Jump to content

Vega FE Hybrid Mod - Passing the 1080 but 400W+ Power Draw

Hunter259
4 minutes ago, bomerr said:

I don't believe you

Compelling start to your argument. /s

 

4 minutes ago, bomerr said:

the reason why is A) benchmarks, which you consider old okay...

So, you refuse to accept newer benchmarks because they conflict with your belief?  Many of the benchmarks that showed the large discrepancy, were done at launch on a brand new architecture.  Just as with Skylake-X, it caused unforeseen performance issues that has been rectified in a number of titles, through updates.

 

6 minutes ago, bomerr said:

B) I just overlocked my CPU from 4.2 to 4.6 GHz and even only hitting ~70% cpu load, my FPS increased so games do benefit from higher single threaded performance right now

I never said that some games didn't, though more and more games are becoming multi-threaded beyond the artificial 4-core limitation that Intel has imposed on the market.  Games that are more single-threaded or only lightly multi-threaded will perform better on the 7700k.  I never claimed that Ryzen was faster, just that the gap is not as large as you claimed.  Not anymore, at least.  You're arguing against a strawman of your own devising.

 

8 minutes ago, bomerr said:

C) Kaby Lake performs better in gaming than Skylake-X because the architecture better maximizes single score performance. 

That's not technically accurate.  It's more because the games have been optimized for Intel's standard design.  Skylake-X - like Ryzen - is a significant departure from that design philosophy.  It will require time to optimize games to take advantage of it.  Some of that has already taken place, and I'm confident more will happen as time progresses.

 

If you need a TL;DR, I don't deny that the 7700k is the faster CPU for gaming, my only objection was the amount of the performance gap you stated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jito463 said:

 

 

If you need a TL;DR, I don't deny that the 7700k is the faster CPU for gaming, my only objection was the amount of the performance gap you stated.

I said Ryzen was worse for gaming then you said "no it wasn't" then I provided refuted then, then you made this long post trying to refute me and end up by agreeing that 7700k and single threaded performance matters for gaming... okay m8. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, bomerr said:

To be fair Ryzen is a failure for gaming. It has single threaded score of ~20% less than the 7700k and consistently preforms worse in gaming then the 7700k. The place where Ryzen excels is multithreaded applications as it's a far metter buy than X299. 

Ryzen is just fine for gaming at it's price

CPU: Intel i7 7700K | GPU: ROG Strix GTX 1080Ti | PSU: Seasonic X-1250 (faulty) | Memory: Corsair Vengeance RGB 3200Mhz 16GB | OS Drive: Western Digital Black NVMe 250GB | Game Drive(s): Samsung 970 Evo 500GB, Hitachi 7K3000 3TB 3.5" | Motherboard: Gigabyte Z270x Gaming 7 | Case: Fractal Design Define S (No Window and modded front Panel) | Monitor(s): Dell S2716DG G-Sync 144Hz, Acer R240HY 60Hz (Dead) | Keyboard: G.SKILL RIPJAWS KM780R MX | Mouse: Steelseries Sensei 310 (Striked out parts are sold or dead, awaiting zen2 parts)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/15/2017 at 7:19 AM, Misanthrope said:

Fury Nano did this: performance noticeably and greatly suffered. So is either 1080 levels (bit above, bit below) levels of performance at 150 extra watts or similar wattage that drops the card to 1070 performance?

 

Both situations are clear failures imho, after this long.

Yay for delayed response.  For a change, I had a life this weekend and didn't get to computer/interweb that much.

 

I'm not saying completely nerf the thing like the Nano (another card that would benefit from an undervolt).  I'm saying that the cards are very likely capable of running way less voltage than they currently are while maintaining the exact performance they currently have (or improved performance, since undervolted cards are less likely to throttle).

 

My undervolted Fury Nitro performs exactly the same if not a touch better than stock, with no changes to clockspeeds or power limits at all, while sucking down a ton less power.  I'm currently just running it at stock clocks with the undervolt, but I actually have some room to for higher clocks at the same (75mV lower than stock) voltage.  That tells me that there were some crap Fiji silicon that was hitting a voltage wall at stock clockspeeds, while plenty of other silicon was totally fine.

 

Early RX480's were the same way.  Running tons of extra voltage to maximize yields, which would then suck down power and thermal throttle badly.

 

Set aside the chips that want lots of voltage in order to hit speed targets, downclock until they're happy, and sell those as the low-power or cut down sku's.  Then run a more appropriate voltage/clockspeed on your other chips.

 

Edit, looks like GN played around with undervolting their Vega FE:

 

SFF-ish:  Ryzen 5 1600X, Asrock AB350M Pro4, 16GB Corsair LPX 3200, Sapphire R9 Fury Nitro -75mV, 512gb Plextor Nvme m.2, 512gb Sandisk SATA m.2, Cryorig H7, stuffed into an Inwin 301 with rgb front panel mod.  LG27UD58.

 

Aging Workhorse:  Phenom II X6 1090T Black (4GHz #Yolo), 16GB Corsair XMS 1333, RX 470 Red Devil 4gb (Sold for $330 to Cryptominers), HD6850 1gb, Hilariously overkill Asus Crosshair V, 240gb Sandisk SSD Plus, 4TB's worth of mechanical drives, and a bunch of water/glycol.  Coming soon:  Bykski CPU block, whatever cheap Polaris 10 GPU I can get once miners start unloading them.

 

MintyFreshMedia:  Thinkserver TS130 with i3-3220, 4gb ecc ram, 120GB Toshiba/OCZ SSD booting Linux Mint XFCE, 2TB Hitachi Ultrastar.  In Progress:  3D printed drive mounts, 4 2TB ultrastars in RAID 5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, bomerr said:

I don't believe you and the reason why is A) benchmarks, which you consider old okay... B) I just overlocked my CPU from 4.2 to 4.6 GHz and even only hitting ~70% cpu load, my FPS increased so games do benefit from higher single threaded performance right now and C) Kaby Lake performs better in gaming than Skylake-X because the architecture better maximizes single score performance. 

And kaby lake performs better than sky lake-x because skylake-x is a different architecture from skylake and kabylake or any of the generations prior to it, thus when optimisations are done performance should start to fall in line there after

CPU: Intel i7 7700K | GPU: ROG Strix GTX 1080Ti | PSU: Seasonic X-1250 (faulty) | Memory: Corsair Vengeance RGB 3200Mhz 16GB | OS Drive: Western Digital Black NVMe 250GB | Game Drive(s): Samsung 970 Evo 500GB, Hitachi 7K3000 3TB 3.5" | Motherboard: Gigabyte Z270x Gaming 7 | Case: Fractal Design Define S (No Window and modded front Panel) | Monitor(s): Dell S2716DG G-Sync 144Hz, Acer R240HY 60Hz (Dead) | Keyboard: G.SKILL RIPJAWS KM780R MX | Mouse: Steelseries Sensei 310 (Striked out parts are sold or dead, awaiting zen2 parts)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bomerr said:

I said Ryzen was worse for gaming then you said "no it wasn't" then I provided refuted then, then you made this long post trying to refute me and end up by agreeing that 7700k and single threaded performance matters for gaming... okay m8. 

What is it with people and reading comprehension?  Am I typing too fast for people to read?

11 hours ago, Jito463 said:

You're operating off of old information.  Many games have been updated to provide significantly closer performance numbers, and there's also the Nvidia drivers that don't run as well on Ryzen as they do on Intel.  There's not that large of a gap.

Hmm, I don't see anywhere that I said "no it wasn't".  I stated that you were operating off old info, and that the gap wasn't as large as you claimed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phate.exe said:

Yay for delayed response.  For a change, I had a life this weekend and didn't get to computer/interweb that much.

 

I'm not saying completely nerf the thing like the Nano (another card that would benefit from an undervolt).  I'm saying that the cards are very likely capable of running way less voltage than they currently are while maintaining the exact performance they currently have (or improved performance, since undervolted cards are less likely to throttle).

 

My undervolted Fury Nitro performs exactly the same if not a touch better than stock, with no changes to clockspeeds or power limits at all, while sucking down a ton less power.  I'm currently just running it at stock clocks with the undervolt, but I actually have some room to for higher clocks at the same (75mV lower than stock) voltage.  That tells me that there were some crap Fiji silicon that was hitting a voltage wall at stock clockspeeds, while plenty of other silicon was totally fine.

 

Early RX480's were the same way.  Running tons of extra voltage to maximize yields, which would then suck down power and thermal throttle badly.

 

Set aside the chips that want lots of voltage in order to hit speed targets, downclock until they're happy, and sell those as the low-power or cut down sku's.  Then run a more appropriate voltage/clockspeed on your other chips.

 

Edit, looks like GN played around with undervolting their Vega FE:

 

Yes I am about to get to that video myself. Question remains though: If we cannot expect AMD to learn from Polaris can we honestly expect them to not make the exact same mistakes in Vega...twice (cause they already fucked up once with this FE card)?

-------

Current Rig

-------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Yes I am about to get to that video myself. Question remains though: If we cannot expect AMD to learn from Polaris can we honestly expect them to not make the exact same mistakes in Vega...twice (cause they already fucked up once with this FE card)?

Yeah I don't have a lot of faith that they won't just yolo the voltage to maximize yields.  The GN video showed that the card was power throttling and unable to maintain the 1600MHz boost clock at stock voltage, but by dropping the voltage a bunch and turning the power limit up they were able to easily maintain the 1600MHz while using only slightly more power than the card did out of the box.

 

Putting on my optimism hat for a moment here:

Polaris was their first 14nm product, so maybe they had some bad yields initially and really just needed to maximize the number of cards being shipped.  I actually never tried undervolting when I had my RX470, since it used fairly normal amounts of power out of the box, and the cooler performed fine, but I suspect it would have helped a bit there as well.

 

For the 570/580, AMD chased higher clockspeeds while throwing more voltage at them, although I've seen good cards undervolt nicely here as well.

 

I'm thinking maybe they made the decision that they just can't afford to bin the cards that well.

SFF-ish:  Ryzen 5 1600X, Asrock AB350M Pro4, 16GB Corsair LPX 3200, Sapphire R9 Fury Nitro -75mV, 512gb Plextor Nvme m.2, 512gb Sandisk SATA m.2, Cryorig H7, stuffed into an Inwin 301 with rgb front panel mod.  LG27UD58.

 

Aging Workhorse:  Phenom II X6 1090T Black (4GHz #Yolo), 16GB Corsair XMS 1333, RX 470 Red Devil 4gb (Sold for $330 to Cryptominers), HD6850 1gb, Hilariously overkill Asus Crosshair V, 240gb Sandisk SSD Plus, 4TB's worth of mechanical drives, and a bunch of water/glycol.  Coming soon:  Bykski CPU block, whatever cheap Polaris 10 GPU I can get once miners start unloading them.

 

MintyFreshMedia:  Thinkserver TS130 with i3-3220, 4gb ecc ram, 120GB Toshiba/OCZ SSD booting Linux Mint XFCE, 2TB Hitachi Ultrastar.  In Progress:  3D printed drive mounts, 4 2TB ultrastars in RAID 5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Phate.exe said:

Yay for delayed response.  For a change, I had a life this weekend and didn't get to computer/interweb that much.

 

I'm not saying completely nerf the thing like the Nano (another card that would benefit from an undervolt).  I'm saying that the cards are very likely capable of running way less voltage than they currently are while maintaining the exact performance they currently have (or improved performance, since undervolted cards are less likely to throttle).

 

My undervolted Fury Nitro performs exactly the same if not a touch better than stock, with no changes to clockspeeds or power limits at all, while sucking down a ton less power.  I'm currently just running it at stock clocks with the undervolt, but I actually have some room to for higher clocks at the same (75mV lower than stock) voltage.  That tells me that there were some crap Fiji silicon that was hitting a voltage wall at stock clockspeeds, while plenty of other silicon was totally fine.

 

Early RX480's were the same way.  Running tons of extra voltage to maximize yields, which would then suck down power and thermal throttle badly.

 

Set aside the chips that want lots of voltage in order to hit speed targets, downclock until they're happy, and sell those as the low-power or cut down sku's.  Then run a more appropriate voltage/clockspeed on your other chips.

 

Edit, looks like GN played around with undervolting their Vega FE:

 

Man, I love it when Past MageTank comes back to save current MageTank:

On 6/29/2017 at 6:40 PM, MageTank said:

Yeah... I was trying to explain the concept of undervolting to achieve a higher clock speed, and was just cursed to the high heavens by a guy that clearly doesn't know how voltage works. My suggestion was simple: undervolt to reduce thermals (thereby increasing thermal headroom) and see if it boosts higher as a result. However, the poor lads brain only comprehends overclocking as "THROW MOAR VOLTS 4 ALL THE CLOCK SPEEDS!". I even invited him to look at my pascal overclocking on the voltage curve, and how I achieved a 120mhz higher overclock by actually using less voltage, but he was having none of it.

 

I simply wanted my theory to be tested, as I believe these cards are over-volted out of the box (RX480 style) and I wanted to see if someone could prove that. Sadly, far too many rabid fans in that chat to even get a word through. 

Gotta love it when GamersNexus comes through. 

My (incomplete) memory overclocking guide: 

 

Does memory speed impact gaming performance? Click here to find out!

On 1/2/2017 at 9:32 PM, MageTank said:

Sometimes, we all need a little inspiration.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Phate.exe said:

Edit, looks like GN played around with undervolting their Vega FE:

There are 2 things about this that blow my mind. 

1st that amd just can't seem to nail down some software to take this on dynamically, and do so well.

2nd that reviewers need to be told to do this by their audience.  To their credit they did listen, test, and report; but good luck having that get the exposure that their initial video got.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MoonSpot said:

There are 2 things about this that blow my mind. 

1st that amd just can't seem to nail down some software to take this on dynamically, and do so well.

2nd that reviewers need to be told to do this by their audience.  To their credit they did listen, test, and report; but good luck having that get the exposure that their initial video got.

I asked basically every reviewer that had their hands on the card. I was basically worried this would never be tested until I could find an average joe with the card, but thankfully GN gave it a shot. I basically considered it confirmed when I saw his last video showing a heavy power limit on the card, and knew that using less volts would technically allow them more headroom within that limit. The fact that the framerate not only stabilized, but showed a steady 10% boost in nearly every test is enough of a confirmation that we are seeing the RX480 2.0 here. When the RX480 first launched, it was absurdly hot, clocked poorly, and everyone was disappointed. As soon as volts were taken care of, and power limit was alleviated to some degree, people finally got the card they wanted.

 

Hopefully when the rest of the Vega lineup launches, they won't have this problem, but people should be wary of just letting these things run out of the box. It's sad, but we are gonna have to start testing various voltages on our hardware to make sure we are getting the most out of it. My 1070 had a similar issue, where I was able to undervolt and get an extra 120mhz out of it while doing so with MSI Afterburner's voltage curve (thanks @Lays, love you). 

My (incomplete) memory overclocking guide: 

 

Does memory speed impact gaming performance? Click here to find out!

On 1/2/2017 at 9:32 PM, MageTank said:

Sometimes, we all need a little inspiration.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Man, I love it when Past MageTank comes back to save current MageTank:

Gotta love it when GamersNexus comes through. 

@Majestic Has had a really good experience undervolting Nvidia.   He did this a little while ago, and the response was similar. It seems the old school experience that you have to have more volts to gain boost just won't die.

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, mr moose said:

@Majestic Has had a really good experience undervolting Nvidia.   He did this a little while ago, and the response was similar. It seems the old school experience that you have to have more volts to gain boost just won't die.

Yup. Nvidia's GPU boost 3.0 is hungry by default. It's tied heavily to thermals, and if you undervolt, it will technically boost higher/hold it's current clock longer. I saw it with my 1070 as well. It was limited to 2100, and I was able to get 2228 out of it. My normal superclocked 1070 was limited to 2025mhz, but managed to hold 2088 after mastering afterburners voltage curve. It's seriously worth it. 

My (incomplete) memory overclocking guide: 

 

Does memory speed impact gaming performance? Click here to find out!

On 1/2/2017 at 9:32 PM, MageTank said:

Sometimes, we all need a little inspiration.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MageTank said:

I asked basically every reviewer that had their hands on the card. I was basically worried this would never be tested until I could find an average joe with the card, but thankfully GN gave it a shot. I basically considered it confirmed when I saw his last video showing a heavy power limit on the card, and knew that using less volts would technically allow them more headroom within that limit. The fact that the framerate not only stabilized, but showed a steady 10% boost in nearly every test is enough of a confirmation that we are seeing the RX480 2.0 here. When the RX480 first launched, it was absurdly hot, clocked poorly, and everyone was disappointed. As soon as volts were taken care of, and power limit was alleviated to some degree, people finally got the card they wanted.

 

Hopefully when the rest of the Vega lineup launches, they won't have this problem, but people should be wary of just letting these things run out of the box. It's sad, but we are gonna have to start testing various voltages on our hardware to make sure we are getting the most out of it. My 1070 had a similar issue, where I was able to undervolt and get an extra 120mhz out of it while doing so with MSI Afterburner's voltage curve (thanks @Lays, love you). 

I should try that with my 1070... My only problem is after burner and the other gpu software don't play nice with each other

CPU: Intel i7 7700K | GPU: ROG Strix GTX 1080Ti | PSU: Seasonic X-1250 (faulty) | Memory: Corsair Vengeance RGB 3200Mhz 16GB | OS Drive: Western Digital Black NVMe 250GB | Game Drive(s): Samsung 970 Evo 500GB, Hitachi 7K3000 3TB 3.5" | Motherboard: Gigabyte Z270x Gaming 7 | Case: Fractal Design Define S (No Window and modded front Panel) | Monitor(s): Dell S2716DG G-Sync 144Hz, Acer R240HY 60Hz (Dead) | Keyboard: G.SKILL RIPJAWS KM780R MX | Mouse: Steelseries Sensei 310 (Striked out parts are sold or dead, awaiting zen2 parts)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

I should try that with my 1070... My only problem is after burner and the other gpu software don't play nice with each other

I think EVGA's precision tool has it as well. I can walk you through it if you need a hand. It's actually pretty easy. 

My (incomplete) memory overclocking guide: 

 

Does memory speed impact gaming performance? Click here to find out!

On 1/2/2017 at 9:32 PM, MageTank said:

Sometimes, we all need a little inspiration.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MageTank said:

I think EVGA's precision tool has it as well. I can walk you through it if you need a hand. It's actually pretty easy. 

Hell yeah that would be great but not now... I'm some what awake and could crash at a moments notice

 

EDIT: I may also want to try messing around with my RAM too

CPU: Intel i7 7700K | GPU: ROG Strix GTX 1080Ti | PSU: Seasonic X-1250 (faulty) | Memory: Corsair Vengeance RGB 3200Mhz 16GB | OS Drive: Western Digital Black NVMe 250GB | Game Drive(s): Samsung 970 Evo 500GB, Hitachi 7K3000 3TB 3.5" | Motherboard: Gigabyte Z270x Gaming 7 | Case: Fractal Design Define S (No Window and modded front Panel) | Monitor(s): Dell S2716DG G-Sync 144Hz, Acer R240HY 60Hz (Dead) | Keyboard: G.SKILL RIPJAWS KM780R MX | Mouse: Steelseries Sensei 310 (Striked out parts are sold or dead, awaiting zen2 parts)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It seems the old school experience that you have to have more volts to gain boost just won't die.

No...  No, no, no.  So sorry, you are thinking about this in too much of a glass is half-full manner, when the glass is clearly half empty.

What this actually means is that they aren't testing shit.  All they're doing is "trying" with a "slider that-a-way" approach, and thats it.  With no regards for finding the balance for the particular card, rhyme or reason to the bewildering data.

But hey, who am I to point fingers?  I used to beat the ever loving piss out of the VCR when tracking went to pot instead of doing that thinking thing.

 

44 minutes ago, MageTank said:

I asked basically every reviewer that had their hands on the card. I was basically worried this would never be tested until I could find an average joe with the card, but thankfully GN gave it a shot. I basically considered it confirmed when I saw his last video showing a heavy power limit on the card, and knew that using less volts would technically allow them more headroom within that limit. The fact that the framerate not only stabilized, but showed a steady 10% boost in nearly every test is enough of a confirmation that we are seeing the RX480 2.0 here. When the RX480 first launched, it was absurdly hot, clocked poorly, and everyone was disappointed. As soon as volts were taken care of, and power limit was alleviated to some degree, people finally got the card they wanted.

 

Hopefully when the rest of the Vega lineup launches, they won't have this problem, but people should be wary of just letting these things run out of the box. It's sad, but we are gonna have to start testing various voltages on our hardware to make sure we are getting the most out of it. My 1070 had a similar issue, where I was able to undervolt and get an extra 120mhz out of it while doing so with MSI Afterburner's voltage curve (thanks @Lays, love you). 

Well, maybe not quite entirely got the card that people wanted part, but quite a bit closer.  At least now price can be a more relevant factor, where as before the perf balance was just too out of wack to even bother considering it.  Still, unless gaming vega has got a lot more going for it, its looking like it could be a fairly "broken card" at launch.  Least ways, I'm not optimistic about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bomerr said:

I said Ryzen was worse for gaming then you said "no it wasn't" then I provided refuted then, then you made this long post trying to refute me and end up by agreeing that 7700k and single threaded performance matters for gaming... okay m8. 

Outside of competitive twitch FPS gaming at max settings* Ryzen is superior to the 7700k. The 7700k sees higher frame rates but the Ryzen is much, much smoother. Immersion in games depends much more on smoothness of gameplay than ultra high framerates.

 

 

* Which actual pro gamers never run at anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MoonSpot said:

Well, maybe not quite entirely got the card that people wanted part, but quite a bit closer.  At least now price can be a more relevant factor, where as before the perf balance was just too out of wack to even bother considering it.  Still, unless gaming vega has got a lot more going for it, its looking like it could be a fairly "broken card" at launch.  Least ways, I'm not optimistic about it.

What I meant by that was, a card that could compete with the GTX 1060 at a similar price. After getting that voltage issue fixed, that's exactly what that card did. Price:Performance wise, it was one of the best cards on the market (before the mining craze). 

 

Vega seems to be targeting the $400-$500 price range of the 1070/1080, and if it wants the performance to match, it needs to get this voltage issue taken care of. I hope AMD takes that into consideration before launching, so that the launch reviews are good.

My (incomplete) memory overclocking guide: 

 

Does memory speed impact gaming performance? Click here to find out!

On 1/2/2017 at 9:32 PM, MageTank said:

Sometimes, we all need a little inspiration.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ravenshrike said:

The 7700k sees higher frame rates but the Ryzen is much, much smoother. Immersion in games depends much more on smoothness of gameplay than ultra high framerates.

L1 Techs did a double blind test, their result was that there was no meaningful difference between the 7700K, 1700, and 5960X. And I've yet to see other blind/double blind testing into if the better frametimes of Ryzen translates into a better experience.

As it stands, either are fantastic choices.

Come Bloody Angel

Break off your chains

And look what I've found in the dirt.

 

Pale battered body

Seems she was struggling

Something is wrong with this world.

 

Fierce Bloody Angel

The blood is on your hands

Why did you come to this world?

 

Everybody turns to dust.

 

Everybody turns to dust.

 

The blood is on your hands.

 

The blood is on your hands!

 

Pyo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

L1 Techs did a double blind test, their result was that there was no meaningful difference between the 7700K, 1700, and 5960X. And I've yet to see other blind/double blind testing into if the better frametimes of Ryzen translates into a better experience.

As it stands, either are fantastic choices.

 

Their double blind test was rather unimpressive and requires more people and they wouldn't be able to know what the test is about ahead of time. It is true that ignoring the stutters they couldn't tell the difference between the system but I imagine if one were to mod the fuck out of Fallout 4 the stutter would be even worse.  You do, however get noticeably longer stutters with the 7700k. Since the most competitive freamerate dependent game I play is faffing about in TF2, the Ryzen platform is distinctly the better option since it will stutter less and for shorter periods of time thus being less likely to break immersion in something like Fallout 4 or The Witcher 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

 

Their double blind test was rather unimpressive and requires more people and they wouldn't be able to know what the test is about ahead of time. It is true that ignoring the stutters they couldn't tell the difference between the system but I imagine if one were to mod the fuck out of Fallout 4 the stutter would be even worse.  You do, however get noticeably longer stutters with the 7700k. Since the most competitive freamerate dependent game I play is faffing about in TF2, the Ryzen platform is distinctly the better option since it will stutter less and for shorter periods of time thus being less likely to break immersion in something like Fallout 4 or The Witcher 3.

I've often said that enthusiasts get too picky when it comes to performance that is so close.  I've said that for 5 fps no one would be able to tell whether the GPU was an AMD or Nvidia job and for CPU's I Imagine the difference is even less noticeable.   I think we just get hung up on numbers too much and we sometimes just get to pedantic about what is "needed"  

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

I've often said that enthusiasts get too picky when it comes to performance that is so close.  I've said that for 5 fps no one would be able to tell whether the GPU was an AMD or Nvidia job and for CPU's I Imagine the difference is even less noticeable.   I think we just get hung up on numbers too much and we sometimes just get to pedantic about what is "needed"  

As long as your cpu can feed your gpu enough info for it to stay at or above the refresh rate of your monitor you're pretty much good

CPU: Intel i7 7700K | GPU: ROG Strix GTX 1080Ti | PSU: Seasonic X-1250 (faulty) | Memory: Corsair Vengeance RGB 3200Mhz 16GB | OS Drive: Western Digital Black NVMe 250GB | Game Drive(s): Samsung 970 Evo 500GB, Hitachi 7K3000 3TB 3.5" | Motherboard: Gigabyte Z270x Gaming 7 | Case: Fractal Design Define S (No Window and modded front Panel) | Monitor(s): Dell S2716DG G-Sync 144Hz, Acer R240HY 60Hz (Dead) | Keyboard: G.SKILL RIPJAWS KM780R MX | Mouse: Steelseries Sensei 310 (Striked out parts are sold or dead, awaiting zen2 parts)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I've often said that enthusiasts get too picky when it comes to performance that is so close.  I've said that for 5 fps no one would be able to tell whether the GPU was an AMD or Nvidia job and for CPU's I Imagine the difference is even less noticeable.   I think we just get hung up on numbers too much and we sometimes just get to pedantic about what is "needed"  

I consider myself an enthusiast when it comes to hardware, but even I have a simple outlook on it all. When it comes down to it, any hardware resource can be simplified to this rule: It doesn't matter until you do not have enough of it. That's it. Applies to CPU clock speed, thread count, memory bandwidth/latency, GPU horsepower, etc. Having more than what you need is pointless for "the now". It may stave off needing to upgrade in the future, but eventually, that day will still come.

 

When it's all said and done, the end-experience is all that matters. I always tell people to obsess less over the raw numbers, and focus more on the end experience. Rather than throw another $300-$400 into a better GPU that will give you more frames than you really need, invest in a better monitor with refresh technologies that improve the experience. G-Sync and Freesync can make older GPU's feel super responsive and remove jitter. This has done far more for my gaming experience than upgrading from my GTX 770 to a GTX 1070. It's almost reminiscent of going from an HDD to an SSD. After getting this monitor, I stopped caring about getting the highest possible framerates, because as long as I was within that G-Sync window, I knew it would feel smooth. 

 

TL:DR? With modern CPU IPC and "decent" GPU's, you can get a much better experience by balancing the rest of your system out to match. Rather than constantly upgrade your GPU's and platforms, invest in a better monitor and be happy. 

My (incomplete) memory overclocking guide: 

 

Does memory speed impact gaming performance? Click here to find out!

On 1/2/2017 at 9:32 PM, MageTank said:

Sometimes, we all need a little inspiration.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MageTank said:

I consider myself an enthusiast when it comes to hardware, but even I have a simple outlook on it all. When it comes down to it, any hardware resource can be simplified to this rule: It doesn't matter until you do not have enough of it. That's it. Applies to CPU clock speed, thread count, memory bandwidth/latency, GPU horsepower, etc. Having more than what you need is pointless for "the now". It may stave off needing to upgrade in the future, but eventually, that day will still come.

 

When it's all said and done, the end-experience is all that matters. I always tell people to obsess less over the raw numbers, and focus more on the end experience. Rather than throw another $300-$400 into a better GPU that will give you more frames than you really need, invest in a better monitor with refresh technologies that improve the experience. G-Sync and Freesync can make older GPU's feel super responsive and remove jitter. This has done far more for my gaming experience than upgrading from my GTX 770 to a GTX 1070. It's almost reminiscent of going from an HDD to an SSD. After getting this monitor, I stopped caring about getting the highest possible framerates, because as long as I was within that G-Sync window, I knew it would feel smooth. 

 

TL:DR? With modern CPU IPC and "decent" GPU's, you can get a much better experience by balancing the rest of your system out to match. Rather than constantly upgrade your GPU's and platforms, invest in a better monitor and be happy. 

 

I subscribe to your rule.  e.g no point in spending money on 32G of ram if by the time you actually need that much you discover you have to upgrade the CPU/mobo, thus making that 32G non transferable  and needing to be replaced anyway.   It's like taking future proofing ( a term I hate) too far.   If this ramble actually makes sense.

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×