The end of my 2500k :(

jigger · 29 Dec 2017 at 14:05

Nothing stomps anything today. 1700, 5820k, 8700k all offer about the same performance unless you game with a 1080Ti running DX11 at 2ish MP resolutions and in that case you could say a 6700K, 7700K, 7640X or 7740X are the way to go.

gavinh87 · 29 Dec 2017 at 14:10

This never gets old. Even at 1440P you can see the 8700k is faster in quite a few games the gap will increase with next gen GPU's

jigger · 29 Dec 2017 at 14:30

Yeah. Even at 1440p the difference in performance is just as unnoticeable as it is at any other resolution. Nothing stomps anything so you might just as well buy on price or amount of RGB ports...

gavinh87 · 29 Dec 2017 at 14:39

Its noticable if you have a decent high refresh rate screen.

Perfect_Chaos · 29 Dec 2017 at 14:50

It probably is but I'm quite happy with my 5820k, and am not changing it until at least Ice Lake 8 core on mainstream. Thing is when that comes out DDR5 won't be far off either.

jigger · 29 Dec 2017 at 15:01

2021 should be next time we see a big jump in performance. Maybe 2019 with Zen 2 if AMD pull another rabit from a hat.

jigger · 29 Dec 2017 at 15:05

gavinh87 said:
Its noticable if you have a decent high refresh rate screen.

No it's not. 90-100 FPS is the holly grail. Most people cant see improvements over 60 FPS and the general consensus is 35-40FPS is playable.

gavinh87 · 29 Dec 2017 at 15:21

jigger said:
No it's not. 90-100 FPS is the holly grail. Most people cant see improvements over 60 FPS and the general consensus is 35-40FPS is playable.

I'm sure others will be along shortly to dispute that.

Doogles · 29 Dec 2017 at 15:31

jigger said:
No it's not. 90-100 FPS is the holly grail. Most people cant see improvements over 60 FPS and the general consensus is 35-40FPS is playable.

I can tell the difference between 60 fps and 90fps easily, some games are fine with lower FPS but 60 is the lowest I like. If I had to chose between Freesync @60fps or 90 fps without I'd have 90 without like I do so now, I've also had AMD cards so know what it's like. 144 fps with CS is awesome, no headaches, sickness and less motion blur, can only imagine what 200hz is like.

jigger · 29 Dec 2017 at 15:36

gavinh87 said:
I'm sure others will be along shortly to dispute that.

I'm sure we will hear about feelz. Lets see how many of these feelerz are running X299 with mega overclocked 7740X chips and 4500Mhz memory.

Anyway unless you're looking to pair a CPU with a 750 quid DX11 graphics card and run benchmarks at 1990's resolutions you might aswell buy on price or core count.

jigger · 29 Dec 2017 at 15:45

Doogles said:
I can tell the difference between 60 fps and 90fps easily, some games are fine with lower FPS but 60 is the lowest I like. If I had to chose between Freesync @60fps or 90 fps without I'd have 90 without like I do so now, I've also had AMD cards so know what it's like. 144 fps with CS is awesome, no headaches, sickness and less motion blur, can only imagine what 200hz is like.

Well now we're getting into game engines and many fall apart as the frame rate increases, but 85-100FPS and I'm golden. Network latency and the new fad of balancing servers is a much bigger problem. CS 1.6 had it right. Kick the laggy players and make the game about skill.

gavinh87 · 29 Dec 2017 at 15:47

jigger said:
Well now we're getting into game engines and many fall apart as the frame rate increases, but 85-100FPS and I'm golden. Network latency and the new fad of balancing servers is a much bigger problem. CS 1.6 had it right. Kick the laggy players and make the game about skill.

Any examples of what game engines fall about at higher frame rates? I have yet to come across any myself yet.

jigger · 29 Dec 2017 at 16:01

gavinh87 said:
Any examples of what game engines fall about at higher frame rates? I have yet to come across any myself yet.

Gavin, I know you have very selective memory, but we have already proven you dont have the senses to notice latency half a dozen times now? and in fact you asking this question is just more evidence you have no intent on actually discussion and just here to argue why AMD are crap and Intel are amazing. The reality of the situation is the gaming performance on offer between all the usual CPU suspects falls within a very narrow band.

You will see zero stomping between a very wide range of chips unless you benchmark with a 750 quid DX11 graphics card at 1990's resolutions. Or you're in the top 0.5% of the population that can see 100Hz and moan about network stacks and TFT monitors.

gavinh87 · 29 Dec 2017 at 16:10

It was a genuine question, nothing to do with AMD nor intel.

Doogles · 29 Dec 2017 at 16:13

jigger said:
Well now we're getting into game engines and many fall apart as the frame rate increases, but 85-100FPS and I'm golden. Network latency and the new fad of balancing servers is a much bigger problem. CS 1.6 had it right. Kick the laggy players and make the game about skill.

The only recent games I've played with issues tied to FPS is Bethesda, Skyrim/Fallout and the older GTA 3/VC/San Andreas otherwise it's been fairly decent.

jigger · 29 Dec 2017 at 16:16

gavinh87 said:
It was a genuine question, nothing to do with AMD nor intel.

Just refer to the other dozen or so exchanges on the topic.... and no it wasn't a genuine question as you wouldn't have posted the flame baiting spam would you...

jigger · 29 Dec 2017 at 16:17

Doogles said:
The only recent games I've played with issues tied to FPS is Bethesda, Skyrim/Fallout and the older GTA 3/VC/San Andreas otherwise it's been fairly decent.

PUBG and GTA are pretty bad TBH. Anyway a discussion for another tread.

OP, just pick whatever makes sense for the money. Want longevity go for core count. It might be worth waiting for the next Intel 115* boards and AM4 4** chipset.

Drollic · 29 Dec 2017 at 16:40

jigger said:
No it's not. 90-100 FPS is the holly grail. Most people cant see improvements over 60 FPS and the general consensus is 35-40FPS is playable.

Garbage on all 3 points, the first point being the worst.

gavinh87 · 29 Dec 2017 at 17:13

Best tell alienware that their 240hz are useless as 100hz is the holy grail and game engines can't handle it.
In fact I'd better cancel my 165hz monitor aswell......

Perfect_Chaos · 29 Dec 2017 at 17:51

Been using my 165hz 1440p screen for a while and it's definitely smoother on the eyes. Saying that though it's a small difference in smoothness over my old 1080p 120hz except for the Gsync.

60hz = 16ms, 120hz = 8ms, 165hz = 6ms and then a huge jump to 240hz to get down to 4ms.. So pretty big diminishing returns, and ridiculous GPU power needed to drive it.

Mix of high hz and high res is best IMO.