The Ryzen 1800X: AMD's Brand New Flagship

Also yes lol

Just out of curiosity, I have a 144Hz 1080p monitor, but would I be able to see a difference between 60fps and 144fps? I mean sure, 30fps is not smooth in my opionion but everything above 50fps appears smooth to me.

Realistically?
It won't matter unless you play CS:GO or similar twitch shooters.
In most other games... it barely matters.

Honestly 75Hz starts to be about the point at the output sample rate of a monitor already starts to exceed human 'persistence of vision' limits. Any faster and it just also looks smooth to cats and dogs. Cats and Dogs btw can essentially, and this is simplifying things a bit, see 'faster' than us. So your 60Hz TV really just looks like a flickering (and very annoying) light to them most of the time, unless you go up to higher sample rates. ;)

2 Likes

Just realised I contradicted myself. Earlier I said:

But, a few posts later I say:

So what is it now? My opinion is still the same as in the first post, in the second I just chose my words poorly. While a 7700k is faster in gaming than a 1800X it does not destroy it. My goal in the second post was to show that cores might become much more important, just like in the mentioned i5 2500k vs. FX 8350 case.
I don't know if anyone else noticed my mistake, but it bugged me^^

Definitely going to be my next cpu / platform as I miss having a beastly workstation.

Slight tangent.. and its hypothetical :D

If pc doesnt get its act together regarding dx12 / vulcan by the launch of the Scorpio and If Scorpio is indeed zen running (even just an r5, 4 core 8 thread) on close to the metal api, it will take a significantly more powerful pc to keep up unless pc's are properly using the newer api's by then.

Too many if's..

Is it too much to ask for better written software?

2 Likes

Hmm I wonder how much the server parts will be. Probably need a new server before I need a new gaming rig.

I don't know where you heard this but that is false. Humans can most certainly see higher than 75hz. We have not been able to come close to the level of fps the human eye sees in.

I'm guessing it had to do with power consumption. I think they may have assumed that Intel was just going to beat them in terms of perf per watt, so they didn't attempt to fight. Plus they were having all those yield problems with GloFo's process it, so probably wasn't practical to manufacture even bigger chips.

Plus, even in multi-threaded applications the Opterons were generally not as good as Xeon's, and if using proprietary software that was licenced per core made them unattractive financially.

I know its only my opinion but I think it makes a lot of sense if your tech minded to tinker to get a 1700 and a AIO water cooler. Overclock it to 3.8-4.0 (silicon lottery). Sure you dont get pure raw max 1080p FPS but still totally playable arguably excellent FPS and at higher resolutions becomes less of an issue. General productivity will destroy the 7700K and with a little bit of future speculation games will need more cores.

We're talking 10-20% some times FPS differences but the FPS being talked about are usually 100+ FPS figures. If you think my old man brain and a few beers is going to tell the difference between 180FPS and 165 FPS your think very highly of me :)

4 Likes

Any conversation on the supposed "framerate" that a human eye can see will inevitably lead to anger and name calling. The human physiology is complex and not yet fully understood. Human eyes do not see in "frames-per-second." They operate very differently. Because of this, any attempt to quantify human sight into frames-per-second leads to dramatically contradictory numbers. In one test conducted by the U.S. Air Force, pilots watched a blank screen that occasionally posted a single frame of an aircraft silhouette. The pilots were tasked with identifying the aircraft from that single frame. They did so reliably. The monitor had a refresh rate well over 200 Hz. Yet, in other tests, people can't tell the difference between 120Hz and 60Hz displays. Yet, in other tests, professional gamers have been able to tell the difference reliably and immediately. Our eyes are incredibly complex and very impressive, but different tests lead to dramatically different results.

1 Like

Our view on the world is totally in our mind. Focus on a word in the middle of a paragraph on this thread and tell me you can read the post while looking at the word in the middle. We can not even see clearly outside of the middle of our vision.

The brain is a huge filter that removes most of our senses all the time unless it thinks there is a threat or food etc we need to consciously know about. Hence the pilots see the predator.

Sure life is at quantium fps but human reaction times are still a fixed quantity. If you put a new frame on the screen at 24 FPS and 240 FPS with an enemy going to kill you. You are going to lag in your human brain quote google.

Here it is! The average reaction time for humans is 0.25 seconds to a visual stimulus, 0.17 for an audio stimulus, and 0.15 seconds for a touch stimulus.

What matters is the game feels fluid and not crap to us. When a game shows clear stuttering our brain goes this is not fast enough. Hence the 90 FPS VR or you feel sick etc.

The brain most certainly is a filter, which is my point. The brain is weird. There have been documented cases where people with multiple personalities have needed glasses while their other personalities haven't. All I am trying to say is any attempt to quantify human eyesight into Frames-per-Second is a vast oversimplification of the issues at hand. An average, untrained person, submitted to the Air Force test might see white dot but would probably not be able to confidently determine if it was even an aircraft.

The brain can be trained. Reaction times can vary significantly depending upon the person and the activity. A world class racecar driver would have excellent reaction times in a car but fairly bad reaction times in any activity with which he isn't familiar. I would argue that professional video game players can indeed react fast enough to use refresh rates beyond what would be useful for me.

Seeing an aircraft silhouette against a blank screen has almost nothing in common with a Dota 2 player reacting to the first frame of a blinking Sand King. My entire point is that any attempt to quantify human eyesight into Frames-per-Second is a vast oversimplification of the issues at hand.

1 Like

I dont have the answer eitther. I agree it is more than simple FPS and win

yeah... hehe... Didn't quite mean to wall-of-text there. Just felt like it should be mentioned.

On another note, (y'know... the note that started the thread... ? Ryzen CPUs?) I am expecting to have my Ryzen 7 1700 system running by April 10th (mobo ships the 29th). Really looking forward to it.

2 Likes

I cant fault you on picking the 1700 :) ... Seems MB and ram need to to picked as a pair. You want max speed ie 3200 if possible to get that CPU fabric working fast.

1 Like

I kinda wish I had known that before I ordered my RAM... but I didn't. Not a big deal as I plan on upgrading the system over time anyway.

Interstingly enough, I think I've heard that we are better at recognising movement outside of the area we are focusing. The reason for that is to be aware of poissble (predatory) dangers. I've also noticed that when looking at old TVs directly they appear decently fluid, while looking somewhere else, with the TV being almost ourside of your vision, makes it a flickering mess.

1 Like