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

[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.

 

[james_2k]

the real problem is the 7600K just isn't enough CPU.

And there are plenty of games (id say the majority at the moment) where given a proper GPU, yours definitely isn't. And would perform far worse than the 7600k. As most games just don't use more threads.


ach damn it

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I always found it ironic on tech forums,the people who defend 4C/4T CPUs the most always had 4C/8T or 6C/12T CPUs for "reasons".

 

[james_2k]

I always found it ironic on tech forums,the people who defend 4C/4T CPUs the most always had 4C/8T or 6C/12T CPUs.

not so much ironic, more, obviously - they probably want to feel they are above the 'minimum requirements'

 

[Martini1991]

If the game is running over twice your refresh rate there's no way it can ever be classed not enough CPU lol.

 

[james_2k]

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

 

[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.

 

[james_2k]

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.

you are not alone in thinking you do

 

[Scougar]

Unless there is awful screen tear... vsync is always off for me.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

not so much ironic, more, obviously - they probably want to feel they are above the 'minimum requirements'

If people actually believed games pefectly ran well,on 2C only,the Core i3 7350K and Core i3 8350K would have been massive sales successes,and last time I checked the Core i5 8400 was the more popular choice!!

No wonder if an average gamer is buying a new rig today,its not hard to think they might keep the CPU for 3 to 4 years,so it needs some extra overhead for more modern games.

Anyway,it seems Intel wants MOAR cores to count in games too:

https://www.computerbase.de/2018-03/multi-core-cpu-games/

Intel wants more people to upgrade from their 4C/4T Core i5 and 2C/4T Core i3 CPUs,and since they were forced to introduce MOAR cores,they will make sure it happens.

TBH,I am quite happy I went with a 4C/8T Core i7 over a 4C/4T Core i5. Its actually lasted for yonks. Going back to a 4C/4T CPU - no way!

 

[james_2k]

without a doubt they do. we all do to be honest, sooner it happens sooner we get more detailed games and that's good news! fact is though, for the vast majority of games, seemingly 4 cores is ok. and between 4 fast cores and 6 slower cores its pretty much a coin toss and game dependent. i'm happy enough with 5c10t@ 4.9. but then there are another 5c10t at 4.8ghz running at the same time incase of close encounters

i do however, completely utterly believe that there is (unless maybe if you are some MLG super ninja) that there is no point running above your monitors refresh cap. (i hear source engine can be laggy with vsync but in my experience that's the exception rather than the rule.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

without a doubt they do. we all do to be honest, sooner it happens sooner we get more detailed games and that's good news! fact is though, for the vast majority of games, seemingly 4 cores is ok. and between 4 fast cores and 6 slower cores its pretty much a coin toss and game dependent. i'm happy enough with 5c10t@ 4.9. but then there are another 5c10t at 4.8ghz running at the same time incase of close encounters

i do however, completely utterly believe that there is (unless maybe if you are some MLG super ninja) that there is no point running above your monitors refresh cap. (i hear source engine can be laggy with vsync but in my experience that's the exception rather than the rule.

Thats the issue,if someone is buying a rig now,its no point getting a 4C/4T CPU unless its some cheapo one costing £80 to £100 like a 2200G or Core i3 8100,since like I said 3 to 4 years is not unheard for someone to keep their CPU(maybe even a bit longer) - I even heard rumours of the PS5 being out next year or in 2020,and its suspected to have 8C Zen in it. We all know the next consoles won't be shipping with Atom class CPUs anymore since both AMD and Intel have given up on them.

 

[james_2k]

Thats the issue,if someone is buying a rig now,its now point getting a 4C/4T CPU unless its some cheapo costing £100,since like I said 3 to 4 years is not unheard for someone to keep their CPU(maybe even a bit longer) - I even heard rumours of the PS5 being out next year or in 2020,and its suspected to have 8C Zen in it. We all know the next consoles won't be shipping with Atom class CPUs anymore since both AMD and Intel have given up on them.

yes, but of the newest gen, the cpus gamers would get are all 6c+ anyway. and i agree, no point dropping more than that on a 4c4t cpu. but if you have one and its running ok (i.e. overclocked) then should be good for a decent amount of time yet.

 

[FloatingPoint]

More cores is great all round not just for games, an old rule of thumb is if a CPU works good for folding and rendering it’ll be fine for gaming.
AMD always have RESPECT in my mind as they let me turn on raytracing back in the day.

 

[groovesection]

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

Ah, I miss my old 1090t, gave the full AM3 system to my friend (as a bedroom pc) when I went with my current i7 6700, I was always an amd fanboy, when I finally went to intel spectre and meltdown happened lol - so yea **** intel

 

[chrcoluk]

I always found it ironic on tech forums,the people who defend 4C/4T CPUs the most always had 4C/8T or 6C/12T CPUs for "reasons".

I have yet to see evidence that logical threads makes any significant affect in games, logical threads help when you running a cpu bound application that has gaps in the cpu wait state (Cpu is waiting for i/o or ram access), hardly any game will generate that kind of load.

So core heavy games I mentioned would benefit from say 6 cores, 8 cores, 12 cores etc. But I would expect these games to work the same on a 4c/4t chip as a 4c/8t chip assuming equal per core performance and equal cache spec. I7s e.g. have a slightly larger cache than i5's so if they do run better in a game over an i5 at equal clock speed its probably due to that. Ryzen r7's actually have more real cores than a CL i7, so on games that love cores they will outperform an i7.

 

[~>Dg<~]

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.

v sync is a big no no for me even with upto date tech sorry but no. i can feel the difference.that is all that matters.

as for cpus.it does get a little tiring in here sometimes but the reality is most here know the score with gaming many either deny it or dont want to believe it or just prefer a different company. intel has gaming sown up.people can say close or shift goal posts but intel are better gaming cpus.period.

the only reason or ryzen offer more cores sales pitch is because they cant match intel.thats the whole sell.the thing is most games need 4/6 core with the highest mhz.which amd cant do or match intel at.so they offer you 8/16 whatever.

 

[HangTime]

I'd take 4 fast cores over more slower cores for gaming - and I own a 6c/12t cpu. If you have high enough clockspeed / IPC then lack of cores doesn't matter much because each core is churning through such a lot that it can handle more of the load that would normally be spread across more cores. In fact all else being equal (cost, temps, power drain etc) I'd take a 8ghz tri-core or 12ghz dual-core over a 4ghz hex-core because the latter will be more of a bottleneck for games not optimised for lots of cores; you effectively get the best of both worlds. But of course it isn't feasible to get properly fast cores these days so we are just seeing minor gains per core with the manufacturers scaling out the number of cores.

 

[adey]

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

Only just laid my 1090T to rest as my mobo went bang, it did everything i asked of it.

 

[gavinh87]

I had an 3.8ghz 8core 16 thread CPU and more than half of it was sat idle whilst gaming. Give me a fast 5ghz 4 or 6 core over that any day.