Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community - Reply to Topic

Thread: [PCWorld] Intel challenges AMD's Ryzen 3000 CPUs to take the Core i9-9900K's real-world gaming crown Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
06-19-2019 06:09 PM
HeliXpc Ryzen 3 is a FAR better product then anything INtel has to offer at this point, this is just a jab at AMD at best, AMD was beating intel from 1999-2006, easily winning in every 3d application.
06-19-2019 08:21 AM
EniGma1987
Quote: Originally Posted by Unkzilla View Post
...
That being said trying to hit 144 or 165 fps with a high refresh monitor is a different ballgame. There's some older titles that I am getting 170-180 fps on the 9900k and the 2700x will continously drop under 110 (Destiny 2)
...

There are two reasons for that:
1) Ryzen 1 and 2 floating point performance is not up near where Intel is. This is fixed in Ryzen 3, as FP performance has "doubled". (according to AMD. Some instructions have doubled, while most others simply have a substantial throughput boost)
2) memory speed and latency. This is also changed a lot in Ryzen 3, as memory speed is much higher, latency is lower, and the large cache can hide even more latency.
06-19-2019 07:49 AM
Woundingchaney
Quote: Originally Posted by tpi2007 View Post
1080p resolution is tested because it's the more relevant way to ascertain how much fuel the CPU has in the tank for future games and GPUs, should you need it. Nowadays CPU A and B have enough horsepower to feed a top of the line GPU at 4K, to the point where the bottleneck is in the GPU, but GPU's evolve and one day there will be a difference between CPU A and B at 4K, because tomorrow's 4K performance is today's 1080p. More relevantly perhaps: 1440p high refresh gaming, which seems to be a sweetspot for now.
The problem with this is that the consumer demographic doesnt change. Whenever we actually see the industry move beyond 4k as a target resolution those consumers are not going to be interested in the relative performance of cpus under legacy resolutions and bare bones settings. The gaming industry itself moves relatively slow as well, realistically 1080p has been a target resolution for well over a decade and even now we are only getting to the point in which 4k is becoming mainstream, despite it being marketed way back at the 400 series.

Even concerning high refresh 1440p gaming, cpu/s is not at the forefront of the hardware focus. Anyone targeting that resolution and refresh for gaming with a budget is still going to primarily focus on their gpu solution. Realistically these cpu gaming performance conversations revolve around 2 consumer demographics, those with a lower budget and those with a higher budget and it just so happens that the comparison is not realistically relevant to either of them. Sure you have consumers that are going to spec out their build for the next 2 or 3 years, but by then literally every market indicator we have more than suggests their gpu is once again going to be the concern much more so than the longevity of their cpu solution.

Realistically I could be using a 4 year old cpu with virtually no noticeable difference in performance as far as gaming goes, nor would I most likely see any difference in years to come.
06-19-2019 07:40 AM
zGunBLADEz
Quote: Originally Posted by tpi2007 View Post
1080p resolution is tested because it's the more relevant way to ascertain how much fuel the CPU has in the tank for future games and GPUs, should you need it. Nowadays CPU A and B have enough horsepower to feed a top of the line GPU at 4K, to the point where the bottleneck is in the GPU, but GPU's evolve and one day there will be a difference between CPU A and B at 4K, because tomorrow's 4K performance is today's 1080p. More relevantly perhaps: 1440p high refresh gaming, which seems to be a sweetspot for now.
well that applies for people that hold hardware for what 5yrs+ even longer? theres still people on sandybridge waiting to jump tho...

4k would not be as easy to 1080P or 1440P to achieve those type of fps
between 3 vs 4k theres a almost a 30% gap of performance on current gpus..
both are gpu bottlenecked resolutions on the top of the line gpus..

by the time you need this "horsepower" you will be looking at new stuff.


myself i prefer a steady frametime line than high fps and erratic frametimes..
06-19-2019 07:34 AM
tpi2007
Quote: Originally Posted by zGunBLADEz View Post
for the sake of argument i guess they do..

dont forget with low settings quake graphics too XD

i actually downclock, downvoltage my cpus at 4k where im gpu bottlenecked the way i play games im always gpu bottlenecked lol
1080p is a peasant resolution in my eyes.. i didnt become a hardware enthusiast to go backwards 10 yrs ago type of resolution but that seems the norm now a days they see high fps as a strain on hardware 1080p/720p low settings 200fps+? gpu usage at 60%? thats not even a chuckle
Quote: Originally Posted by Woundingchaney View Post
This is pretty much the crutch of the entire comparison or argument in general. People arent buying this new hardware to run older games at very low settings. In just about any real world scenario when taking into account actual consumers and their intentions these testing parameters are completely invalid.

Any current PC gamer more than realizes that modern cpus simply are a far secondary concern when compared to the gpu solution. Its been years since I have even felt the need to upgrade my cpu to play games, most of the time I simply do to keep my build relatively modern.

1080p resolution is tested because it's the more relevant way to ascertain how much fuel the CPU has in the tank for future games and GPUs, should you need it. Nowadays CPU A and B have enough horsepower to feed a top of the line GPU at 4K, to the point where the bottleneck is in the GPU, but GPU's evolve and one day there will be a difference between CPU A and B at 4K, because tomorrow's 4K performance is today's 1080p. More relevantly perhaps: 1440p high refresh gaming, which seems to be a sweetspot for now.
06-19-2019 06:59 AM
Woundingchaney
Quote: Originally Posted by Newbie2009 View Post
People with 9900k cpu are gaming at 1080p?
This is pretty much the crutch of the entire comparison or argument in general. People arent buying this new hardware to run older games at very low settings. In just about any real world scenario when taking into account actual consumers and their intentions these testing parameters are completely invalid.

Any current PC gamer more than realizes that modern cpus simply are a far secondary concern when compared to the gpu solution. Its been years since I have even felt the need to upgrade my cpu to play games, most of the time I simply do to keep my build relatively modern.
06-19-2019 06:55 AM
zGunBLADEz
Quote: Originally Posted by Newbie2009 View Post
People with 9900k cpu are gaming at 1080p?
for the sake of argument i guess they do..

dont forget with low settings quake graphics too XD

i actually downclock, downvoltage my cpus at 4k where im gpu bottlenecked the way i play games im always gpu bottlenecked lol
1080p is a peasant resolution in my eyes.. i didnt become a hardware enthusiast to go backwards 10 yrs ago type of resolution but that seems the norm now a days they see high fps as a strain on hardware 1080p/720p low settings 200fps+? gpu usage at 60%? thats not even a chuckle
06-19-2019 06:54 AM
The Robot
Quote: Originally Posted by Newbie2009 View Post
People with 9900k cpu are gaming at 1080p?
At 720p, apparently
06-19-2019 06:53 AM
Newbie2009 People with 9900k cpu are gaming at 1080p?
06-19-2019 06:25 AM
zGunBLADEz
Quote: Originally Posted by Scotty99 View Post
You still didnt answer the question lol, in games specifically (not benchmarks or memory programs) you found more performance with memory tweaks than upwards of 500mhz core clocks? Again i ask because i always find core clocks to matter more in games, i havent even found one game that responds better to memory tweaking.
yes in gaming ram tweaks that net you lower latency = better gaming performance on cpu bottlenecks scenarios in ryzen is a bit different as the ram mhz helps the communication between CCX's the way its designed.

on intel i can have better hardware usage with better latency and less mhz than trying to overclock the cpu to 50x and having cheapo ram.. like everything theres some games that likes mhz as well too.
But general latency ===> mhz...point is if you tweaking you seeing a bit of gain because...

i can have 4000MHz ddr4 with 40ns i can also have 40ns with 3466 cl14s my single ipc score is the same on cb15 for example the difference is very minimal
thats why you see people trying to do 3200MHz cl 12s XD



2yrs ago
https://www.overclock.net/forum/26278727-post619.html

1700[email protected] 3200 cl16 = 77ns random pic from google

my 8700k with 1GHz difference 42x vs 52x
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off