a 12 core amd cpu with intel ipc for a decent price. that means i lose nothing from going from the pubg intel rig and gain more cores for other things. if they cant match intel there is no point upgrading the pubg rig as it will still be quicker.

The difference in FPS between an AMD system and intel system is in the region of the statistical error - only kids in the kindergarten would argue, in the same way, oh look my toy is red, yours is green, mine is better...

 

[humbug]

The difference in FPS between an AMD system and intel system is in the region of the statistical error - only kids in the kindergarten would argue, in the same way, oh look my toy is red, yours is green, mine is better...

It really isn't, its more than that but I think at this point Dg is deliberately trying to wind people up, he's banging on about IPC again

 

[~>Dg<~]

not winding him up . i see it every game i play of pubg. its a actual ingame joke. first to load in ? always intel. people with highest fps ? intel. while waiting you say have you got a ryzen ? then funnily enough they often say ....yeah its okay just not as fast.

 

[4K8KW10]

not winding him up . i see it every game i play of pubg. its a actual ingame joke. first to load in ? always intel. people with highest fps ? intel. while waiting you say have you got a ryzen ? then funnily enough they often say ....yeah its okay just not as fast.

Load-in depends on the SSD, and the motherboards?! Not on the CPU?

 

[~>Dg<~]

how come all that play with us are slower on amd then ? all on ssd ? just face the reality that amd cpus are slower. then move on. you cant debate something which is fact and proven in benchmarks.