• 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.

Idiotic CPU reviewers rant thread........

humbug

humbug

humbug

Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
50,026
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
4 cores are enough for gaming, 4 core with higher MHz better than more cores with lower Mhz.............

These are pretty usual claims by some mainstream reviewers, i have never liked those claims as some of you know i have always railed against them, yes, i hate it when reviewers make idiotic claims like that.
They say these things because it was what kept 10 years of 4 cores Intel happy!

Its no coincidence what i have in my signature about the CPU i now own.

The short of this? Jim over at AdoredTV has also been saying this for years and has spotted something...... exactly the same thing i have experienced with my 4 core Intel at moar MHZ.
Very high Core utilization causing lag and stutter, horrible laggy micro stutter, stutter and lag at 150 FPS.

See it for yourselves, its just 3 minutes and you can see the laggy micro stutter especially when the player move sideways. its one of many reasons that Intel 4 core went bye bye and was replaced with a 12 thread Ryzen.


More of it found by Digital Foundry here... again its just a couple of minutes, click on the link.

https://youtu.be/4RMbYe4X2LI?t=5m16s

The bit of Jim's video.

https://youtu.be/Q5GoHmtnmus?t=23m19s

I find these reviews with cheap yet Intel priced retro 4 core CPU reviews done in such away that they make them look much better than they actually are on a slide by looking up at the sky, or a wall, or with the view blocked close range so there is no distance drawing......... incredibly misleading, because they are and always have been.

Ignore those silly slides and "Mhz uber allas" if you have anything faster than a 1050TI what you want is more than 4 cores.

Feel free to comment.
 
Last edited:
I'd say it's entirely relative to the game.

Dual Core G3258 at 4.4 could match the same performance as an i5 at 4.4 in ARMA 3 and Battlefield 4. No issues at all.
On the other hand, if you jump in a vehicle on GTA V and start going quick you'll see horrible stutter.
 
Back in the day I was dismissed as an AMD fanboi for my 1055t love obsession. Just felt so much nicer in everyday use than quads of the time
 
To be fair for PC gaming on the whole, less cores with better per core performance is better.

Games that are optimised for more cores like tomb raider are actually in the minority, those games tend to get most of the coverage by reviewers because they are the big fancy AAA titles, but the majority of PC games are not like that.

In addition there is some very bad coded games that literally just peg one core and one core only, and on top of that are cpu bound for performance.

All this depends on what games you play, if you only play doom e.g. then yes more cores is what you want.
 
chrcoluk said:
To be fair for PC gaming on the whole, less cores with better per core performance is better.

Games that are optimised for more cores like tomb raider are actually in the minority, those games tend to get most of the coverage by reviewers because they are the big fancy AAA titles, but the majority of PC games are not like that.

In addition there is some very bad coded games that literally just peg one core and one core only, and on top of that are cpu bound for performance.

All this depends on what games you play, if you only play doom e.g. then yes more cores is what you want.
Click to expand...

I could have agreed with this 2 years ago, but now I'd be happier to take a small hit to my per core performance to have more cores (And did so with a Ryzen 1700, ready to be upgraded to a 2700) as it's best of both worlds.

However I would never say getting an FX8350 was ever worth it over any i5K.

I don't always agree with the AM4 upgrade path as a logical reason to go AMD over Intel either. I've spent just as much as I would have on an i7 8700K set up, but even with my 2700 I'll very likely be second fiddle in gaming (But I knew that going in, and was happy to do so. But from a logical point of view as far as performance goes, higher upfront cost tends to last longest). But that ultimately depends on where the future of AM4 goes.
 
chrcoluk said:
To be fair for PC gaming on the whole, less cores with better per core performance is better.

Games that are optimised for more cores like tomb raider are actually in the minority, those games tend to get most of the coverage by reviewers because they are the big fancy AAA titles, but the majority of PC games are not like that.

In addition there is some very bad coded games that literally just peg one core and one core only, and on top of that are cpu bound for performance.

All this depends on what games you play, if you only play doom e.g. then yes more cores is what you want.
Click to expand...


The game that i posted is Insurgency, a 4 year old game build and an even older engine, the 4690K at 4.5Ghz, even at 4.8Ghz boiling away with silly volts was a micro stutter fest, that was my experience of it, even at 150 FPS + and its just one of many.

The game Digital Foundry used, Crysis 3 is from 2013, did you see it? 30+% performance difference to the 1600X in complex scenes and that stutter on the 7600K..... if the nurse hooked you up to a heart monitor and it produced a line like that you'd be admitted to the critical ward on the spot. :)
 
All I got from your rant is that you don't like Intel you don't like reviewers that state 4 cores is enough, found some videos with stutter based on Intel 4 core CPU's then referred to your 6 core goodness.

I believe through the tone of your rant you are simply looking to pick a fight with 4 core intel users?
 
No. ^^^

Martini1991 said:
Surely if you ran vsync it would have fixed that stutter?
Click to expand...

No doubt, but if year going to lock yourself to 60 FPS then why bother with high performance hardware at all? i haven's used V-Sync for years, it also adds noticeable input lag, i just couldn't play shooters with V-Sync on now...
 
humbug said:
No. ^^^



No doubt, but if year going to lock yourself to 60 FPS then why bother with high performance hardware at all? i haven's used V-Sync for years, it also adds noticeable input lag, i just couldn't play shooters with V-Syn on now...
Click to expand...

Buy a higher refresh rate monitor?
Limit the frame rate by other methods.
 
If the problem could have been solved without compromising performance (120 fps rather than 150 fps when running 60hz isn't a compromise) then I honestly can't see the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom