Quantcast
I kicked intel to the curb, I'm a Ryzen boi now.

Forums - PC Discussion - I kicked intel to the curb, I'm a Ryzen boi now.

Pemalite said:

Errrr... Did you miss the part where I stated that 720P panels used to be more popular in the low-end than they are today? Steam statistics does not reflect the current hardware being sold on shelves, it reflects all hardwar that has been sold and currently in use irrespective of era.

Honestly thought you would have understood that.

768P used to be a common desktop resolution in low end TN panels. - The fact that there are hundreds of 768 panels currently on sale on newegg USA is exactly reinforcing that particular idea.

@Bold You know that's a patronizing statement so that needs to stop and objectively speaking 720p is NOT currently in widespread use according Steam statistics ... 

768p USED to be a common desktop resolution but there's only ~200 or so monitors supporting that resolution that are currently being sold on newegg in comparison to over a thousand laptops that support 768pare being sold over there ... 

You'd have to go through the extra length to prove that those 768p steam users are mostly on desktop systems rather than portable systems like laptops ... 

Pemalite said:

Not in all CPU bound scenarios at 720P.

Again, you aren't paying attention to benchmarks. Nearly all of Anandtech's IGP tests were at 720p and the 2400G wipes the floor against EVERY pure Intel parts ... 

Gamers on integrated graphics need not be worried about their CPU performance being a limiting factor, it is their GPU performance that they need to be concerned about ... 

Pemalite said:

And yet... They still going to make that choice and yet... They are still consumers... And yet, the benchmarks presented will be palatable to such a demographic.

That demographic must be extremely tiny or nonexistent in practice ... 

Pemalite said:

See above. Clearly it use useful to some. Just because it's not useful to you, doesn't mean it's not useful to others.

If you can show that there are a sizable portion of users pairing low-end CPUs with high-end GPUs then it might become a useful datapoint but otherwise it's just speculation ... 



Around the Network
fatslob-:O said:

@Bold You know that's a patronizing statement so that needs to stop and objectively speaking 720p is NOT currently in widespread use according Steam statistics ... 

14.73% of polled Steam users have a 720P class panel.
That is widespread enough that it matters, that is more than 4k or 1440P users to put things into perspective.

14.73% against 90~ million monthly active users is 12.6~ million monthly users with a 720P~ class panel, that's not insignificant.

Sources:
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam
https://www.pcgamer.com/au/steam-now-has-90-million-monthly-users/

fatslob-:O said:

768p USED to be a common desktop resolution but there's only ~200 or so monitors supporting that resolution that are currently being sold on newegg in comparison to over a thousand laptops that support 768pare being sold over there ... 

Exactly my damn point. - But it takes awhile for steam statistics to represent change in hardware, people don't throw away their old PC because a new GPU got released you know.

Take a look at the GPU page, there are users still running Radeon 7800~ class GPU's.

fatslob-:O said:

You'd have to go through the extra length to prove that those 768p steam users are mostly on desktop systems rather than portable systems like laptops ... 

Well no. I don't have to do a thing.
Newegg already represented a large amount of 720P panels still being sold. And that is just today.

The fact that portable systems also get bundled with 720P panels doesn't negate that and would also still be a demographic who might be interested in 720P benchmarks anyway, making your argument redundant.

fatslob-:O said:
Pemalite said:

Not in all CPU bound scenarios at 720P.

Again, you aren't paying attention to benchmarks. Nearly all of Anandtech's IGP tests were at 720p and the 2400G wipes the floor against EVERY pure Intel parts ... 

Gamers on integrated graphics need not be worried about their CPU performance being a limiting factor, it is their GPU performance that they need to be concerned about ... 

Are you paying attention? CPU. Not GPU. Some games are going to be more CPU limited than others, especially strategy titles.

fatslob-:O said:

Pemalite said:

And yet... They still going to make that choice and yet... They are still consumers... And yet, the benchmarks presented will be palatable to such a demographic.

That demographic must be extremely tiny or nonexistent in practice ... 

Almost 15% of the Steam userbase.

fatslob-:O said:
Pemalite said:

See above. Clearly it use useful to some. Just because it's not useful to you, doesn't mean it's not useful to others.

If you can show that there are a sizable portion of users pairing low-end CPUs with high-end GPUs then it might become a useful datapoint but otherwise it's just speculation ... 

Doesn't matter how many people there are, it is still useful to some, don't go shifting the goal post.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

JRPGfan said:
SpokenTruth said:
Nobody is saying the 720p tests are for people that game at 720p. It's a CPU test to determine how much of the CPU itself is being used in the games. You can then use that to gauge potential CPU bottlenecks either in multi-application sessions or future CPU intensive games.

Why is this so hard for you some of you grasp?

I think everyone grasps that.

What your not grasping is that it doesnt matter..... in the real world.
Also No two games are the exact same, with demands or optimisations, and you dont know how games in the future will be run (from running old games at 720p).

Also Its a bad way to "gauge cpu bottlenecks".

All you need to do, is look at the 1440p benchmarks with 1% differnce in performance.
Once CPU's reach that point, where the performance between them all is soo small, it means its not the CPU holding anything back anymore.

Now what happens when you upgrade that graphics card.  Which CPU is going to give you the best performance?  Want a way to that can give you a hint?  Eliminate the GPU as a factor which is the whole point of the 720p test.   The fact it is 720p itself is irrelevant.  It's merely a way to isolate the CPU.  

Scenario - Test 2 CPUs at 720p with mid range GPU to isolate the CPU performance in game.   CPU A does 25% better than CPU B.
Now test again at 1440p.  CPU A is now only 1% better than B.  That tells you the GPU is your bottleneck. Upgrade your GPU to something high end and what do you think the CPU difference will be now that the GPU is no longer the bottleneck?

fatslob-:O said:
SpokenTruth said:
Nobody is saying the 720p tests are for people that game at 720p. It's a CPU test to determine how much of the CPU itself is being used in the games. You can then use that to gauge potential CPU bottlenecks either in multi-application sessions or future CPU intensive games.

Why is this so hard for you some of you grasp?

The bold is not true ... 

Having multiple applications don't matter much anymore with multiple cores when games mostly only hit a couple of the threads very hard and future CPU intensive games will likely have better code design so 720p performance today won't necessarily scale to 720p performance in the future ... 

I'm referring to one of those applications being a game. Nor am I even talking about future 720p performance.  See my reply to JRPGfan.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Pemalite said:

14.73% of polled Steam users have a 720P class panel.
That is widespread enough that it matters, that is more than 4k or 1440P users to put things into perspective.

14.73% against 90~ million monthly active users is 12.6~ million monthly users with a 720P~ class panel, that's not insignificant.

Sources:
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam
https://www.pcgamer.com/au/steam-now-has-90-million-monthly-users/

Again, 720p =/= ~720p 'class' ... 

Ironic how you're claiming I'm the one shifting goal posts ... 

Pemalite said:

Exactly my damn point. - But it takes awhile for steam statistics to represent change in hardware, people don't throw away their old PC because a new GPU got released you know.

Take a look at the GPU page, there are users still running Radeon 7800~ class GPU's.

@Bold AFAIC, Steam statistics only lag the market by about 5 years maximum so it's fairly representative of the HW being sold in the market ... 

HD 7800 series only represent 0.3% of all steam users ... 

Pemalite said:

Well no. I don't have to do a thing.
Newegg already represented a large amount of 720P panels still being sold. And that is just today.

The fact that portable systems also get bundled with 720P panels doesn't negate that and would also still be a demographic who might be interested in 720P benchmarks anyway, making your argument redundant.

Yes you absolutely do because 720p CPU benchmarks are irrelevant in the high-end desktop space ... 

If I am to extrapolate the % of desktop steam users by the # monitors sold on newegg with that specific resolution then 768p would probably account for no more than 1% of all desktop steam users and the rest would probably be portable/laptop users ...

Pemalite said:

Are you paying attention? CPU. Not GPU. Some games are going to be more CPU limited than others, especially strategy titles.

You still aren't paying attention to the benchmarks ... 

I have yet to see a case where Intel's CPU gaming performance is actually an advantage for low-end/portable gaming systems and even in strategy games like you say ... 

In modern strategy games such as Ashes or Civ VI, Ryzen with Vega graphics are still running circles around pure Intel parts ... 

Pemalite said:

Almost 15% of the Steam userbase.

With the vast majority of them being on portable systems like laptops ...

Who really cares about CPU performance at that point when just about any modern quad core is good enough ? 

Pemalite said:

Doesn't matter how many people there are, it is still useful to some, don't go shifting the goal post.

Don't go creating a straw man ... 



Yep this gen is the time to jump in if you're on the fence about Ryzen. The 1st and 2nd gen were good but still no match for Intel for purely gaming performance.

The 3600/X is the best bang for the buck CPU imo. 3700/3900 if you have funds, and have make use of all 8/12 cores 16/24 threads.



Around the Network

I'll provide some raw data since everyone likes to compare. Granted I do not own the video but it shows exactly what I'm talking about when in comes to speed, and power. When game developers start optimizing for AMD Ryzen there will finally be good competition.

Talking about competition. Is Intel panicking? They just slashed i9-10980XE by 50%, $979. Makes me wonder why people are spending so much cash. Kudos to AMD for bringing back competition. Source: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-cascade-lake-x-pricing-availability-launch-specifications-10th-generation,40526.html

Intel vs AMD 2019 -- [ 3900X vs 9900K ]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mYWWY9uYU8

TLDW: The R9 have a better IPC than the i9 9900k, and the power consumption for Intel shows it is a full generation behind. i9 9900k may have slight advantage in games, but overall R9 is a more powerful CPU.



deskpro2k3 said:

I'll provide some raw data since everyone likes to compare. Granted I do not own the video but it shows exactly what I'm talking about when in comes to speed, and power. When game developers start optimizing for AMD Ryzen there will finally be good competition.

Talking about competition. Is Intel panicking? They just slashed i9-10980XE by 50%, $979. Makes me wonder why people are spending so much cash. Kudos to AMD for bringing back competition. Source: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-cascade-lake-x-pricing-availability-launch-specifications-10th-generation,40526.html

Intel vs AMD 2019 -- [ 3900X vs 9900K ]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mYWWY9uYU8

TLDW: The R9 have a better IPC than the i9 9900k, and the power consumption for Intel shows it is a full generation behind. i9 9900k may have slight advantage in games, but overall R9 is a more powerful CPU.

Also better for editing, by a country mile, and that's one of my main reasons I'm going Ryzen with my next build. I'd rather have my projects rendered in around 20 mins or less, than 40 mins to an hour or more. 



                                       

Sweet. Am looking into Ryzen 5 and i5. Let's see how things go.