• 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.

JayZ review of the 5700XT Red Devil, don't OC, Undervolt.

#1 9900K peaked 80%
#2 9900K peaked 97% for about half the run, rest 80 to 85%
#3 9900K peaked 94%
#4 9900K peaked 94% for a few seconds, rest was sub 90%
#5 9900K peaked 94%
#6 9900K peaked 90% for a few seconds, rest 60 to 75%
#7 9900K peaked 98% mostly between 90 and 98%
#8 9900K peaked 98% for a few seconds, rest around 90%

I would argue very little, if anything, if 97/98% is full GPU there was maybe ~45 seconds in the 10 minute run.

A lot of it, the vast majority was 55 to 90%
 
Brazo said:
So Intel is still king then ;) As you’ve nicely confirmed! The best thing about Ryzen 3000 series is I can drop one into my x470 mobo and I can’t wait until either the 3900x becomes available or even the 3950x. A few FPS wont matter now to most people given its other benefits.

Sadly I don’t get so excited about Navi, at best AMD’s 7mn is competing with the mid range 2070S which is Nvidia ‘old’ 12 mn. AMD have fallen further behind and the moment Nvidia release their 7mn it’s practically game over.
Click to expand...

The problem with these flying unicorns is that 7nm process doesn't bring any kind of magic and is even more prohibitively expensive than the already expensive 12nm :D
 
humbug said:
#1 9900K peaked 80%
#2 9900K peaked 97% for about half the run, rest 80 to 85%
#3 9900K peaked 94%
#4 9900K peaked 94% for a few seconds, rest was sub 90%
#5 9900K peaked 94%
#6 9900K peaked 90% for a few seconds, rest 60 to 75%
#7 9900K peaked 98% mostly between 90 and 98%
#8 9900K peaked 98% for a few seconds, rest around 90%

I would argue very little, if anything, if 97/98% is full GPU there was maybe ~45 seconds in the 10 minute run.

A lot of it, the vast majority was 55 to 90%
Click to expand...

Fair play to the analysis, I agree it's suprising that the Intel isn't allowing the 2080 to hit it's full potential in most cases at 1080p, In some videos the gpu usage is slightly higher in the intels favour but also it's more often or not very close.

Hardware unboxed Steve,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZGlhGjFUFM
Click to expand...
Graphed the Average and 1% lows Using stock R3000 cpu's and an I9 9900k and whilst he only used 4 games with different variations of settings, it was evident that even for the intel there was some poor scaling from the 2070s to the 2080ti. In AC the ryzen was showing some funky scaling with resolution and settings, (higher than intel on 1% lows and average.
There's an element of what about clocking the processors and dialling in the memory to further add to the gpu utilization debate, However the data I like to see is a live recording of the game with cpu and gpu utilization displayed, that tells me what I need to know.

I already know the 3600 is the better value and if they comfortably clocked at 4.4ghz/+ I think it would be so close to the R9's that it would threaten sales in the higher tiers, because bar the odd few titles, game engines aren't quite ready for 6c12t/8c16t.
 
It's not intel's fault. Here let me explain. Nvidia GPUs don't have a hardware scheduler among other tidbits that AMD gpus do. Which is why AMD GPUs tend to use more power and are slightly hotter.

But there is a catch. Guess what Nvidia is using as a substitute for the lack of HW scheduler, etc?
THE CPU. By using Active Server Process/CMDList (via software), Etc. This is why Nvidia does so well in single/dual core coded DX11 games.

Nvidia drivers are used in such a way that it's drivers act live a software server. Competing with CPU resources that the game normally would use. But is very good at prioritizing threaded needs.

Which is why anyone with, for example but not limited to, 6700k, 7700k, 8700k, and lower end 9000 series CPU users always complain about High CPU usage and stutter. You don't believe me? Take a look at the Geforce Driver forum.



(Keep in mind I took this about a month ago)
https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforc...h-fps-drops-since-windows-10-creators-update/

The stutter is a direct result of near 100% or at 100% CPU utilization. It's been going on for years now. I've been keeping tabs with that thread (there are dozens of threads like this in all PC gaming forums btw).
The irony is that very few, ever change their PC setup to Ryzen to report if the issue was fixed or not. What's funny is that I haven't found any mass reporting of this problem with Ryzen's higher core count cpus.

Caveat to this is that I'm not seeing the mass reports on Turing as I've seen on Pascal though. So I assume things have changed since then. Or a result of not many have adapted to Turing do to pricing, etc. Although, IMHO, paring at 2080 with a 7700K would be a bad idea. :)
 
Last edited:
All interesting stuff. As a normal user not a min maxer I decided at 1440p and above any differences would be negligible. Also as an infrequent upgrader choosing between 3700X or 9900K was easy. With drop in upgrades for the CPU and PCIE 4.0 the platform has much more life in it.
I think AMD now has an offering that suits most mainstream PC users. If you're a low resolution, high refresh competitive gamer Intel/Nvidia is currently the king. All AMD need now is a 2080Ti competitor.
 
EastCoastHandle said:
It's not intel's fault. Here let me explain. Nvidia GPUs don't have a hardware scheduler among other tidbits that AMD gpus do. Which is why AMD GPUs tend to use more power and are slightly hotter.

But there is a catch. Guess what Nvidia is using as a substitute for the lack of HW scheduler, etc?
THE CPU. By using Active Server Process/CMDList (via software), Etc. This is why Nvidia does so well in single/dual core coded DX11 games.

Nvidia drivers are used in such a way that it's drivers act live a software server. Competing with CPU resources that the game normally would use. But is very good at prioritizing threaded needs.

Which is why anyone with, for example but not limited to, 6700k, 7700k, 8700k, and lower end 9000 series CPU users always complain about High CPU usage and stutter. You don't believe me? Take a look at the Geforce Driver forum.



(Keep in mind I took this about a month ago)
https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforc...h-fps-drops-since-windows-10-creators-update/

The stutter is a direct result of near 100% or at 100% CPU utilization. It's been going on for years now. I've been keeping tabs with that thread (there are dozens of threads like this in all PC gaming forums btw).
The irony is that very few, ever change their PC setup to Ryzen to report if the issue was fixed or not. What's funny is that I haven't found any mass reporting of this problem with Ryzen's higher core count cpus.

Caveat to this is that I'm not seeing the mass reports on Turing as I've seen on Pascal though. So I assume things have changed since then. Or a result of not many have adapted to Turing do to pricing, etc. Although, IMHO, paring at 2080 with a 7700K would be a bad idea. :)
Click to expand...

I had no micro stutter with my 4790k/7700k and not even my 2700x. If the 7700k was so bad why did AMD use it to showcase their Vega vii gpu? I am learning fast that while people can have issues with their setups it is often that ‘their set ups’ and if someone else with the same cpu combo isn’t experiencing issues then it could well be another conflict within ‘their system’ causing the issue.
 
Brazo said:
I had no micro stutter with my 4790k/7700k and not even my 2700x. If the 7700k was so bad why did AMD use it to showcase their Vega vii gpu? I am learning fast that while people can have issues with their setups it is often that ‘their set ups’ and if someone else with the same cpu combo isn’t experiencing issues then it could well be another conflict within ‘their system’ causing the issue.
Click to expand...

PEBCAK? No. it depends on the game and situation, when the CPU is running all its threads at 100% or near it can't do any more when the GPU makes a request, because the CPU can't respond the GPU needs to wait on the CPU and pause, it does this at very high speed while the CPU is at full load, because the GPU is: Stop - Go -Stop - Go - Stop - Go - Stop........ it introduces erratic frame rates, which you will feel as stutter. and it looks like this...

Blue line botton right, see that? Up - Down -Up - Down - Up - Down....

Even at near double the frame rates (the CPU is doing nearly twice as much) the 1600/X are still smooth, so it still has head room, the 7600K is flatout and not able to keep up with the GPU. that's the power of high thread counts in games.

When people with 4 and 8 thread CPU's complain about stutter in games with their high end GPU's they are not imagining it.

CHmOGdu.png
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
PEBCAK? No. it depends on the game and situation, when the CPU is running all its threads at 100% or near it can't do any more when the GPU makes a request, because the CPU can't respond the GPU needs to wait on the CPU and pause, it does this at very high speed while the CPU is at full load, because the GPU is: Stop - Go -Stop - Go - Stop - Go - Stop........ it introduces erratic frame rates, which you will feel as stutter. and it looks like this...

Blue line botton right, see that? Up - Down -Up - Down - Up - Down....

Even at near double the frame rates (the CPU is doing nearly twice as much) the 1600/X are still smooth, so it still has head room, the 7600K is flatout and not able to keep up with the GPU. that's the power of high thread counts in games.

When people with 4 and 8 thread CPU's complain about stutter in games with their high end GPU's they are not imagining it.

CHmOGdu.png
Click to expand...
Do you have an example with a four core eight thread cpu though?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom