21–30 of 151 posts
I'm not sure how much it matters but it seems the two systems were running vastly different kernels.
The articles will keep flowing for months/years and it'll become conventional wisdom that Epyc always pummels Intel. Intel marketing must be on Defcon 1.
It will be interesting to see what volume prices are like.
TL:DR "You're getting 24.83% more performance while costing 73.29% less."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to Linus techtips the 3xxx ryzen series is already neck/neck with Intel at CSGO (which is known to normally heavily favor Intel - as a csgo player this is really impressive), and appears to otherwise be competitive in other games. Intel should be very scared. Not to mention the way Intel has crippled different models of their line up just to try to push people to use a more expensive CPU - and seems to have…
Thanks to the price drop on Zen+ due to the Zen 2 release, I recently built a Ryzen 5 2600 system as my new gaming rig. My old gaming machine had a i5-7400, and in pretty much every game the CPU bottleneck has disappeared, especially newer titles. Even older single-core-heavy games like CSGO have greatly improved with the new CPU. Basically every game in my collection can now run at 1440p60 (my monitor's native res)…
I'm not being funny - have you ever found any kind of bottleneck with that CPU? I'm still rocking an i7-4970K + 1080Ti and I have never ever seen the CPU being anywhere close to max load in any game, and I'm mostly playing in 1440p@60fps.
The articles will keep flowing for months/years and it'll become conventional wisdom that Epyc always pummels Intel. Intel marketing must be on Defcon 1.
The only thing holding up Intel at the moment is their gaming IPC. Should AMD crack that then it'll be brutal for them (if it isn't already).
And I am actually considering to combine my NAS and workstation/gaming rig into one "big" Ryzen 3xxx or 3rd gen TR machine and banish it into the basement. Bonus: The NAS finally gets ECC, and if I put in my old GPU and a new GPU, I can have two VMs for game streaming (tried parsec this weekend, and it was really nice!). Only drawback I can see is that I'd have to carry the rig upstairs once every blue moon when I play VR games.
The articles will keep flowing for months/years and it'll become conventional wisdom that Epyc always pummels Intel. Intel marketing must be on Defcon 1.
The only thing holding up Intel at the moment is their gaming IPC. Should AMD crack that then it'll be brutal for them (if it isn't already).
I'm sorry, I'm just not going to buy a 2080ti and run it at 1080p with less-than-maxed out settings, and if I were that crazy, I wouldn't care much about the perceptually irrelevant difference between 110fps and 120 fps (and to be honest, you may have even less relevant differences), and if I found one or two cases where the difference was possibly meaningful, I wouldn't be likely to run with 0 background programs.
I mean, there are cases where it'll be barely noticable, but they're so vanishingly niche, you're not simply a gamer at that point, you're some really specialized breed.
A perhaps more relevant case is stuff like quicksync and AVX 512 - those kind of features really can make a night+day difference, in case you use them. Perhaps less critically, intel's memory latency is still better, so maybe for some L3-cache-size insensitive but latency sensitive workloads you'll find some stuff?
The articles will keep flowing for months/years and it'll become conventional wisdom that Epyc always pummels Intel. Intel marketing must be on Defcon 1.
The only thing holding up Intel at the moment is their gaming IPC. Should AMD crack that then it'll be brutal for them (if it isn't already).
I just bought my first desktop computer in a decade, in part for gaming, and bought all AMD.
CPU was a no-brainer: unless you really really care about top of the line single core performance AMD is much cheaper.
GPU was a bit trickier: again unless you really really care about top of the line GPUs the 5700(XT) are better value. RTX is an interesting sticking point.In the end since we're confident AMD is doing something here (because they are providing the hardware for the next console generation that is going to support RT) and we should know about it in about a year, and first rev tech isn't always a good buy I'm happy to delay getting on the RT train until the specs and support evens out a bit.
tl;dr; unless you want and can afford to overpay for the best of the best AMD is incredibly competitive in gaming
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only thing holding up Intel at the moment is their gaming IPC. Should AMD crack that then it'll be brutal for them (if it isn't already).
Marketing aside: Is the gaming IPC that /practically/ relevant? I mean, I'm gaming on a early-2012 Sandy Bridge CPU (Xeon E3-1235 aka "cheap i7-2600"), and it feels like my late-2013 R9 290 is the limiting factor these days, not the CPU. And I am actually considering to combine my NAS and workstation/gaming rig into one "big" Ryzen 3xxx or 3rd gen TR machine and banish it into the basement. Bonus: The NAS finally get…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks to the price drop on Zen+ due to the Zen 2 release, I recently built a Ryzen 5 2600 system as my new gaming rig. My old gaming machine had a i5-7400, and in pretty much every game the CPU bottleneck has disappeared, especially newer titles. Even older single-core-heavy games like CSGO have greatly improved with the new CPU. Basically every game in my collection can now run at 1440p60 (my monitor's native res)…
>>My old gaming machine had a i5-7400, and in pretty much every game the CPU bottleneck has disappeared I'm not being funny - have you ever found any kind of bottleneck with that CPU? I'm still rocking an i7-4970K + 1080Ti and I have never ever seen the CPU being anywhere close to max load in any game, and I'm mostly playing in 1440p@60fps.
Edit: An example from memory, the very old game Crysis stuttered badly at 1440p with the i5, it was only playable at 1080p (both resolutions with all graphics settings on highest/ultra); this was with the GTX 1060. When I first built the Ryzen system I carried over my GTX 1060, and was able to play that game at 1440p60 smooth as butter. Turning off vsync I was getting close to 100fps, whereas with the i5 and vsync off I was lucky to spike above 70, with average fps somewhere around 30-35. Moving to the RX 580 actually dropped the fps cap slightly with vsync off, but still allowed me to play at 60fps locked for a smoother experience overall.
In general, this was the same experience with all of my older games (Skyrim, Far Cry 2, Mirror's Edge, Rust, etc). With newer multi-core games like Doom 2016 and Far Cry 4 I never had any CPU bottleneck on the i5, and the new system marked an increase in graphic quality without sacrificing smoothness and resolution.