New
#40
Don't really care about Ryzen, but I do care about competition and it looks like AMD finally can compete in the CPU market.
Don't really care about Ryzen, but I do care about competition and it looks like AMD finally can compete in the CPU market.
Now that I think is an excellent point.........I have to wonder on why the motherboard shortages also........something just smells a little fishy to me......[B said:
I do hope that when the dust settles that AMD will have a big winner on the court; the credible competition will benefit us consumers....
Are games really taking advantage of these cpu's. Maximum PC just wrote an article stating no difference in frame rates from lowly $80 intel cpus to core i5's and core i7's. That's right, no frame rate difference at all. .
You've made your disdainment for high end PCs highly known throughout your stay in these forums (7, 8, 10). I can point to a number of posts on that. That said, not everyone is interested in the everyday ho-hum PC. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
If one wants the most powerful chip for their systems to play games or do rudimentary tasks, why is that a problem? Heck, 99.9 percent of us don't take full advantage of the systems we have today. Should we all go back the old one core processors of yesterday and be happy?
The fact that Maximum PC states that means nothing to the masses considering Maximum PC HIGHLY promotes high end gear. That while they typically do budget setups, they also promote high end gaming systems as well. In fact, if you read some of the ratings on the gear they review or suggest, very little, if any on the low end side gets a high rating. I know, I read Maximum PC all the time. Maximum PC is simply playing both sides of the coin.
My two cents.
Last edited by sygnus21; 03 Mar 2017 at 15:48. Reason: correct spelling - disdainment
Too many are still taking single thread games as a point but that's not true any more. Try running BF1 for instance on a lowly dual core.
Exactly, today's games are not your grandfather's games of yesterday and are becoming incredibly complex. Here's a complete remake of Skyrim - Special Edition. Check out the system requirements...
Minimum
Windows 7/8.1/10 (64-bit Version)
Intel i5-750/AMD Phenom II X4-945
8 GB RAM
12 GB free HDD space
Nvidia GTX 470 1GB /AMD HD 7870 2GB
Recommended
Windows 7/8.1/10 (64-bit Version)
Intel i5-2400/AMD FX-8320
8 GB RAM
12 GB free HDD space
Nvidia GTX 780 3 GB /AMD R9 290 4 GB
And as any gamer knows, "recommended" is the new "minimum". And no one would max out Skyrim with those "recommended" specs and get decent frame rates throughout the game.
And, yes, though games are more optimized for GPU's than CPU's, some would cause a bottleneck with lower end CPU's than mid to upper end ones.
I think Game Developers have to create the games for the lowest end of the spectrum. I've read a lot recently saying that since multi core CPUs are becoming more common, the developers are starting to develope more games that will take advantage of the extra cores. It seems to me we are starting to see that now.
Just look at BF1 requirements.
Core i7-4790 4-Core 3.6GHz
FX-8350
Login
GeForce GTX 1060
Radeon RX 480 4GB
Login
4 GB
16 GB
Win 10 64
DX 11.1
50 GB
I couldn't even fire it up with my system
http://www.game-debate.com/games/ind...attlefield%201
I'll admit that most of what I do never touches most of the cores I have, but I do some things that use them all. Probably not enough to justify the cost though. But, I have just always prefered to have them and not need them to needing them and not have them.