Printable View
The IEEE institute magazine is the only one I ever bother with as it has interesting forward looking research stuff in it, and even then I often just recycle them with hardly a glance. Most print is months out of date by the time it reaches the shops.Quote:
Originally Posted by watercooled
Most computing review sites can't even test simple things like games properly. I still remember when Nvidia introduced its non-deterministic boosting system in Kepler,I could foresee it giving issues,since I knew how reviewers tested games,in open air test rigs in air conditioned offices,with short sequences. Lo and behold,most review sites took weeks after the initial reviews to only cotton on how it was causing issues and had to change how they tested things. TBH,it was not even the fault of Nvidia,as they had indicated how it worked. The reason why AMD caught up was probably not due to drivers IMHO,but more down to how the testing changed.
Then CPU testing games in areas which are not even CPU intensive,since they have not even bothered to actually research the games they were testing. Its why so much testing of FO4 was utterly pointless.
Also remember the Handbrake thread?? That even came out of WTF results from one review site.
Or of course, the classic 'turn resolution down to 800x600 because it's representative of future performance LOL'. Which, predictably, turned out to be utter nonsense.
Yep,1080p I could understand but then they make games which are not really CPU limited,look CPU limited and then games which are CPU limited,they don't test properly so the tests mean nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by watercooled
Even to this day very few test sites bother testing more than one area in a game,let alone showing the test sequence so you don't know what they are testing!!
It was like with the DX12 and Vulkan testing done which was utterly fail in many cases. Lets test it with the fastest CPU possible,when you should be testing with weaker CPUs which is where DX12/Vulkan helps.
So WoW got a DX12 update which does not work on Nvidia graphics card,but still Nvidia in DX11 is faster after Computerbase.de tested it:
https://www.computerbase.de/2018-07/...x-12-1920-1080
However,it would be nice if they used proper scales.
https://i.imgur.com/2306qux.png
https://i.imgur.com/cminm4F.png
Even though the RX580 is registering less FPS,look at the frametime plots - the GTX1060 graph if magnified for DX11 seems to show it see-sawing,whereas the RX580 seems to be somewhat flatter,however Computerbase.de have used different scales for both graphs even though they are the same physical size. So 70 vs 30(factor of 2.33) on the y axis and 1.813 and 1.432(factor of 1.27) on the x axis.
If you equate the scales together.
https://i.imgur.com/TBUdnCX.png
Also something else even more intriguing. It seems WoW looks very CPU limited on the GTX1080 under DX11(Core i7 8700K is 19% faster than a G4560),whereas the Vega64 under DX12 looks mostly GPU limited(Core i7 8700K is 5% faster than a G4560).
I would love to see some additional testing during raids which is where the game is mostly CPU limited.
Some of the comments about the RX580 seem weird:
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...omment-7273018
They say the RX580 "needs" a higher end CPU to perform,but look on YT,etc and there are tons of videos,showing otherwise,and then saying the RX580 gets driver optimisations later?? Look at Destiny 2 for example - launch day performance on AMD cards was fine. Something like WoW?? It seems a rather vague statement TBH!
You can get some oddities, like the minimum frame rates here on a Vega 64 coupled with a 2200G: https://www.bit-tech.net/reviews/amd...00g-reviews/6/Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
and whilst you wouldn't build a setup that unbalanced from scratch, until I update the CPU in my system that is sort of what mine has evolved into. Average frame rates in VR are clearly higher than with my old R9 380, yet somehow Elite Dangerous feels worse (though I hadn't played for a while so that might be something in the 3.0 or later update).
There are plenty of videos where an rx580 with a G4560 or Core i3 8100 still is faster than a GTX1060.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
It's the same with FO4 - I am CPU limited but drops are more noticeable at times since the average is now higher. I have had a GTX960,RX470 and GTX1080 - minimums are the same.
So if I am at a constant 60FPS and I suddenly get to 30FPS it's more noticeable than say 40FPS to 30FPS.
I'm seeing a lot of articles claiming Intel is abandoning/giving up on Phi. I'm wondering if that's perhaps a little unfair? They're discontinuing a fair chunk of their products without a replacement which is admittedly a bold move, but they're still producing some variants?
I also wonder if their GPU development renders some of the lineup redundant, though that's likely still a while off yet so I doubt that's a significant reason. 10nm still being unsuitable for mass production, particularly for huge monolithic dies like Phi probably has a lot to do with it, but that hasn't stopped them from doing refresh after refresh on the CPU side?
Probably a good idea to take this with a few truck loads of salt but if true it would be something.
Quote:
AMD's Zen 2, 7 nm Chips to Feature 10-15% IPC Uplift, Revised 8-core per CCX Design
BTW,I am going to ignore Buildzoid from now onwards,as even though he is knowledgeable he is pushing way too much hyperbole about Ryzen motherboards and its causing more issues than its solving. The guy is literally making people on forums like OcUK and Reddit think they need £150 motherboards to run a Ryzen 5 even at stock or with a mild overclock otherwise the VRMs will go kaput,when they are hardly an FX8350 FFS.
This is despite plenty of sub £1400 prebuilt systems from OcUK,HP,Acer,etc running Ryzen 5 and even some Ryzen 7 systems with motherboards like this:
Asus Prime B350-Plus(4+2 phase VRMs with cooling)
Asus Prime B350M-A(4+2 phase VRMs with no cooling)
or this:
https://i.imgur.com/cBsSKTY.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/cBsSKTY.jpg
https://support.hp.com/us-en/document/c05634309
https://support.hp.com/us-en/product...ment/c05521044
He is literally making Ryzen look more expensive than it needs to be,and at the same time hardly anyone is putting effort into looking at lower end Z370 and B360 motherboards which probably suffer from the same "issues".
It wouldn't surprise me a lot of lurkers look at all the paranoia around the B450 motherboards,etc and then not bother with Ryzen,ie,they "need" a £150+ motherboard,expensive RAM,etc since they can hear nothing bad about a £70 B360 motherboard and Core i5 8400 combo which will cost much less.
What's buildzoid? Google shows results for Gamersnexus - if they're the same thing, I've never paid much attention to them anyway, I found they often get weird results compared to other places, complain about everything even when it's a storm in a teacup (as seems to be the case here), and are yet another site to induce facepalms when they get technical details wrong.
He is YouTuber who analyses VRMs on motherboards,etc so is a useful source of information,but at the same time its like saying a £100 500W PSU which gets 9.8 on JG is better than a £45 500W which "only" gets 8.9,and that you must look at the £100 since it scores higher. Sure the £100 PSU is better when pushed,but its not like the £45 will necessarily be useless for a lot of builds.Quote:
Originally Posted by watercooled
I seriously get the impression too many tech reviewers think everyone who builds a PC wants to get an overclocked Core i7 8700K or a Ryzen 7 2700X. Just because a cheaper motherboard cannot take an overvolted 105W TDP Ryzen 7 doesn't mean its not suitable for someone running a Ryzen 5. After all how many motherboards couldn't take an FX9370 or FX9590 but would work fine with an FX6300 or FX6350 for years??
Another good quarter for AMD:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/am...eat-2018-07-25
TBH I find that attitude is quite common on the net - some people refuse to accept that anything less the top-end parts have their place. Plenty will convince you that anything less than a fancy brand of tool is useless and not worth buying, which is plain money wasting if you're only going to use it once or occasionally. Just throwing money at a problem, particularly when it's totally unnecessary, really isn't as smart as people like to pretend.