Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 11,378
- Location
- Derbyshire
My 3570k ran GTA V fine at 3440x1440 with my old R9 290 4GB.
As much as I want Ryzen Zen 2 to be good, a 4690K is still decent.
-
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
As much as I want Ryzen Zen 2 to be good, a 4690K is still decent.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 2,602
- Location
- East Sussex
Good find!
I approve this message I remember paying 100 quid for 20mb yes MEGABYTES hard driveWe should just go back to like I dunno, 1996? Ah those were good days, I got my hands on an Asus P55T2P4 Intel 430HX chipset motherboard, at only £120 (~£230 today). It had, 4x 72-pin SIMM slots, and even had an on-board IDE controller!
Oh yeah, it didn't have built in LAN, built in 7.1 (didn't exist) or even stereo sound card, no Wi-Fi (didn't exist), no Bluetooth (didn't exist), you had to by the 512K cache module separately and it had no flashing lights or plastic covering to make it look pretty.
STOP WHINGING! Seriously.
Yet now that we finally have progress in the form of more cores per CPU, people are whining and moaning about 12c/24t for $499, that will sit on a motherboard (with socket) that you could have owned for 2 years already, and may last another generation, and then how ever long after before it is retired.
2016 - Mainstream Desktop - 4c
2017 - Mainstream desktop - 8c
2019 - Mainstream desktop - 16c
Bigger gap in the last two, but it proves the point that people are complaining about progress, because they personally have no use for it. I remember when I got my 200MMX, cost a small fortune, but man it was a huge upgrade from my Pentium 120.
I had a new pentium 90, then had it swapped for the floating point bug for which Intel held aroudn £460 on my credit card until the return was received back.
When I was about to upgrade I was gutted to find doubling the RAM made a huge improvement to performance in Doom, I'd have done it much sooner if I'd known.
Back then A CD reader and sound card was ~£250.
The most frustrating part of the current situation is the pointless refusal to list prices of the motherboards. I can view specs and even download manuals and drivers on the Gigabyte site (assume samples are out) but there is no official pricing. Poor show AMD.
For the 3700X and 3800X most B450 and X470 boards range from fine to very good and will be the entry level platform for now.
In the product stack, it's easy to forget that the 3800X is claimed by AMD to be a 9900K class processor and that performance is available on two generations of motherboards and the 3600X is not far behind for gaming.
Until these go on sale, 9900K is about the best performing gaming CPU you can buy so that's a pretty high bar for mid range.
X570 seems to be priced close to HEDT entry level with cheapest 4 layer boards at ~ £200, 6 layer boards with a few extra features are £250+ and then sky's the limit.
They do seem a little on the expensive side compared to Intel, however the X470 boards which seem capable of 12-16 cores with some boost are £200 to £250 anyhow though these typically have a few extra features.
Personaly looking at the Aurous Pro (no Wifi) with a 3900X but the board needs to be priced around £250 or I'm going to feel abused given the Intel equivalent is £160.
CPU/Motherboard costs are far more tolerble these days as there are a range of decent performing options and even older platforms are still holding up well, though 4 cores are finally becoming to be a bit of a bottleneck in some titles.
The biggest cost in PC's these days seems to be graphics with the ever increasing tier pricing and relatively short life, through I don't think it helps we've all been pushing the resolutions.
Back in the day, Doom was usually played ~ 320x240 with a big border on a 14" or less CRT as PC's couldn't handle full screen games.
Definitely lot more bang for you buck these days.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 5,155
- Location
- South Wales
Review sites will be going nuts if those game benchmark results from AMD don't look as good with higher end cards than a 2080, even more so because of board prices.
Yet now that we finally have progress in the form of more cores per CPU, people are whining and moaning about 12c/24t for $499, that will sit on a motherboard (with socket) that you could have owned for 2 years already, and may last another generation, and then how ever long after before it is retired.
2016 - Mainstream Desktop - 4c
2017 - Mainstream desktop - 8c
2019 - Mainstream desktop - 16c
Bigger gap in the last two, but it proves the point that people are complaining about progress, because they personally have no use for it. I remember when I got my 200MMX, cost a small fortune, but man it was a huge upgrade from my Pentium 120.
Well this is silly.
Hardware survey for steam puts Single core dominance ending in Winter 2008, Dual core took over until Winter 2016 when Quads finally took over and still are the majority share of the gaming market.
8 core cpus are sitting under 3% adoption... 16 is 0.05%. The whole point in AMD's tactic is to increase adoption of 8 core CPUs, 16 cores is a niche product and will be for at least 5-10 years for most people, mind you things can change.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Sep 2014
- Posts
- 3,575
- Location
- Scotland
The one that lies is you 4K8KW10, not Killem.
GTA V ran very well at 60 fps 1080p maxed out on my old PC setup with 3770K and GTX 1070 3 years ago, it never shuttered.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2017
- Posts
- 1,762
I want whatever he's smoking too...
I ran GTA 5 on my microserver at 1080p with detail settings better than my Xbox 1 at faster frame rates. That was with 8gb RAM, i3 3240 and a gtx 750ti. Then upgraded to a xeon 1265L, 16gb ram and a 1050ti and played it in higher settings at frame rates that caused it to tear on my tv (don't judge... I used a wireless mouse on the sofa arm and wireless kb and still bossed it).
You, along with everyone else who clearly had no issues are delusional lairs. You need to learn to stop, all of you.
Only 4K8KW10 sourced video's are correctly representative of actual performance.
Erm.. no it isn't silly, we were comparing progress, in 1994 you could get a Pentium 90, one year later in 1995 you could get a Pentium 200, double the performance in one year. That is it, nothing to do with what you need, or what a gaming survey shows, just that forward progress is being made for once, in almost a decade of stagnation.
Now, why is it silly?
Because you said mainstream which is rather clearly defined as what the majority use they don't even use 8 cores as it is.
We both know that semantics could be argued on this forever.
Mainstream to most folks in here means "not HEDT".
Mainstream to most folks in here doesn't mean "some crappy Intel machine bought by a well meaning family from Currys".
We're on at least 6 core in most cases (or a desire to be around there for those understandably still digging heels on upgrades).
When the majority of the enthusiast crowd consider 8 cores "normal" it's "mainstream" as far as the audience for your post goes.
There is no semantics, mainstream is literally mainstream and this forum isn't it, this is a enthusiast forum after all. But developers don't cater to the enthusiasts, they cater to the majority.
When the consoles come out next year, then obviously the mainstream will shift to 8 core as it'll be tangible then. But the issue always is that 99.99% of games are in the past, most of which don't even look at another core with anything other than bemusement.
When the consoles come out next year, then obviously the mainstream will shift to 8 core as it'll be tangible then. But the issue always is that 99.99% of games are in the past, most of which don't even look at another core with anything other than bemusement.
Me, and one another guy, together with dozens more only if you google:
(very bad that I cannot link my ex-quad's macro and micro-stuttering
)https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/another-4770k-upgrade-question-rtx-stutter-1440p.18839408/
Mainstream = not a server part, HEDT, or other exotic choice.
We could have compared a Pentium 90 to a DEC Alpha if that was the case... some people.
Ah, woops.
I brought early incase the amount of people upgrading from ddr3 machines pushes prices up due to supply issues. We know the sweet spot is around 3600mhz cl16 on Ryzen 3 but I bagged some 3600mhz cl17 at a good price.
Me, and one another guy, together with dozens more only if you google:
(very bad that I cannot link my ex-quad's macro and micro-stuttering
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/another-4770k-upgrade-question-rtx-stutter-1440p.18839408/
So you found 1 more example of someone with a 4770k stuttering when hes is using a use case scenario that is totally different than the one I detailed in my OP. I stated a 5 year old 4770k with a Rx580 or RTW2060 is enough for entry level gaming at 1080p on all current games in reply to your post stating that the 3700x and 3800x were entry level chips and too expensive.Where was I lying? or are you going to move the goal posts again?
Which one did you buy please? I am looking to pick some up also but unsure which to get. thanks.