It scores 120+fps it's hardly an issue though is it. Still perfectly playable for anyone unless you are purely chasing figures.
-
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 to launch 6 core Coffee Lake-S CPUs & Z370 chipset 5 October 2017
- Thread starter AthlonXP1800
- Start date
It scores 120+fps it's hardly an issue though is it. Still perfectly playable for anyone unless you are purely chasing figures.
You really don't understand what AGESA was about.
What your saying is people should buy the i7 so games can continue to be CPU limited and crap. With that kind of thinking you might as well buy a console.
Interestingly enough there's a Russian outlet that tests various CPU & GPU configurations with new games, weird how this keeps happening in all of these recently released games:
Weird stuff this.
Weird stuff this.
In simple terms what these two are arguing is to build a PC to benchmark stuff that can't take full advantage of what PC hardware has to offer.
Its an issue for high refresh rate monitors. If ryzen if 50fps behind an i7 in poorly coded games now with the GPU's we have. What will happen in the future with faster GPU's?
Agesa brought better memory speeds/compatibility, as shown in other tests even with 3466 memory, its still a fair bit behind.
I might be wrong here and it is indeed getting faster but I have nothing to show this, do you have anything that shows this?
Nobody with a 8700k will be CPU limited, in fact nobody with a kabylake i7 will be CPU limited. They are already extracting the most out of the GPU.
In fact, as the screens that andrei posted, the 4770k is getting the most out of a 1080ti.
And yet in others its slower than a 2600k. Hit and miss, and placing trust into devs to take advantage of 8 cores is a bad idea.
That's the odd game mate the majority are close. My god you do realise just how much you sound like zornyan with the dual core nonsense and cherry picked game benchmarks.
Now I don't use a high refresh monitor but how much of a problem is a game playing at 120+fps?
Bang my heads against my keyboard lol. They are all close enough for you not to notice how do not understand that.
I don't know ask yourself that question lol.Why even buy Ryzen when you can get your refresh rate with a Pentium G though? The Coffee Lake Pentiums should be good too
Well yeah, if you don't care about a few extra fps then buying anything above a Pentium G is a complete waste of money.
But ram speeds do tie in with the speed of ryzen so it was kind of a big deal for gamers.
I've still not seen any proof of ryzen getting faster.
They are close in GPU limited games, but fall away in CPU limited/poorly coded games. Say ryzen is 20% slower than kaby in a poorly coded game. When we see the next gen of GPU's from nvidia i expect that gap to increase.
Not when using 5 cores or less. However you would be CPU limited if the game loads up one core.
Don't forget that you said that.
Why would that matter they are still perfectly playable. It doesn't make sense to alter the way you buy hardware to support badly made games.
Last edited by a moderator:
Or you know, the hardware just doesn't have the performance the game needs, in this case, single core performance, which makes that certain hardware choice not a really good one for gaming.
Stop buying games that can't make use of the hardware you have then.