Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Nov 14, 2019.
Until faster GPU's is coming
1440p is the new 1080p
4K is a resolution only a non gamer or poorly informed gamer with no experience of high frame rates would choose (or if you have a really nice TV since 4K is default today)
1440p ok but the problem is that uh 99% of monitors out there are garbage and that the good ones are still TNs often in 1080p or ish resolutions, again something a real gamer would know
let's check steam Recent Activity 59.6 hours past 2 weeks and those were slow weeks as I had other things to do, i have a full time job too btw, just so you know what I consider "gaming"
that said I totally agree that to play in 1440p or 4K only AMD makes sense today the difference becomes too small, but I have to add that AMD is more expensive than Intel then because who is going to buy a 3900x or a 3950x without a good X570 motherboard ? (the same people who buy a 80k BMW and put on 50$ tires on them I guess...plenty of those) the only ones I'm interested in are all 450+€ personnally and if you check that DerBauer video well the only good one is actually around 800$ for me ><
It seems we have a new king in town because this CPU is a beast! Well done AMD. For someone like me is too expensive and it´s useless but it doesn´t change the fact that is the most powerful CPU right now.
As for it being slower than Intel in gaming, i don´t know why everyone is surprised by it. Games still love higher clocks and they don´t past scale well over more than 4/6/8 cores so it´s normal that the 9900K is still faster in games.
Great review as always!
Just another AMD apologist. Really they aren’t needed anymore as AMD has admirably closed the performance gap in gaming to almost a non-factor and kills Intel in most productivity workloads. Users like this are so used to blaming others for AMD that they can’t help themselves.
I personally think AMD will be able to overcome this latency hurdle in the coming Zen revisions as their CPU department has been delivering on almost all of their promises as of late.
Intel needs to drop 14nm+++++++++++++++++ and move on.
Not with raytracing
Also, 8K monitors are starting to appear - 8K is the new 4K
And you're point is?
The same as yours? He's making the same point you did. The question is which one of you is right and honestly I think it's @D3M1G0D. I think raytracing adoption along with 4K/8K is going to surpass QHD adoption.
8k monitors is not starting to appear. 4k is now starting to appear 120hz+ (after years with 60hz). Still too expensive for most people...
8K monitors don't exist? That's weird because I can buy one right now.
The fact is the majority of PC gamers currently run 1080p. Pricing for 4K w/HDR is dropping steadily, the amount of monitors with 1440p that support real HDR is essentially zero. HDMI 2.1 completely removes the bandwidth concerns for 4K/120 along with G-Sync Compat/Freesync (variable range from 60-120) and companies like LG who are starting to push 4K/120Hz in TVs are going to force competition to do the same. Couple all that with RT adoption aka a GPU heavy technology coming down in the pipelines in next generation consoles + those consoles focusing on 4K TV performance, along with mulitthreaded zen based CPUs and it's pretty clear where the future is going. It's definitely not 1440p and it's definitely not single thread performance bound scenarios.
My point is that graphics standards will continue to go up. By the time 1440p becomes the new 1080p there will be affordable 8K monitors, which will then be considered the new high-end. Graphics technologies like raytracing will also put an even greater emphasis on the GPU for gaming performance, making the CPU even less relevant than before.
The fact is, high-end gaming will always be bound by the GPU, not the CPU. This is why low-resolution testing is irrelevant - in no way does it indicate future performance.
Thats one large elitist uneducated statement there.
The fact is that people is different, so there is no rule here
Some want to play on 240hz monitors, some 165hz and some loves 60hz.
I love 3440x1440 144hz, and my 3900x barly is fast enough to keep up in Multiplayer in Battlefield V. It's on the edge of being cpubound.
If you loves to play in gpubound scenarios all the time with low fps, then good for you
I feel finally this is the Xmas present I can justify to myself. Thanks for the excellent review HH, top work as always.
You keep insisting that Battlefield 5 doesn't perform that well with Ryzen 3000 at 1440p, and that's just not true.
Does the 9900k and other intel processors get better performance? Sure. How much? 4% or less
And now you're talking about 3440x1440, which would be even less of a difference, if any difference at all.
If you get a difference between your supposed systems like you claim, thats a you problem, not a processor problem. Fix your PC.
It's getting annoying, especially your pro-intel posts in AMD threads.
I have both a 1440p / 165 Hz monitor and a 4K / 60 Hz monitor. Although I like high refresh rate gaming for fast-paced games, I've also seen the enormous improvements in IQ that 4K offers (I also still see pixels and shimmering on my 4K monitor so know there's room for improvement). Many people here bought a 2080 Ti to game at 4K and I don't blame them - in terms of eye candy, there is simply no comparison.
Of course in the future, 4K will seem low compared to 6K or 8K monitors. I still remember the days of 320 x 240 gaming - when I first experienced 640 x 480, I was blown away (and 720p blew that away, which today is considered extremely low). What's new eventually becomes old, and graphics standards will continue to rise.
Thread cleaned up a bit. Let's keep it that way okay?
Great write-up as always....
And yes seeing that many cores does make me giggle inside.... For less than a grand on top of that....
Go AMD go!.!.!.!
How high is this said memory latency to be the idea that it is what's causing a slower then out for AMD?
64gb four sticks at 68-69ns 3800mhz here. My Intel quad channel ddr3 is 55.6ns
I will make my final decision b/w Intel - AMD after HH soon to be reviewed Threadripper.
Which I think will be faster than Intel.
Tbh I think it's just a multifaceted issue when it comes to games being faster on Intel proc than only latency. The latency difference is there but really it has got to do with so many other things too like windows scheduler, how games have been made since forever mostly for intel hardware in mind on pc. I think things will improve with future. And well AMD keeps up quite nicely with that 9900KS it seems in games too.