-
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.
Real world review 9800x3d
- Thread starter Grim5
- Start date
Damn, I'm going to reinstall my old 5800X3D ... why did I bother moving to the AM5 platform for 4K gaming ?
I get this is an April Fool's ting and there's some fun being had in general on this issue, but this I find the way this is addressed incredibly strange.
I get the gist of where Steve is coming from in that if you are reviewing CPUs you want to be able to actually compare them in CPU-limiting scenarios to properly understand where they lie and future-proof yourself.
But the idea that "If you're looking to buy one you should buy the best your budget can afford and future proof yourself" is just not that helpful. Not everyone wants to buy "the best CPU their budget can afford". If Steve is suggesting that most of us have a CPU budget already set such that we can buy the best within said budget, I find that laughable. Building a PC is a tradeoff.
I would argue the questions most of us ask are more like:
I 100% get where the comments of "wtf 1080p? I play at 4K man" are coming from, and Steve creating a massive strawman that most people are idiots and don't get that most CPUs will perform identically at 4K because it's not CPU-limiting is just kinda ********. If I want to choose whether to spend money on a CPU and how much to spend, I want enough data so that I can get at least a sense of how much of an upgrade I would be making - and even if that data just confirms that at 4K native the performance is identical but at 4K with DLSS we see x% and at 1440p we see y% that would be incredibly helpful to understand where said CPU fits and what it should be worth to me.
Anyway.
I get the gist of where Steve is coming from in that if you are reviewing CPUs you want to be able to actually compare them in CPU-limiting scenarios to properly understand where they lie and future-proof yourself.
But the idea that "If you're looking to buy one you should buy the best your budget can afford and future proof yourself" is just not that helpful. Not everyone wants to buy "the best CPU their budget can afford". If Steve is suggesting that most of us have a CPU budget already set such that we can buy the best within said budget, I find that laughable. Building a PC is a tradeoff.
I would argue the questions most of us ask are more like:
- How much of my budget should I spend on my CPU vs the GPU vs faster RAM vs a better looking case?
- How much of a difference will this CPU upgrade make to the games I play today?
- Is it worth saving up for another month and buying a better CPU, what will that give me?
I 100% get where the comments of "wtf 1080p? I play at 4K man" are coming from, and Steve creating a massive strawman that most people are idiots and don't get that most CPUs will perform identically at 4K because it's not CPU-limiting is just kinda ********. If I want to choose whether to spend money on a CPU and how much to spend, I want enough data so that I can get at least a sense of how much of an upgrade I would be making - and even if that data just confirms that at 4K native the performance is identical but at 4K with DLSS we see x% and at 1440p we see y% that would be incredibly helpful to understand where said CPU fits and what it should be worth to me.
Anyway.