Page 17 of 27 FirstFirst ...
7
15
16
17
18
19
... LastLast
  1. #321
    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    Is it possible at all that it's some kind of BIOS or driver issue? (I'm not experienced at all in overclocking, last overclock I did was a Core 2 Duo).
    This is another thing most people are initially unaware of in the intel vs amd discussion. AMD has to push their cpu's to the absolute limit out of the box to even compete in gaming benchmarks while intel has plenty of overclock headroom, well at least on the 8th gen this was true not sure about ninth. My 8700k only runs at 4.3ghz if i do nothing in the bios i got an extra 700mhz out of it with overclocking.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Id like to add another weird thing with intel, even tho its listed single core boost speeds are fairly high they almost never run at that unless you manually overclock. If i do nothing in my bios WoW will only run at 4.3ghz not a single core will hit the 4.7ghz single core speeds that is advertised. AMD on the other hand appears to have a smarter boost feature where you will see one core hit its rated max, i list this because it matters this much more in overclocking for intel.

  2. #322
    Quote Originally Posted by Fascinate View Post
    Leaving overclocking out of this discussion is absolutely absurd, AMD has NO overclock headroom on these chips and intel has tons. Only a very few select titles will win on the 3900x that can actually leverage past 6 cores.
    Someone indicated recently that Intel said only 5% of Intel K CPU users overclock. It may be why they released the overclock tool. This does seem likely because most customers are buying prebuilt systems.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunderball View Post
    Because the reviews are focusing on overall performance, not gaming, which tbh is a right thing to do, it's a CPU review afterall. Overall it's a very good CPU, well rounded, good value for the money, but for gaming it's still meh.
    How can you say that a CPU that gets 160 FPS in BFV at 1080p is "meh"?

  3. #323
    Remember, there is such a thing as "pointless performance". |

    Will the Intel CPUs outperform the Ryzen CPUs when both are overclocked to the max?

    Almost assuredly.

    But we're not talking the difference between playable and not. We're talking the difference between 150fps and 180fps.

    Both are completely pointless for 99.9% of users.

    Ergo, Ryzen 3 is the better buy for most people.

  4. #324
    Quote Originally Posted by Gray_Matter View Post
    How can you say that a CPU that gets 160 FPS in BFV at 1080p is "meh"?
    It's also really good in Cinebench. Does it help people who play Dota 2, CS:GO, Overwatch, Apex Legends, PUBG, WoW? Yeah, not really.

    Testing CPUs in Sniper Elite 4, Cinebench or Blender is good for reviewing CPUs, but it shows nothing to people playing mainstream games, that's the point I'm trying to make here.
    R5 5600X | Thermalright Silver Arrow IB-E Extreme | MSI MAG B550 Tomahawk | 16GB Crucial Ballistix DDR4-3600/CL16 | MSI GTX 1070 Gaming X | Corsair RM650x | Cooler Master HAF X | Logitech G400s | DREVO Excalibur 84 | Kingston HyperX Cloud II | BenQ XL2411T + LG 24MK430H-B

  5. #325
    Quote Originally Posted by Kagthul View Post
    Remember, there is such a thing as "pointless performance". |

    Will the Intel CPUs outperform the Ryzen CPUs when both are overclocked to the max?

    Almost assuredly.

    But we're not talking the difference between playable and not. We're talking the difference between 150fps and 180fps.

    Both are completely pointless for 99.9% of users.

    Ergo, Ryzen 3 is the better buy for most people.
    Unless you play WoW of course and those numbers are 75hz vs 100 and that is a huge difference in gameplay feel. Its really just as bad as 60hz vs 144hz, i think most people with a 144hz+ monitor would agree with me here, once you get around 100 anything higher kind of doesnt matter.

  6. #326
    Quote Originally Posted by Fascinate View Post
    Unless you play WoW of course and those numbers are 75hz vs 100 and that is a huge difference in gameplay feel. Its really just as bad as 60hz vs 144hz, i think most people with a 144hz+ monitor would agree with me here, once you get around 100 anything higher kind of doesnt matter.
    You keep going back to your calculations from a couple of years back which consisted of a first gen Ryzen and WOW before it's multi-threaded patches. That doesn't make too much sense when comparing the third gen Ryzen's on WOW with an updated engine.

  7. #327
    The Lightbringer Evildeffy's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Nieuwegein, Netherlands
    Posts
    3,772
    Quote Originally Posted by Thunderball View Post
    It's also really good in Cinebench. Does it help people who play Dota 2, CS:GO, Overwatch, Apex Legends, PUBG, WoW? Yeah, not really.

    Testing CPUs in Sniper Elite 4, Cinebench or Blender is good for reviewing CPUs, but it shows nothing to people playing mainstream games, that's the point I'm trying to make here.
    Funny you mention those games.

    DOTA 2 is actually mostly on parity and CS:GO is actually on par or better than Intel right now.

    Good thing we can see that you've seen 0 reviews.

    I haven't been able to find an Overwatch/Apex Legends/PUBG/WoW yet however but PUBG was specifically mentioned so should be on parity as well.

    Try again, this time actually watch reviews.
    "A quantum supercomputer calculating for a thousand years could not even approach the number of fucks I do not give."
    - Kirito, Sword Art Online Abridged by Something Witty Entertainment

  8. #328
    Quote Originally Posted by Thunderball View Post
    It's also really good in Cinebench. Does it help people who play Dota 2, CS:GO, Overwatch, Apex Legends, PUBG, WoW? Yeah, not really.

    Testing CPUs in Sniper Elite 4, Cinebench or Blender is good for reviewing CPUs, but it shows nothing to people playing mainstream games, that's the point I'm trying to make here.
    Maybe you and I have different definitions of "meh". Also, I am not sure how FPS refers to Cinebench or blender.

  9. #329
    Quote Originally Posted by Gray_Matter View Post
    You keep going back to your calculations from a couple of years back which consisted of a first gen Ryzen and WOW before it's multi-threaded patches. That doesn't make too much sense when comparing the third gen Ryzen's on WOW with an updated engine.
    I can still drop down to ~80 fps in boralus on my 5ghz 8700k when the server is busy after the dx12 multi thread stuff, id hate to see what that number is in the same scenario on a 4.3ghz amd chip.

  10. #330
    Quote Originally Posted by Fascinate View Post
    I can still drop down to ~80 fps in boralus on my 5ghz 8700k when the server is busy after the dx12 multi thread stuff, id hate to see what that number is in the same scenario on a 4.3ghz amd chip.
    That may be true but we don't know for sure unless someone benchmarks it for us. The point is that you quoting some figures from a 2 gen old CPU with a different game engine doesn't mean much for the newly released Ryzen's on the current version of WOW. The difference may be 5% now or the Ryzen could even be faster because the larger cache. We just don't know so pushing out a 30% FPS difference is meaningless.

  11. #331
    Quote Originally Posted by Gray_Matter View Post
    That may be true but we don't know for sure unless someone benchmarks it for us. The point is that you quoting some figures from a 2 gen old CPU with a different game engine doesn't mean much for the newly released Ryzen's on the current version of WOW. The difference may be 5% now or the Ryzen could even be faster because the larger cache. We just don't know so pushing out a 30% FPS difference is meaningless.
    Its going to be lower and not by 5% lol, the clockspeeds alone should clue you into this. I dont doubt that its of course going to be better than 1st and 2nd gen ryzen but that isnt saying much given how poorly they perform in cpu bound situations in WoW compared to highly overclocked intel chips now.

  12. #332
    Quote Originally Posted by Fascinate View Post
    Its going to be lower and not by 5% lol, the clockspeeds alone should clue you into this. I dont doubt that its of course going to be better than 1st and 2nd gen ryzen but that isnt saying much given how poorly they perform in cpu bound situations in WoW compared to highly overclocked intel chips now.
    But now you are guessing. That's the problem. I am not saying that it's faster or slower. It could be either. It's likely to be a bit slower but it will definitely not be slower by 30% like you keep saying. The 3rd gen Ryzens have a 15% IPC gain over the 2nd gen ones. That's ignoring the difference between the first and second gen and the changes to the WOW engine.

  13. #333
    Quote Originally Posted by Gray_Matter View Post
    You keep going back to your calculations from a couple of years back which consisted of a first gen Ryzen and WOW before it's multi-threaded patches. That doesn't make too much sense when comparing the third gen Ryzen's on WOW with an updated engine.
    To be fair, the patch that included better multi-core support (not threading - real cores; it still makes virtually ZERO use of virtual cores) mostly helped bring up minimum framerates. It didn't increase maximums much, even on Intel chips.

    Not that that is a bad thing since guttering minimums was the major issue with WoWs performance.

  14. #334
    Quote Originally Posted by Gray_Matter View Post
    But now you are guessing. That's the problem. I am not saying that it's faster or slower. It could be either. It's likely to be a bit slower but it will definitely not be slower by 30% like you keep saying. The 3rd gen Ryzens have a 15% IPC gain over the 2nd gen ones. That's ignoring the difference between the first and second gen and the changes to the WOW engine.
    Why are you so sure it wont be 30% slower than a 5ghz intel chip? Remember when i did my testing with first gen i massively nerfed my 8700k vs my max overclocked ryzen 1700 at 3.9ghz. I used the exact same memory/timings/gpu etc, and there was a real and repeatable 30-35% difference between the two systems in a busy city. Now with an overclock that number shot up to close to 50% for the 8700k, this is where im getting my 30% number now for 3000 series vs max overclocked intel chips.

    If i had to guess it will probably be somewhere between 20-25% behind a fast intel chip in WoW, surely the larger cache and faster infinity fabric made up a couple percent.

  15. #335
    yeah 9400 is very good gaming value

  16. #336
    The Lightbringer Shakadam's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    3,300
    Quote Originally Posted by Qataqo View Post
    i am 0 impressed with ryzen 3000, even have seen some benchmarks where the i5 9400 outdealed the amd chips, which is crazy when ppl always talk about "price" with amd... you can build a i5 9400 with a good mainboard and 2666mhz cl13 ram for under 300€
    Unless you feel like providing some benchmarks I'm gonna highly doubt that claim, considering Gamersnexus had the Ryzen 3600 basically equal to a stock 9600K and the 9400 has a significantly lower clock speed.

  17. #337
    The Lightbringer Ahovv's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,015
    Quote Originally Posted by Fascinate View Post
    Why are you so sure it wont be 30% slower than a 5ghz intel chip? Remember when i did my testing with first gen i massively nerfed my 8700k vs my max overclocked ryzen 1700 at 3.9ghz. I used the exact same memory/timings/gpu etc, and there was a real and repeatable 30-35% difference between the two systems in a busy city. Now with an overclock that number shot up to close to 50% for the 8700k, this is where im getting my 30% number now for 3000 series vs max overclocked intel chips.

    If i had to guess it will probably be somewhere between 20-25% behind a fast intel chip in WoW, surely the larger cache and faster infinity fabric made up a couple percent.
    Dude just stop talking out your ass and wait to see proper benchmarking like the rest of us. There are many unexpected nuances with hardware. Sometimes a game which favors AMD will suddenly favor Intel on a new chip, and vice-versa. Like, ya know, how Ryzen 3000 is ahead of Intel now on CS:GO.

  18. #338
    Quote Originally Posted by Shakadam View Post
    Unless you feel like providing some benchmarks I'm gonna highly doubt that claim, considering Gamersnexus had the Ryzen 3600 basically equal to a stock 9600K and the 9400 has a significantly lower clock speed.
    Actually they all-core boost to around the same clock, or awfully close to it.

    The 9400 has a low base clock, but will all-core turbo to 4.0 IIRC. Which is roughly where the 9600K will all-core turbo to.

    Mind, you can OC that 9600K to 4.8-5.0ghz pretty reliably, but 'base' performance without user interference, a 9600K that isn't overclocked really isnt much better than the 9400.

    How the two compare to Ryzen 3000, i have no idea, i honestly have looked yet, been too busy trying to figure out why my rig was imploding.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray_Matter View Post
    Someone indicated recently that Intel said only 5% of Intel K CPU users overclock. It may be why they released the overclock tool. This does seem likely because most customers are buying prebuilt systems.
    Honestly im surprised its even that high.

    A lot of people just buy the K-SKU for the faster base and boost clocks. A lot of people (even DIYers) put them on non-OC chipsets.

  19. #339
    Brewmaster Skylarking's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Centrelink
    Posts
    1,327
    Is there a big difference in terms of gaming with the b450 and x470 boards?

  20. #340
    Quote Originally Posted by Fascinate View Post
    Unless you play WoW of course and those numbers are 75hz vs 100 and that is a huge difference in gameplay feel. Its really just as bad as 60hz vs 144hz, i think most people with a 144hz+ monitor would agree with me here, once you get around 100 anything higher kind of doesnt matter.
    Do you still raid in WoW ?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •