• 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

Permabanned
Joined
24 Jul 2016
Posts
7,412
Location
South West
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.
 
Permabanned
Joined
23 Apr 2014
Posts
23,553
Location
Hertfordshire
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.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Jan 2015
Posts
4,904
Location
West Midlands
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.

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.
 
Permabanned
Joined
24 Jul 2016
Posts
7,412
Location
South West
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.
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.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Jan 2015
Posts
4,904
Location
West Midlands
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.

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.
 
Permabanned
Joined
24 Jul 2016
Posts
7,412
Location
South West
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.
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.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Jun 2008
Posts
11,618
Location
Finland
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.
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.
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Feb 2011
Posts
5,849
Not to mention some game engines just flat out hate AMD and are compiled to run well on Intel..

Unreal Engine for instance just flat out sucks on AMD mostly
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Feb 2011
Posts
5,849
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.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
39,299
Location
Ireland
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.


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.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Nov 2009
Posts
24,824
Location
Planet Earth
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.

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.
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Jun 2009
Posts
6,847
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.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Dec 2015
Posts
18,514
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.

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
 
Back
Top Bottom