FPS-Russia

You can build a sick Windows XP machine with a CRT monitor and all.

I found people with >20k post are just spammers who I have no clue what they are talking about most of the time and just reply to every single thread and then argue and wreck the thread when they are wrong. 

Like i said, it really depends.. Some games are very "hungry" and dont look good. Others look awesome, and run on any machine well
 
I would say, RX 480 / GTX 1060 are perfectly fine for 1080p maxed out. However, some settings can look 0.5% better, but cost 40% performance. In some games, you might have to set 1 or 2 settings down to the 2nd highest, and that's it. For example, Witcher's Hairwork etc.
 
But almost all games should run maxed out in smooth 60 fps.

This is the only GTA: SA PC cheat I remember. I was more of a PS2 player.

Someone sucked up their hamster in their alienware.

I never liked his old name, but his new name is kinda meh too. 
 
"EDIT Thanks for the feedback all. Totally get what you guys are saying about how the capitalization looks on YouTube, so I'll consider switching the display name to BitWit. Glad I can always count on your candor " - Kyle, 2016.
He has now capitalized the B and W

Damn , Not sure i like it , Catchy tho

Indeed. Nitwit is a mild insult, along the lines of "idiot" "moron" or "imbecile".

NitWit. - English slang i think?
 

Sounds like one of those "grow your channel" people gave him some terrible advise.

I laugh. 10/10.

Hold on, Hold on. if this thread is a rant against Nvidia, why is the title 'Why i will never buy another AMD'?

OP changed the title from Nvidia to AMD for some obscure reason.

Well the i5 are the weakest link in a lot of more intense games, thus causing a bottleneck with high end GPUs so if they are going to spend the money on a high end GPU they might as well get a higher end CPU to balance the computer out

Why you say that the 6900K is handicapped, they both run on 3.0Ghz. even the Engineering sample was running at 3.2/3.7 Boost (same as stock 6900). Its clearly an IPC benchmark. and the results are exciting, maybe some competition atlast.

You guys are 100% missing the point.
Its not a handicapped 6900k, they're not saying "Hey, this product we're showcasing here is just as fast as the 6900k!" What they're saying, and I quote here is "...The point of the demonstration was to showcase the IPC improvements of Zen"
All of amd's previous cpu launches have had awful ipc compared to intel. Clock per clock, core per clock, they lost every time. Now they have a product with what they're claiming is a higher ipc, and that's massive. Okay, maybe not massive, but it sure as shit should give intel a kick in the pants and actually force them to advance their own damn chips on the consumer end. That's what this release is about; not anything like saying that its better than a 6900k, they never claimed it to be except when compared clock per clock, core per core. 
 
That also means that, if this cpu is capable at running at the same speeds as a 6900k normally, then it would be faster than it. However, the way that they decided to display this information, I think its very likely going to mean that the consumer chip from amd is going to have a lower clock speed than the 6900k.

I think you're both missing the point.
The point was not that AMD is gimping the 6900K to make the new Zen octacore look better. The point is that the new AMD chip with 8 cores at 3GHz beats the new Intel chip with 8 cores at 3GHz, meaning that the AMD chip supposedly has better IPC as the clockspeed and core count are the same. They're clocking down the 6900K to make the results more comparable.
 
Inb4 I get called an AMD fanboy for this

IPC was their main problem in the previous generation and no it does not lower the IPC. IPC means Instructions per Cycle (1 hertz) that means whether the clockspeed is lower or higher it does not make a difference in the actual IPC count.

" what they're claiming is a higher ipc "
" they never claimed "
"  if this cpu is capable ..."
Never said any of it was true, was just correcting a misconception.   I agree though, we do need to wait to see third party reviews of the hardware.
 
 
You seem to not understand what IPC is, or even actually means. Single threaded performance is based off of two things mainly; thread clock speed, and thread ipc.
IPC means the amount of instructions a thread can perform per clock. IPC does NOT change with clock speed; single threaded performance does though, because it is based off of clock speed, and ipc of that thread.
 
If this cpu that amd was showcasing was run at the same 3.2-4ghz as a sotck 6900k, no matter the clock speed, it would be faster so long as there is no bias in the testing software; because it has a higher ipc, it can complete more instructions per clock, per thread.
For simplicities sake, lets say that the 6900k has an ipc of 4, it can complete 4 instructions every cycle, and its running at 4ghz, or 4,000,000,000 cycles/second... meaning it can complete 16,000,000,000 instructions in one second. This theoretical amd cpu however has an ipc of 5, and is running at 4ghz, meaning its capable of completing 20,000,000,000 instructions per second. Because the base ipc of the thread is faster on this theoretical amd cpu, it will always have better performance when compared clock per clock, thread per thread.
 
Once again... Because amd decided to release this data like this, and present it in this fashion, almost definitely means it will not release to US at those clock speeds, but slightly slower. And if this data is correct, then yes it would mean that when run at the same speed, it performs slightly faster, but when both run at their stock speeds it would fall a little ways behind, but they're not saying that it WONT do that; that's not what this release was saying at all.

You people are unnecesarily bashing AMD. Why in the world would you say that they "gimped" a 6900K?
 
If your statement was correct, they would have tested both in cinebench and said "Our Summit Ridge Zen 8c/16t CPU is faster than Intel's Broadwell-E 6900K! We're awesome" and "forgot" to mention that they downclocked the 6900K to 3gHz for those tests.
 
 
The point of this test was to showcase IPC improvements made in Zen, that it's really 40% faster IPC-wise than Excavator. Their test CPU was at 3gHz, the only Broadwell-based CPU that features 8 cores and 16 threads is the 6900K. To showcase IPC improvements, they HAD to dowcnlock it to the same levels (provided that they were unable to reach 6900K clocks with the engineering sample they showcased).
 
Zen is still not a finished product. They've probably got only engineering samples now. They might not overclock well, maybe they just couldn't get it to 4gHz for example? Have you even thought about that? Or have you gone straight to hating on AMD as usual?
 
Besides, IPC does not get lower with clockspeed. IPC is IPC, clock speed is clock speed. Higher clock speed = more performance, but IPC stays the same, at least AFAIK.

lol fanboy much?
 
no, you are  again just acting as a mahoosive troll, spreading bullshit intentionally.
 
Lower clocks does not lower IPC
IPC stands for "Instructions per clock/cycle"... meaning this is how much you can do PER MHz... If you lower clocks you get lower CORE PERFORMANCE. But IPC is a fixed constant and does not change with clocks.

This is the same. Looking at the showcase, Zen has higher IPC than Broadwell. And my point still stands, you're wrong here because if Zen is faster at 3gHz, it will still be faster at 4gHz and 5gHz than Broadwell.
 
Both architectures are SMT, what makes you think that the Broadwell CPU will magically scale better?

Impressive, I am skeptical... but damn AMD!... very nice. 
 
IPC equaling Broadwell is not what I expected at all.

I already told you this THREE TIMES:
 
Zen is not a finished product, its Engineering Samples, as the one shown in that showcase might not be CAPABLE of hitting 4gHz yet, thus they needed to downclock the 6900K. Did you think of that? Or did your AMD-hate take over too soon?

Are you sure? If a zen chip is for example 300Mhz slower but 200 dollars cheaper you really wouldn't get one?
 
Clockspeed isn't everything, if it has a nice price tag i don't care if it's from AMD or Intel.