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

[humbug]

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.

 

[humbug]

Still playing dual core games in 2018 here

My sympathies

 

[humbug]

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

I had a 1090T, what a nice CPU that was......

 

[humbug]

The low wattage t was better imo

 

[humbug]

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.

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.

 

[humbug]

No. ^^^

Surely if you ran vsync it would have fixed that stutter?

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]

Buy a higher refresh rate monitor?
Limit the frame rate by other methods.

Then you're back to the issue of stutter, the issue it the sky doesn't contain much for the CPU to do, so that Intel 4 core runs at 270 FPS vs 230 on the Ryzen 1600, pan the view back down to the jungle area where the CPU does have a lot of work to do the 7600K drops from its 270 FPS to 70 in that instance, the 1600 only drops to 130.

That as DF explained "catastrophic drop in frame rates" is a large part of whats causing the stutter on the 7600K, but its not just that, look at my video an the part of Jim's video that i linked.
Its actually the 7600K's 4 cores running at 100% that's also causing stutter, my video the frame rates are a steady 150, it still stutters. in Jim's video the frame rates are around 50 on the same 7600K, 100% on all cores.... lots of stutter.

Changing your screen, using V-Sync... these things only fix part of the problem, the real problem is the 7600K just isn't enough CPU.

 

[humbug]

it can if you are humbug, he has ninja reflexes dontchaknow! that 1ms input lag is kicking his butt!

It not uncommon for PC gamers to prefer to play games with V-Sync off, i'm a very long way from alone in noticing increased in put lag from V-Sync.

 

[humbug]

1) You can test Crysis 3 in a simpler level where Intel pulls ahead (sometimes) seriously or you can test it in an open environment (the big ones with grass) where even the FX CPUs look good when they have proper work to do.

2) You can test The Witcher 3 in a relativ basic scene, with few AIs where even an I3 is enough and is beating a FX CPU or you can test it in Novigrad with lots of AIs where you can see the power of multi core and faster CPUs.

You can use same settings, but prove/have 2 completely different results and for sure you've find similar situations in more games if someone would look into it.

Of course, it's the same for GPUs, more so when we're talking of settings other than the standard Ultra (and sometimes high, medium, etc.).

Then you have tests/reviews in which anyone knowing a bit about HW and SW asks himself a big "WHAT?"; for instance testing for the gains using a lower level API, but you test it in a scenario where this doesn't really show (high end/OC CPUs + maxed gfx details). Remember BF4 and Mantle?

Most of the reviews are extremely superficial and you can hind behind such an approach to prove/promote someone while being able to land on your feet if you're called out for it - "hey, that was happening in my testing, under that scenario!". Right...

Quoted for truth.

I don't mind so much using lower resolution to test CPU performance in games, that's fine.

A lot of truth in that ^^^ with that what i don't like is using lower graphics settings to test CPU performance, this is completely flawed, by turning down image quality settings you're reducing Draw Distances, Streamed shadows and lighting, object streaming..... all these things depend on CPU performance, you reduce them or turn them off by reducing graphics setting, what a reviewer who does that is actually doing is off loading the work from the CPU onto the GPU, its no different from looking up at the sky to test your CPU performance and looking at the jungle, in the sky there is nothing for the CPU to do, on a landscape devoid post processing the CPU has little to do, in that way you can make a dual core Pentium look just as good for gaming as an i3 or and i5 or even an i7.

 

[humbug]

You should have seen The Techreport do it with Crysis 3 - they had a Pentium dual core match higher end CPUs,which struck me as odd as I have played the game. They tested this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5pV69ELx5g

LOL.

LolF###! no draw distance, very little in the way of streamed shading... a perfect scene for low performance dual cores to shine.

Another one reviewers like when benchmarking Crysis 3 was the tunnels, again an inside scene with little to nothing for the CPU to do.

The Scene Digital Foundry used was Welcome to the Jungle. a proper test of CPU performance in games.

Look at the 6 core Sandy Bridge-E run away with it, even the FX-8350 is beating out the Ivy Bridge i7, 8 cores vs 4.

 

[humbug]

Yes.

Testing at 1080P with a GTX 1080TI is perfectly valid, back in 2012 they used to test at 720P, notice the Crysis 3 CPU test i put up is 720P, but also notice its with Very High "VH" settings, because those guys understand that if you reduce the settings you reduce the work the CPU needs to do.

Today, with cards as powerful as the 1080TI 1080P is the new 720P, but it doesn't really matter, 720P if you like just as long as the Graphics settings are as high as they will go.

Let me say something here.

In the Digital Foundry CPU review the 7600K maxed out at 270 FPS, the Ryzen 1600X at 240 FPS, this while looking at the sky, there are too many who would take an empty scene like that and call it the difference in the true performance of those two CPU's.
I call that completely idiotic. when looking at the jungle, with all the Soft Body Physics, Streamed Shading/Lighting, Long Draw Distance.... the 7600K dropped to 70 FPS, the Ryzen 1600X to 130 FPS, almost double the performance, that to me is the actual difference in performance between these two CPU's, not because the Ryzen CPU is faster 'which to some reviewers would be a very controversial claim to make' but because in that scene the 7600K is working for all its got and its out of CPU, the Ryzen 1600X very probably also it but it is able to perform at almost twice the 7600K's limit, that makes it that much faster.
Its an accurate representation of the comparison.

This does translate to real life gaming, that is a real scene in the game and with my 1070, which as you knowing owning your own is a very high performance GPU... was utterly strangled by my 4.5Ghz Haswell in almost everything, often to the point of stuttering with the GPU down clocking into power saving states it was that strangled and yet the Ryzen CPU i have now, despite the 500Mhz clock deficit allows my GPU to stretch its legs and gaming is now buttery smooth.

That for me was the proof in the pudding.

 

[humbug]

UnrealEngine FTW

~@¬|*-/-%$%^"£$%&!!!!!