• 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.

Intel Price hike

But it’s an average gav the same type of average I’ve seen you post before. 4% is 4% which despite being a lower number doesn’t make it bad or incapable.

We know some people value the extra 4% and will pay a lot of money for it and that’s fine but I dare say the vast majority wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between 4% in the real world.
 
Ryzen is great it just doesn't match top end Intel for gaming, its not a stigma. That is not to say it doesn't offer great performance because it does, I have not felt I had any issues with my two and daughter has one.
 
Doobedoo said:
But it’s an average gav the same type of average I’ve seen you post before. 4% is 4% which despite being a lower number doesn’t make it bad or incapable.

We know some people value the extra 4% and will pay a lot of money for it and that’s fine but I dare say the vast majority wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between 4% in the real world.
Click to expand...

4% average over 35 games, mostly single player too.
There are much much more than 35 games out there.
I'm not saying that everyone should go out and buy a 8700k, but those that want the best gaming performance should. Hoping and praying devs optimise a game for ryzen isn't ideal.
I say the same to people that want to setup and forget without ever entering the bios should go intel, too.

AMD is very much a tinkerers platform, whether that be ryzen or vega. The out of the box performance isn't as good and even after many hours of tweaking, still isn't as good.

Last i looked, the 8400 was still beating out the 2700x.
 
gavinh87 said:
4% average over 35 games, mostly single player too.
There are much much more than 35 games out there.
I'm not saying that everyone should go out and buy a 8700k, but those that want the best gaming performance should. Hoping and praying devs optimise a game for ryzen isn't ideal.
I say the same to people that want to setup and forget without ever entering the bios should go intel, too.

AMD is very much a tinkerers platform, whether that be ryzen or vega. The out of the box performance isn't as good and even after many hours of tweaking, still isn't as good.

Last i looked, the 8400 was still beating out the 2700x.
Click to expand...
Ok in that case don’t ever post up your own average performance slides or vids, because as you have said there are 1000’s and 1000’s of games and no one realistically is ever going to take the time to bench and collate all that info.

But yes we all have pretty much agreed on within reason that Intel are certainly the go to if you value the absolute highest FPS you can get, let’s just keep a little perspective as to the real world difference.
 
Doobedoo said:
Ok in that case don’t ever post up your own average performance slides or vids, because as you have said there are 1000’s and 1000’s of games and no one realistically is ever going to take the time to bench and collate all that info.

But yes we all have pretty much agreed on within reason that Intel are certainly the go to if you value the absolute highest FPS you can get, let’s just keep a little perspective as to the real world difference.
Click to expand...

I post the ones that show the biggest differences, 4% is neither here nor there I agree.
But there are examples where intel lead by a great deal more than that. And zero where ryzen takes the lead in games.
 
gavinh87 said:
I post the ones that show the biggest differences, 4% is neither here nor there I agree.
But there are examples where intel lead by a great deal more than that. And zero where ryzen takes the lead in games.
Click to expand...
Yes beacause they alude to that when they say if you take 2 games out then the difference drops to 1%.

But yes you are right there are some games that will run better on Intel as they value the single core speed increase, but some especially newer titles that will make more use of what they have despite such a big difference in clockspeed.
 
gavinh87 said:
I say the same to people that want to setup and forget without ever entering the bios should go intel, too.

AMD is very much a tinkerers platform, whether that be ryzen or vega. The out of the box performance isn't as good and even after many hours of tweaking, still isn't as good.
Click to expand...
Still neither Intel gets best performance with JEDEC standard memory settings, with I think every review being done with better memories.
Of course Ryzen is certainly lot more picky about DIMMs to get good tighter latency speeds above JEDEC 2400MHz.
Though TeamGroup 8Pack 3200MHz should be pretty guaranteed to work with minimal adjustment in BIOS.
 
It does seem that DX12 is getting better.

Rise of the Tomb Raider apparently does it really well, so much so that the 2700x is 1fps behind an 8700k @ 1080p with a 1080ti.

Infact so much so that it's preferred to DX11 it seems...
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Shado...Shadow-of-the-Tomb-Raider-Benchmarks-1264575/

This could just be an anomaly, however I think not as it seems Nvidia latest hardware is geared towards asynchronous type workload as well as AMD.
 
SiDeards73 said:
It does seem that DX12 is getting better.

Rise of the Tomb Raider apparently does it really well, so much so that the 2700x is 1fps behind an 8700k @ 1080p with a 1080ti.

Infact so much so that it's preferred to DX11 it seems...
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Shado...Shadow-of-the-Tomb-Raider-Benchmarks-1264575/

This could just be an anomaly, however I think not as it seems Nvidia latest hardware is geared towards asynchronous type workload as well as AMD.
Click to expand...


That's a first, as said above in bf1 and 5 it reduces performance. Why they didn't include vulkan which can possibly raise performance I've no idea.
 
Gerard said:
That's a first, as said above in bf1 and 5 it reduces performance. Why they didn't include vulkan which can possibly raise performance I've no idea.
Click to expand...

In CPU bound areas like the Village of the Remnants in ROTTR,my IB Core i7 saw general performance improvements using DX12 with both Pascal and Polaris based cards. With BF1 and BFV is performance reduced on top end CPUs during MP or lower end CPUs?? That is where DX12 and Vulkan are supposed to help in - CPU bound situations.
 
In the past a new DX version was always big news, mainly due to new features allowing better graphics. These days no-one ever mentions that, just that DX12 tends to improve performance in CPU bound scenarios.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
In CPU bound areas like the Village of the Remnants in ROTTR,my IB Core i7 saw general performance improvements using DX12 with both Pascal and Polaris based cards. With BF1 and BFV is performance reduced on top end CPUs during MP or lower end CPUs?? That is where DX12 and Vulkan are supposed to help in - CPU bound situations.
Click to expand...

ran DX12 with first gen i5/7's and you gain 10fps no matter what the game with dx12/ GPU is being used :) great for really old CPUs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom