• 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.

Core 9000 series

Last edited:
djbully said:
"Ryzen isn't an option for gaming"

Well I dont seem to have any issues. Your loss, I guess! :)
Click to expand...

+1 to this, its laughable really...

Lets be honest now, if your running a 2600x or 2700x and playing at 1080p with a 1080 / Vega 64 / 1080ti / 2080 / 2080ti you are going to get acceptable frame rates, if your monitor is 1080p 60hz you are going to cap the frame rate on pretty much anything you play.

Same at 1440p, only at 4K do some of the cards struggle, 1080 / Vega 64 and to a lesser extent 1080ti / 2080, 2080ti is going to basically max any resolution upto 4k if your running at 60hz, as soon as you step into the higher than 60hz arena, the CPU becomes a bit more relevant, especially at the lower resolutions like 1080p.

If your buying a Vega 64, 1080, 1080ti, 2080, or a 2080ti to game at 1080p 60hz your doing it wrong, if your aiming for 1080p and high hertz then your still fine on a Ryzen chip as your still going to be getting high fps in most titles, yes you might be 10% slower than an 8700k but if your hitting 140fps and the 8700k is hitting 160fps are you really going to notice those 20fps?

I find it hilarious that people often dont even bother with a decent monitor but will claim a chip inferior cos it cant push their GPU at 1000fps, even though their monitor can only handle 60fps etc.

Ironically the monitor is probably the most important part of any Gaming PC setup, as that is the thing you are spent 100% of the time staring at, in all honesty i build the spec of my PC to the monitor i use, pick the monitor first and then pick decent components to compliment it.

The amount of trolls on forums who have a high end Nvidia card but still run at 1080p is laughable, there is many like this.

And as we all know once you go to 1440p and then to 4k your CPU becomes less of a factor anyhow.

I would even go as far to say if your running a 1080ti / 2080 / 2080ti then unless your using a 1080p 200hz+ monitor you dont know what your doing, you should be at a minimum on 1440p 144hz :)
 
Distracted said:
For context this graph shows average frames in rise of the tomb raider at 1440p on a gtx 1080.

Edit: it also shows that at 1440p on a 1080 at the settings used the game is gpu bound since every cpu offers similar frame rates.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I wonder how the title on the chart got cropped off. All this chart shows is that if you are GPU limited it doesn't really matter what CPU you have.
 
SiDeards73 said:
+1 to this, its laughable really...

Lets be honest now, if your running a 2600x or 2700x and playing at 1080p with a 1080 / Vega 64 / 1080ti / 2080 / 2080ti you are going to get acceptable frame rates, if your monitor is 1080p 60hz you are going to cap the frame rate on pretty much anything you play.

Same at 1440p, only at 4K do some of the cards struggle, 1080 / Vega 64 and to a lesser extent 1080ti / 2080, 2080ti is going to basically max any resolution upto 4k if your running at 60hz, as soon as you step into the higher than 60hz arena, the CPU becomes a bit more relevant, especially at the lower resolutions like 1080p.

If your buying a Vega 64, 1080, 1080ti, 2080, or a 2080ti to game at 1080p 60hz your doing it wrong, if your aiming for 1080p and high hertz then your still fine on a Ryzen chip as your still going to be getting high fps in most titles, yes you might be 10% slower than an 8700k but if your hitting 140fps and the 8700k is hitting 160fps are you really going to notice those 20fps?

I find it hilarious that people often dont even bother with a decent monitor but will claim a chip inferior cos it cant push their GPU at 1000fps, even though their monitor can only handle 60fps etc.

Ironically the monitor is probably the most important part of any Gaming PC setup, as that is the thing you are spent 100% of the time staring at, in all honesty i build the spec of my PC to the monitor i use, pick the monitor first and then pick decent components to compliment it.

The amount of trolls on forums who have a high end Nvidia card but still run at 1080p is laughable, there is many like this.

And as we all know once you go to 1440p and then to 4k your CPU becomes less of a factor anyhow.

I would even go as far to say if your running a 1080ti / 2080 / 2080ti then unless your using a 1080p 200hz+ monitor you dont know what your doing, you should be at a minimum on 1440p 144hz :)
Click to expand...

You make good points and those are fair criticisms. I only worry about my use case and nothing beyond that. The whole reason I'm going through the upgrade is to power my simrig with VR which is taxing on the CPU and GPU in order to maintain 90fps with either a lot of AI cars or multiplayer. It's the only gaming I do on the PC today and for the foreseeable future due to limited free time I have. On occasion, I'll get a Xbox one x game because playing something like Assassins creed on my OLED is simply a much better experience than the poor HDR and PQ available on PC monitors.

As an early adopter of 1920x1200 and then 2560x1600, I've always tried to move forward where they have been advanced in PQ and screen size/density. Unfortunately for many years now that shift has focused to panel speed and low latency which for me, who generally plays single player games is not that relevant. A friend who tried my calibrated 3008wfp with DE under 1.5 was impressed how nice the picture on the 60hz panel was compared to his gamer focused 120hz screen (I don't recall the exact specs of his screen). He came in thinking it would be a poor experience and walked away pretty impressed. Not that I was looking for affirmation but it's nice to get feedback from a trusted source.

For having been an A/V enthusiast for a few decades, having perfect blacks on an OLED has been a long term dream finally realized. Coupled that with HDR and expanded color space, we get a major advancement PQ. Having attended the HDTV shootout it's great to see how close all the OLED's are to the mastering panel (30k for 30inches) that we can consumers can buy in large sizes. Unfortunately, these real game changers in PQ are not readily found on PC monitors. This bring me back to my first point. The immersion factor of VR is so great for me in simracing that I'm willing to compromise elements of PQ for the sheer immersion. I'm hopeful VR improves in leaps and bounds along with tools such as foveated rendering that would improve the performance greatly. However in 2D land, I don't feel the investment in the current state of high end monitors is suitable for someone who prefers a calibrated picture and the IQ of an OLED panel. The The ASUS PG27UQ is a step in the right direction for PC monitors so I hope to see that become commonplace in the next couple of years with larger sizes. Until then I'll stick to spending my money in upgrading my VR panels rather than my 2D experience.
 
I've got a "old" fairly expensive Dell U3014 30" 2560*1600 max res monitor and I "game" at that res with card in sig. The only game I have installed at the moment is BF4 and that runs ok at that res but I'm not a hard core gamer and don't spend much time actually playing games. Its a shame its not a freesync monitor but for windows stuff its perfectly fine.
 
String said:
Whilst most of what you say is valid, you need to remember that some people aren't completely focused on value for money and instead just want the best available. Obviously, Ryzen is perfectly valid for gaming but it's not the best choice for everyone.
Click to expand...

Yeah if I was a "hard core" gamer I would have gone for the i5-8400. I'm not so I value the slightly better multicore performance of the Ryzen chip I bought in windows, which is where I spend most of my time.
 
nlel1975 said:
Yeah if I was a "hard core" gamer I would have gone for the i5-8400. I'm not so I value the slightly better multicore performance of the Ryzen chip I bought in windows, which is where I spend most of my time.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I've mulled over a 2700x, 2950x, 8700k, 8086k and am obviously following this thread... And the truth is I could probably stick with my current 5960x for gaming @ 3440*1440/100fps.

But I want to build a new system around the "best" chip available, although I've still to define to myself what "best" actually is. :p
 
String said:
Whilst most of what you say is valid, you need to remember that some people aren't completely focused on value for money and instead just want the best available. Obviously, Ryzen is perfectly valid for gaming but it's not the best choice for everyone.
Click to expand...

Yep and those people tend to buy HEDT chips and Halo GPUs etc.

a lot of people mismatch their systems though, and incorrectly believe adding more GPU horsepower will solve all their issues.

Unfortunately a lot of people also base buying decision on their favourite techtuber and most of those are ignorant buffoons or paid shills.

End of the day there is on average 8% difference between 2700x and 8700k in gaming, either will work perfectly for gaming pretty much.
 
SiDeards73 said:
End of the day there is on average 8% difference between 2700x and 8700k in gaming,
Click to expand...

Which, by definition means that the 8700k is the "best" for gaming. You can see why people who have no inclination for further research would make their purchase decision accordingly.

Personally, if it was such a black/white decision then it would take all the fun out it for me. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom