You said extreme FPS was the last bastion of superiority for Intel and I am pointing out that you are wrong. I am not saying AMD is crap at games by the way, just that for general games usage outside of extreme FPS cases some games/engines still justify purchasing a 9900k for example.
-
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
You said extreme FPS was the last bastion of superiority for Intel and I am pointing out that you are wrong. I am not saying AMD is crap at games by the way, just that for general games usage outside of extreme FPS cases some games/engines still justify purchasing a 9900k for example.
I was actually talking to a 'guy' yesterday who has bought a 9900K and is using a Radeon R9 280X and all he does is play games and has no plans to change his GPU unless it fails, I literally laughed in his face.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,840
1080P low detail benches are the best way to compare CPUs. Comparing a 9900K with a 2700X would be stupid in 4K Ultra because the GPU would be a bottleneck and would hold back both CPUs, giving inaccurate results.
I know a lot of gamers are using 1440p these days but when comparing CPUs, it's important to completely remove all possibility of the slightest chance of the GPU holding anything back. 1080P low detail is the best way to compare CPUs. The idea is to compare the CPUs with each other. NOT to give you an idea what FPS you can expect to get when you buy them.
GPU benches should be compared at a range of settings such as 1080p, 1440p and 4k because there's more variables to consider.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,620
- Location
- Rutland
It's pointless comparing CPUs using an unrealistic use case. I get why it's done, I just think it's pointless. Its like using Pi scores.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,840
It has to be unrealistic to be more accurate. The most realistic use case ever, would be to use the most popular GPU that most people use, which is the 1060. But that would give unrealistic results due to the huge bottleneck.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,620
- Location
- Rutland
Well then a realistic conclusion would be that there's not really any difference between them.
Better than inventing a scenario to show a difference no one will actually experience.
I know what you're saying but it is true, some First person shooters i prefer very high frame rates because even with a 75Hz screen i can feel the difference and it makes all the difference, Insurgency with high speed mods, yes the gun visuals are bugged.
https://youtu.be/kAkeWLIvhG8?t=26
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2013
- Posts
- 9,366
.I see this sort of thing a lot, gamers who couldn't afford 16GB of ram or anything higher than entry level GTX cards because they spent everything on high end i7's, its ridiculous.
Is it? A strong CPU and mobo will last you through several GPU upgrades, much like a monitor. The additional RAM and GPU are things you can add later. If I had to buy bits at a time for a high end system I’d probably go for a strong base and add the shiny bits later too. All of this talk about laughing in people’s faces, etc, is overly judgemental and unnecessary.
Why are you aiming that at me? i didn't say i was laughing in peoples faces, i'm talking about people building new system's, i7's with GTX 1050's ecte... spend a bit less on the CPU and get a faster GPU = faster gaming system.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,840
What you're saying makes perfect sense for people who replace their whole system every few years because it gives them an idea of what performance their likely to get in todays games. However, a lot of upgrade their GPU every few years but keep the same CPU. In which case, by the time they do their 3rd GPU upgrade, their system will be completely removed from the slightest GPU bottleneck. The only way to test performance without this bottleneck is to use a low resolution.
Anything higher than 1080p will benchmark the GPU.
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2019
- Posts
- 617
The funny thing with eSports games is that they are generally free to play, whereas the AAA titles all cost a fair whack. You'd expect the AAA games to being played at the highest resolution possible, so best CPU + GPU combo, whereas you'd expect cheapskates that don't buy AAA games to be also looking for value in the parts that they use, so 9900K at 1080p for eSports just seems bizarre except at the pinnacle of competitive eSports tournaments. If the framerate gives that much of an advantage then it isn't a test of ability, rather a test of equipment used.
Myself, I'd settle for a CPU-GPU combo that meets my needs whilst also feeling like the money couldn't have been better used on a haircut or something.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,840
I agree with what you're saying. I would rather spend £200 on a GPU and then upgrade it after 2 years with another £200 GPU. Then replace it again after a further 2 years with another £200 GPU. So the final GPU upgrade would be much faster than a 2080ti, but I'd only have spent £600 in total. That's without factoring in the money you get when you sell your old GPUs.
Last edited:
its not daft at all. buy the strongest cpu and mobo package you can then upgrade gpu when needed. its actually the better thing to do.
That likely won't hold well anymore with CPUs having some actual advance for a first time in ten years.
Unless Intel gives game delopers enough pribes to not push multithreading past what Intels have.
We're now in similar situation as during Core 2 era.
Most current CPUs won't be any kind high end in couple years.
While offering cores and threads per price Zen"1"s lack clock speeds for single core/thread performance.
Intels are again short on cores/threads per price.
Even now ridiculously pricy 9900K won't be anything but mainstream in couple years.
Look how that worked out with 6 Coffeelake CPU cores now causing stutter in some games from a lack of compute threads.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 968
Stay classy people
Any links? I'm still playing pubg so not brought any new games for a while. If my CPU is going to start struggling so soon I may jump to AMD
look at what the guy actually did. is it bad ? he brought the best gaming chip available at the time. in three years time it will still be very capable. its faster than anything amd wise. so what is really wrong ? all he has to do is every 2-3 years buy a mid range gpu pop in it. easy.
you go the other route buy mid range cpu you have to upgrade it again. so another mobo cpu memory in the same time and gpu.
you better off just buying once and do it proper. saves time and hassle. as for stutter. maybe in a couple of games while you own it at the end of its life. in the meanwhile you have the best fastest option in gaming.