So AdoredTV stated and showed hard facts that those 720p benchmarks are meaningless. Did you guys knew that? I certainly didn't. In fact i belived strongly that those low resolution\low setting benchmarks would tell us the future performance of this chip.
4 Likes
I thought they were meaningful, only because someone else on here said so.
3 Likes
That's the internet in a nutshell, have to triple check every written word and in this situation it didn't even mattered, because everybody and their dog was putting those benchmarks out that meant nothing. False information was traded for real facts. GG
1 Like
Low resolution benchmarks shows how much the cpu might not be able to handle the higher fps.
Cant really hit 144fps at 4k yet
Yes maybe but everybody ran with the idea that it represents the longevity of the cpu
He make good points....The low res benchmarks are useful but do not mean much for future proofing. Any new technology needs to mature and concluding that the high-end ryzen are not good gaming CPUs is a very short-sighted conclusion.
5 Likes
IDK, the problem is 1080p is not a low resolution. It is the standard resolution. Especially with how long sandy bridge has lasted, i think a lot of people can justify spending $320-$500 on a new CPU, and not just people with 1440p or higher displays. If they were using 720p i think his complaint is just. But they didn't, they used 1080p, what the vast majority of gamers are using. And just because the results are above 100, it doesn't make it meaningless. In the first person shooter community, fps well in excess of 100 are highly desirable.
1 Like
I hope they're right about the Windows optimization issues. It's not worth it waiting for another 4yrs to vindicate it's gaming performance, I'd rather just get an i5 7600k or i7 7700k now then. You would think AMD would have their Ryzen optimized for Windows before launch but it seems they bit off more than they can chew.
1 Like
It will be stupid to get an 8 core for gaming anyways. In a few months there will be 140$ quad cores on the market, that will offer 80-90% of the 300$ 7700k.. So then we have an argument...
Not to mention the clock speed differences...
Anyways, I still believe R7 are not ment to be gaming cpus, especially not at 1080p... It's like benchmarking 1080Ti at 1080p. You are not spending that much money to play that resolution...
2 Likes
I just hope AMD pushes hard for optimization, because the "it will get better in time" idea only works well if its within a short amount of time. Like he said "4 years later" the 8350 pulled ahead of the 2500k... that's great in all but most people want performance asap. If they can pull off what they are promising within a year then AMD will be golden.
7 Likes
They are good to show how much can get piped through.
IDK, I ordered an AIO for my 2600k, going to hopefully get that to 5Ghz, and then wait for like, a valid reason to upgrade. The 2600k was shockingly close to the 1800k in benchmarks and that was a stock 2600k, and 2600ks overclock so well...
The R7's are not meant to even compete with Z170/270 they're meant to compete with X99, which they completely murk in all bench marks even in their optimized state (aside from a few games like GTA which shows very odd numbers)
The 1800X beats the 6900k (which is still 2x the price atm) in gaming (for the most part) and every productivity test I saw, and over clocks just as well (which means not very well sadly).
Also if you're buying anything more than an i5 you either A need those extra cores and should be going X99 or Ryzen R7, or you're playing at a higher resolution than 1080p, in which case that extra single threaded performance doesn't really mater.
2 Likes
Low res benchmarks are exally pretty usefull if you want to test relative cpu performance in gaming.
To get a proper image on what the actual cpu performance is in gaming,
you need to create a cpu bottleneck.
AMD stating that reviewers should test at high resolutions like 4K.
Basiclly means that they deny the facts here.
Yeah sure showing off 4K gaming benchmarks makes any cpu look good on paper.
They can barelly keep up with Broadwell-E, as long as you dont overclock Broadwell-E.
i disagree, i think they're meant to be a good gaming CPU. I think they're largely being advertised to gamers. And their main competition for gamers is Kaby Lake.
I was looking into buying a Ryzen CPU, i don't need the extra cores and i only have a 1080p monitor and i doubt I was the only one. I want to upgrade my cpu soon. My current cpu is 6 years old. CPU power improvements are slowing even more drastically now, so my next CPU will probably last significantly longer than my current CPU. So i can justify spending a lot of money on it. But in first person shooters, sub 150 fps is highly noticeable, and above 200 is ideal and Ryzen clearly struggles at getting high frame rates while gaming and can't overclock for shit.
2 Likes
I love how you said in one sentence that we must wait for technology to mature before jumping to conclusions - and then you jumped to conclusion about conclusion :D
I am in the same boat as you, except i want to do virtualization.
the R7s are not being marketed towards gaming.
also if you're gaming at 1080p, an overclocked i5 with half decent GPU will get you well over 120fps in most games, even with a 144hz monitor, the few extra FPS from the 7700k vs the 7600k is pointless.
and if a game CAN use many threads (witcher 3 in novigrad) the multi core chip will murk the i7, even a 5820k will.
but ehy vote with your wallet.
2 Likes
Would you buy a Ferrari and then only drive 50km/h? No you would not!
So why would you buy an 8 core cpu and 1440p/4k oriented gpu to then play at 720p?
The realworld-performance thing is out the window. Nobody spends big money to play on the lowest settings.
Actual performance? Is that the "typical gaming"-scenario point again? Because for that, you would have to run the typical stuff you have open while gaming (eg browser with YouTube/Twitch, Musicplayer, Teamspeak/Discord/Skype, Steam/Origin/Battlenet, peripherals software, etc.).
To some extent it makes sense, the naming is just wrong. Call it cpu dick comparison or something. It is not real world, in fact, it is as far away from that as you can get.
3 Likes
yep, thats why they were trying to get reviewers to do benchmarks of games at 4k, because they don't care about the CPU's appeal to gamers.