Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Apr 13, 2018.
Barring any major issues it looks like it's time to pull the trigger on a couple of 2700X systems.
I love when Hilbert teases me, that man sure knows how to do a proper homoerotik tech teasing!
You haven't paid attention to 95% of AMD ryzen threads then.
This isn't meant to be argumentative, but realistically, when you come into most ryzen threads and always see at least one person saying how "ryzen is a complete fail" and "amd will never be able to catch up" and often are not able to back up their own claims or even answer why they are in a thread simply to bash a product and cause problems, i'm not sure what else to call them aside from what you said you've never seen?
The 8700k is yesterdays cpu, with yesterdays motherboard specs. For equal gaming power now and superior multitasking and brute force job performance, Amd's Zen+ is now the winner they had hoped the Zen
would be. For those that need, or want a new rig this is a no brainer. And Amd wont back stab you and your wallet, like Intel does, when Zen2 is released. You will be able to simply drop in the Zen2 in your x470 motherboard, hell x370 for that matter, and be on your way. Amd bends over backwards to be your cpu company of choice. They have snapped their spines on this one Imho.
I have Ryzen 1800x and TR 1950x, so I like AMD, but you're post is EPIC fail.
PS: I have Intel 7900x and 7980xe too
if amd caught up on gaming perfomance .... and since is ahead on multi-thread ... i want to see what people will use as an excuse to pick up the 8700 over the 2700 ! HH waiting your review and holding my breath ! ((no worries i am cheating not going to pass out in 2 mins ))
I am also waiting on the review. I am starting to piece together a new build and it seems like I may go back to AMD for the first time since the Phenom II.
Though i really don't know why you said his post was an "epic fail", everything he said was correct.
nobody will do that.
If I were buying a CPU this year, main criteria I would look at:
- number of cores/threads
- Security from malware exploits
- price/value (whole package, incl mobo, cooler, etc)
things no longer considered:
- gaming performance (since above 1440p)
- single core performance (cant think of any single threaded software that matters to me).
Wanted to buy ryzen in first few weeks of its release last year, but was put off by the numerous issues, mobo problems, bios bricking, memory speeds/compatibility, etc, so went Intel. If I had done my upgrade this year, pretty sure it would be a Zen 2 chip.
Looks like we were in the exactly same boat. Next time around AMD will be a strong contender. And let's hope that they also force Intel's hand a little bit.
If only AMD will allow disabling PSP on their motherboards, I'll buy instantly. Truth is there is much work on the IME disabling, but System76's team did some extraordinary progress on that matter. From now on, I'll try to go the most friendly platform.
For 144hz panel, you should care about CPU gaming performance. By lowering video settings from ULTRA, 1440@144fps is managable on high-end video card. Heck, I play 1440@96fps on my GTX970. CPU becomes a problem, once you remove GPU bottleneck.
So once we get closer to 144fps mark and above, CPU performance will be matter and does strongly affect frames stability.
If 60FPS is all you need or fine with free/g-sync taking care of frame drop, even old good sandy bridge will be enough.
I am on same boat to hold CPU upgrade till ZEN2. If I had 144hz panel, and wanted smoothest gameplay, I'd bought 8700k when it was released.
As for now, Zen+ looks very interesting and might finally take "gaming crown" from Intel.
This is amazing. Personally waiting for Zen 2 (2019) for my next upgrade. Well done AMD.
Glad to see the 17 cycle l2 issue that was present in Zen is fixed in Zen+
lol, that's a good joke. Getting such a high end system to lower settings from Ultra @1440p just to get 144fps. Good joke man, good joke.
Having 144hz is nice, and having FPS to match it is also nice, but is not even a little bit, tiny, minuscule amount, necessarily to have a very fluid, high quality gameplay. I'd rather play at the highest possible settings and get the gaming experience that high end hardware is for @ 80-90FPS, then lowering my graphics to medium/high to obtain 144fps, why? Because that's logical. Why would i care about the difference between 80-90fps and 144fps, when there's not a big difference?
People are way too fixated on a meaningless number, like others in this forum have said, having an FPS counter on their games have made games less enjoyable, because all of then sudden, they see "lower" fps, (not lower then 60, mind you) and they feel like their game is not running well, even though if they turn that FPS counter off, they have an enjoyable, lag-free, stutter-free time, which is what is important.
That doesn't make any sense, since you said "smoothest".
There have been countless benchmarks/reviews showing that while Intel processors CAN (but not always) have higher HIGHS in FPS, they often have lower LOWS(if not the same lows, which is still a higher difference between highs and lows) in FPS as well, which means an unstable, stuttery mess. Now you can try and fix this, by capping your FPS, but what's the point at that point, to care that the intel processors can sometimes get higher FPS, if you're just....capping off that higher fps?
I agree but it depends on the game for me. For more competitive titles like CS:GO/R6 Siege/SC2 (although SC2 bad example because its dogshit optimization) I run those games at the lowest possible settings to maximize framerate and reduce on-screen clutter. That being said all those games run more than fine on Ryzen at Ultra settings and I know I'm in the minority of people that are going that far out of their way for a slight advantage. It's definitely not a "you should care" thing but a "you might care to know this but most won't" thing.
That's you. Some use their PCs differently. Sure, most would rather play TW3 at 80-90fps all maxed than lower settings and run it at 144fps capped. That makes perfect sense. But there's competitive fps players too who will lower settings below medium even on mega rigs partly to remove clutter and partly to hit constant desired fps.
SC2 being starcraft 2?
CS:GO and R6 siege already hit more often then not 144fps at the highest settings, granted, for R6 siege, i don't have AA on, but that makes it blurry anyways, which is kinda...not useful for those kinds of games.
And that's the definition of sad.
There's no a single person who has been able to accurately showcase that the additional FPS actually helps them in competitive play, why?
Because everyone who HAS tried to show that it's better, puts an FPS counter on their screen. And throughout the "Here's the difference" videos, they constantly get annoyed by their "low FPS".
So what's causing them to be "worse"? The fact they are paying so much attention to the FPS counter instead of PLAYING THE GAME.
Whereas when they are getting a constant 144fps, or higher, they look at it, once or twice, and stop "worrying" about what FPS they are getting and no longer pay attention to it, and instead, pay attention to the game.
That's the difference.
And in regards to "removing clutter" in "competitive" games, in my opinion, that's just cheating. Yes, yes, i know, it's not "really" cheating, since it's an option that the game developers decided to allow, but it's not options they should allow in a competitive game. In PUBG for example, people were turning things down so they couldn't see grass, so they could get a "competitive edge" over people who had grass turned on. Thankfully they fixed that, but that kind of nonsense, is not competitive, it's just cheap gameplay.
Competitive players pay attention to fps counters instead of playing the game? I've heard it all now. You're just making stuff up, you know that?