AMD gives you as many threads as you want, doesn't charge too much for it, but you can't stop screaming NO we want less cores and threads!
Why?
-
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.
- Thread starter humbug
- Start date
AMD gives you as many threads as you want, doesn't charge too much for it, but you can't stop screaming NO we want less cores and threads!
Why?
Tell me something, whats your whole point? that you don't need more than 4 cores?
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Sep 2014
- Posts
- 3,575
- Location
- Scotland
Or Forza Horizon 4 where the 5700XT matches the 2080TI, where is that?
These arguments are stupid, please don't
Only if you use DLSS
Only if you use FidelityFX 4K Upscaling it will have blurriness mess. It not looked good as Native 4K TAA in F1 2019.
lol It has been common knowledge for quite a while that for safe, worries-free, stutter-free gaming, you need as bare minimum 6-cores/12-threads, sane recommendation is 8-cores/16-threads, and for future-proofing you may grab without worries 12-cores/24-threads.
It doesn't "love" threads. It requires processors with more cores/threads in order to execute its game engine, so you get some gameplay which is much closer to the reality than if it were limited to less of those execution resources.
I understand that intel has the interest to sell you single and dual-core for a grand, but come on.....
You tried to prove an i7 had micro stutter by using an i5 video. That’s all I pointed out. If you don’t know the difference between an i5 and an i7, micro stutter is well above your pay grade.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Jul 2016
- Posts
- 275
Honest question.....Is this a joke post?
My 9700k ran the newest games with less than 50% usage across cores. 8 cores will suffice for quite a while.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jun 2018
- Posts
- 2,827
Checkout my post from earlier to get the context.
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/32953634
The point is that, on mass, Radeon owners don't have that issue with BF1/BFV and can use a 4C/8T CPU just fine.
Last edited:
There is a gulf between those with direct experience of such cpus and those who simply repeat what they’ve read on these very boards and link to YT videos they didn’t create.
I’m running a 2700x, I love it
But my 7700k never struggled, not once, not ever.There is a gulf between those with direct experience of such cpus and those who simply repeat what they’ve read on these very boards and link to YT videos they didn’t create.
I’m running a 2700x, I love it
Maybe you never pushed it? I, for example, test how stable the gaming is by minimising the game, running some music app in the background, and see if the framerate is still there as previously.
Not to mention streaming, etc things, other processes/jobs in the background.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jun 2018
- Posts
- 2,827
Most will see the irony in your postThere is a gulf between those with direct experience of such cpus and those who simply repeat what they’ve read on these very boards and link to YT videos they didn’t create.
I’m running a 2700x, I love it
It's a false equivalence to suggest that one has to "experience it" to "know it exist".
Making the gulf nothing larger then what's found in a tea cup.
Last edited:
Now your simply moving away from the original discussion by adding extra variables into the mix to try and prove a point. The same logic of course applies to a sixteen core cpu. Add enough extra background processes and it will struggle in gaming.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 8,612
That's nowhere the near same thing as 'struggling in gaming' isn't not even gaming. It's a nonsensical argument.
I close everything. Don’t need music or a browser. When I fire up a game I want to play a game, not do a million other things at the same time. If the game cannot keep my attention that I need to browse or watch a video etc while playing then that game is not worth my time.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,755
- Location
- Welling, London
Depends what type of game. I often listen to music when playing games like Cities skylines or Planet Coaster.
I don't think I view even 5 sites, what are you looking at.
I don't have anything running in the background when gaming but I can see why others do like streaming apps etc.
I’m pretty sure windows will help you and temp close some of those programs
I know your not being serious though but to many chrome tabs isn’t a bad thing just very ram intensive and word whilst in background uses very little Spotify is the worst of the lot. But a lot of people would have steam uplay origin epic Corsair/Razer/Logitech open maybe even plex antiviruz onedrive then have Nvidia/amd stuff motherboard software like so suite or gamer first lan stuff it’s amazing what we do have running in the background on our pc’s it why I think reviewers benchmarks are next to useless for the average pc user as I can only speak for myself but I would imagine a lot of people are the same we don’t optimise our pc when we open a game we sit down click steam find game u want to play and click play forgetting the background software the 10 chrome tabs with some YouTube in at least one of them. Pc is called personal computer for a reason
Does not feel immersive to me when I listen to my music when playing personally. But each to their own.
Playing music does not take much resources anyway. When you have dozens, or as some seem to have hundreds of tabs open plus other things then that’s different.