Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Rich_Guy, Jul 5, 2019.
Testing in 720p resolution?????? LoL!
Yea if you want to test the CPU performance. Whats the point of testing at 4K when CPU performance means nothing since its all bottle-necked by the GPU at that resolution ??
That's why a GTX 1080 TI was a good choice.
Then you should look at optimised syntethic benchmarks only, like AIDA64.
Except is still tested in a non-real scenarios. If those these were all 1080p, no-one would complain. Why not test at lower resolution then? Maybe VGA 640*480? I know most of modern games do not support such lower resolution.. for good... However, at lower resolution graphics drivers as well as game rendering path, may behave differently and not reflect real CPU performance too. Low-resolution scenarios may be better tuned for low-quality and low-hardware configurations. No-one never think about that.. Finally showing the performance under average FPS is wrong, especially when the frame rates are so high, period.
That's the point of CPU reviews... They simply missed the target.
4K CPU performance benchmarks in-game are useless, no-one doubt that. As they are all test involving surreal system configuration, like 720p or lower. And that's not only for gaming. Productivity testing like video AVC or HEVC encoding and then test it with a 640*480 video source (cough... cough... TPU?)...
And whats the point testing on resolutions that no one will use? Expecting any 3700x owners with 1080ti's to plug their shiny gear into obsolete displays that arent even sold anymore? . I think the editors at PCGamesHardware.de simply forget to tell there reviewers to stop using this dumb res years ago.
Yes, 4k CPU performance is also 'almost' pointless, but not completely. Some multi-threaded games are now showing benefit from CPU perf, even at 4k. Sure, vast majority of games wont beneft much, still far more useful to know than 720p results.
Personally, I would love to see gaming tests at 640x480 (or lower!) to minimize the influence of the GPU as much as possible. I also want to see synthetic benchmark tests, as well as gaming tests at the usual resolutions (1080p, 1440p, 4K).
I like the low-resolution tests because in the games I currently play, I am CPU-capped. I have a 240Hz monitor and it is awesome when I can run games at FPS numbers close to that refresh rate. Lowering the resolution artificially is an imperfect simulation of this, but it is a data point I like to see in CPU reviews.
It's not like we have to litigate the pros and cons of every single testing methodology and then choose ONLY one. Reviewers can run as many or as few scenarios as they want in their testing suites. Then people can examine the results they consider the most relevant to them.
Excited for Sunday.
We will get the results when we measure 15-20 games mixed (ones not taking advantage of more cores and ones that do take) then we make an average. I'm sure there will be minimal difference in FHD with a 2080Ti equipped. And as you said, the number of gamers playing on FHD with a 2080 Ti is.... maybe 0,1% of the whole PC gaming community.
disappointing for now...I hope it'll get better with as full review because 3.x+ clock speeds are meaningless especially since last gen motherboard all do their own version of auto-overclocking
the reason why I went 9900k was the clock speed but I already ran into a lack of cpu lanes
we'll see with overclocking how things work for AMD, I hope great because the Z390 plateform frankly sucks (I have some weird 360Mbyte/s bottleneck while transfering large files that I didn't have on the X99 and when you run into problems with 10Gbit on win10 good luck finding infos ><)
people who have too much money and no sense go all 4K ,the real gamers play on 1080p or 1440p, the rest do whatever they think is good but really isn't
I can read street names on this, I see everything almost as sharp as the still picture https://www.testufo.com/photo#photo=toronto-map.png&pps=1920&pursuit=0&height=0
try that on a 4K 60Hz for a laugh
@pegasus1 Well Said.
You were not here for 4.5 billion years.
You will live for maybe 80 years.
Then you will never exist again.
Yet you are willing to spend time arguing over something so irrelevant.
Jesus christ, low res gaming tests are the best way to predict which processor will perform better when new generations of graphics cards show up. If you are only interested on how they perform at 1440p on actual "real hardware" please knock yourselves out with the 1440p results and ignore the additional information those tests provide, it wont bite you, thanks.
Real gamers? If you mean competitive online gamers, then yes I think you have a point.
Yet, for slow paced single player games I think 4k is a perfect choice if you can financially handle it. Immerion is key there .
I tried best of both worlds and went for 1440p at 144Hz G-sync but alas, this is still a TN pannel. I miss details, HDR and deeper colours in single player games.
And at 280+ games in my steam library and gaming since the '90 I'd say I'm a real gamer .
Another my-opinion-is-universal gamer who thinks one one set of criteria must apply to all and no ifs or buts about it . Not everyone cares about fast paced gaming. There is such a thing as slow paced games that allow one to take in all the scenery in its finer details while the player proceeds at his own leisurely pace.
Most of current 4k gamers (myself included) came off lower res, high refresh rate displays as a preferred choice. Not because its 'better' (it isnt in fast paced shooters), but because some may prefer other aspects of gaming that have nothing to do with the competitive side of things nor about rapidly panning screens that captures all motion intact.
Can still go back to my 1440p 120hz display in 2nd rig, but nope, prefer the large 4k one where an apple looks like a real apple with all its fine textures and details, instead of like a cherry on small high refresh displays. Again, we all have choices and different sets of criteria that we may appreciate more than others. Yours are not universal, neither are mine.
Fresh benches on x470
I'm likely going to build a 3950X. I originally wanted to go TR4, but 16 cores is enough for 2019 and the price is very attractive. TR4 just costs so much more...you need to buy twice as much RAM too.
WHAT? you dont need to buy twice as much ram, you just need a 4 stick kit.
Im on 9900K now and using 4-stick kit of 3733Mhz because thats what was available,
If you want 32GB for example, its usually cheaper to get four 8GB sticks then two 16gb sticks.
Im lucky that 3733Mhz is also the best speed for Ryzen 3000, if Gurus benchmarks come out OK, ill be upgrading to asus x570 Hero and probably 12 core because it will overclock better then the 16 and will be less hot and faster in single threated, also the 12 core has the most cache per core, more then 16 core CPU
TR4 has 8 slots. Might as well throw 128GBs in there for quad channel. That's a good $700
I'll be going for 64GB (4X16) for X570 to fully populate the slots.
I have (8X8) DDR4 2133 in my X99, so I don't want to downgrade to 32GBs for my next build. I do video editing and encoding for work and need all the cores and memory I can throw at it. Time is money.
the memory speed on that new bench is pitiful.
Is this yours or did you take it from somewhere?
If this is yours, then why is the ram set to, if i'm reading that correctly, 2066?
Its DDR4-2133 Cas 15 by the looks of it.
If its still getting that single thread score with that memory, thats a feat in itself.