LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksIntel is better if you're trying to game like this:
at 9000 fps.
Intel is better if you're trying to game like this:
at 9000 fps.
Which amusingly makes my 5 year old FX8350 more relevant. Which is good, I can see it being handed down to my son before long ago who is happily gaming on a 955BE despite general internet opinion seeming to think that is impossible.Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
Not surprising since I know a few people still stuck on FX6300/Phenom II X6 CPUs and yet at LANs they still seem OK with the games we run. That FX8350 might be not anything special performance wise but the consoles are running CPUs 1.6GHZ~2.3GHZ,with similar IPC cores.
Sure the latest 5.2GHZ Core i7 might be "better",but the issue with the internet,is the same with cars too. Reviewers go on how a particular car with "only" 300BHP is "slow" compared to some 600BHP model since the "crapper" one "only" does 0 to 60MPH in 5.5 seconds with 150MPH top speed,and the "better" one does 0 to 60MPH in 3.5 seconds with 190MPH top speed. However,most people are probably on some Focus,etc which is lucky to even have 150BHP and most people are stuck under 100MPH anyway. OFC lets forget how many people would be able to handle a car with 300BHP,let alone 600BHP,right??
Hence,the same with CPUs and GPUs,just because CPU A is slower than CPU B makes it instantly "unplayable" apparently in games with 10s of millions of players,who are running it on some laptop or a prebuilt PC with a low clockspeed CPU,probably running with single channel RAM,since the OEM skimped on it. Oh,also most likely running an HDD or "slow" OEM SSD if lucky.
Then you have all the people on tech forums,saying how the latest Intel Core i7 8700K at 5GHZ is better than a "crap" 4GHZ Ryzen 7 or "crap" 4.5GHZ Haswell CPU,I then look at my old IB based Xeon E3 1230 V2 and think I wish I had one of the "crap" CPUs they are talking about.
Its like with apparently GTX1070/GTX1080/Vega 56/Vega 64 level performance being "crap" since there is a GTX1080TI and Titan V. Yet,I don't know anyone who has a card faster than a GTX1070 or those with a Core i7 who even bothered to overclock it.
Its the same with SSDs,its "only" SATA3,and not a PCI-E one,so its instantly fail. Yet,my main boot drive is on a SATA2.0 port and it was one I won in 2012 on Hexus. Seems to be perfectly fine! I tried newer SSDs on SATA3.0,and for general boot performance,etc I couldn't tell a difference.
It makes me wonder how I managed for the last 15 years or so,to play almost all the AAA games I really wanted to play at decent settings and yet not having an overclocked £350 CPU and a £1000 graphics card. The same goes with so many gamers I know out there too.
Don't get me wrong a £350 CPU and a £1000 graphics card would be nicer than cheaper options,but there is a difference between nicer and unplayable just because you use cheaper or older hardware.
Oh well,I am definitely not PCMR apparently! I must be one of those dirty casuals!
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 15-04-2018 at 11:48 PM.
...SO a music producer last year was claiming intel cpus (new gen Skylake etc) can do the sensitive sound effects more fluid on Audition, Fruity Loops etc because some how AMD cpus (Ryzen) cannot keep up with the high data flow which end up messing the sound clips. Is this a valid argument? that if you are into sensitive stuff simply ditch any AMD processor!
Not really. Using an Intel cpu should be faster as they are floating point monsters, but what is being described here sounds like corruption of samples which is more likely down to motherboard/RAM problems. If you care about that, you should (like me) be running ECC ram which on AMD platforms is easier and cheaper.
Can you link the original article? I don't like seeing claims like that without some paperwork to back it up.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
