fatslob-:O said:
Maybe he's playing with older games where AMD currently isn't all that great now or doing some console emulation where AMD is really painful ? If he's only looking at the performance of recent AAA titles with the latest graphics technology then I'd be inclined to agree with you that there's no rational reason to exclude AMD in that instance ... (especially when the said AAA game has a DX12 or Vulkan backend) |
That's possible, and with Intel they may be able to get a decent experience either way going forward. I was more so focusing on the point they made about being ready for next gen consoles yet being against a new AMD rig, while upcoming games should run just fine if not superb on an AMD system.
| fatslob-:O said: I'm not sure I see the deal in throwing away a relatively solid foundation because even by next generation standards in all likelihood his CPU will still be decent and then he has an option of overclocking it by adding another +1GHz clock speed which will make it very competitive with next generation systems since games still rely a lot on single threaded performance. I don't see much reason to be all that scared about 8 cores when they'll likely have ~30% lower clock potential ... (good chance that he'll still hit 60FPS for next gen since 8 Zen 2 cores clocked at 3GHz+ is a relatively high standard even in the PC space so developers will just aim lower) Other than his graphics card or system RAM, I wouldn't touch anything else ... |
Yup. I'd stick with the rig for now if it's not giving them a hard time and see what the next consoles officially end up with and what their game performance is like, and then decide what to do. If they choose to stick with this rig, a CPU OC, some more RAM, and a newer GPU would do the trick. Might as well wait a year or more on that RAM and GPU and save themselves a bunch of money. An Nvidia 2000 series or Radeon 5000 series GPU should be much cheaper around the time the consoles launch.
