Ryzen 2700X OCed to 4.3Ghz (1.4v) across all cores, performance numbers included.

[Cookybiscuit]

1 minute ago, Minorika said:

But minimums dont have to be above the monitors refresh rate right?

Thats why G-sync and freesync exist.

 

I think...

Do they have to be? No. You can play a game at 10FPS if you want, doesn't mean it's enjoyable. G-Sync and Freesync only fix tearing they aren't going to make a low framerate look better, you wouldn't want to use either when playing a game like CSGO anyway.

[Bananasplit_00]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

Call me when I care about CS:GO and when monitors can do over 240Hz 

 

I won't be expecting a call though since I don't care about CS:GO and never will lol.

 

 who dosent need 921 fps tho?

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Not that I've seen, or google comes up with. Might be a panel that can do it just might not be in any products available yet. Either way for me anything over 120Hz is pure wastage and could increase the graphical fidelity.

 

I used to play competitive cod4 using an X800 GTO, a CRT and horrible internet to servers hosted in another country (80-120ms) and the only thing that would have made me play better was actually improving myself not the equipment. If anyone remembers what good PCs were back then then you'd know my system was trash lol.

i play competitavly with a 73Hz 32" 1440p panel lol. 144Hz is sweet, but skill is what gets you places, the equipment just needs to be above complete garbage  

[Minorika]

Just now, Cookybiscuit said:

Do they have to be? No. You can play a game at 10FPS if you want, doesn't mean it's enjoyable. G-Sync and Freesync only fix tearing they aren't going to make a low framerate look better, you wouldn't want to use either when playing a game like CSGO anyway.

Yeah but with such high framerates those minimums become pretty insignificant.

[Cookybiscuit]

9 minutes ago, Minorika said:

Yeah but with such high framerates those minimums become pretty insignificant.

Not in CSGO, there's a big difference between 100FPS and 200FPS.

[Minorika]

Just now, Cookybiscuit said:

Not in CSGO, there's a big difference between 100FPS and 200FPS.

Not a big enough one for me apparently

And you said you have a 144hz display right? How can you see 200fps then? I may be mistaken, if so i apologize.

[GoldenLag]

11 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

Do they have to be? No. You can play a game at 10FPS if you want, doesn't mean it's enjoyable. G-Sync and Freesync only fix tearing they aren't going to make a low framerate look better, you wouldn't want to use either when playing a game like CSGO anyway.

Actually they would make it look better. It fixes tearing as you just said. That is one of the reasons freesync on TV's is a big deal for consoles and home teathre pc's. Watching a 24 fps movie at 24hz is gonna be better than watching a 24 fps movie at 60 hz. That is the point of these technoligies 

[Bananasplit_00]

ok i dont get why we are discussing CS:GO really, but getting a solid 300fps at max 1080p isnt that hard as far as i remember, a 970 and an I5 4690K did that just fine in 2014, not sure how much more taxing the game has become since then but i cant imgaine its much really

[GoldenLag]

1 minute ago, Minorika said:

Not a big enough one for me apparantly

2 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

Not in CSGO, there's a big difference between 100FPS and 200FPS.

200 fps avarage with 1% lows at 10 fps must be so enjoyable

[hobobobo]

3 minutes ago, Minorika said:

Not a big enough one for me apparantly

There is even some difference between 200fps and 1000fps, but only for pro players. As far as i remember, cs registers shots by frames so having the shot registered on 100th (0.5 sec) frame vs 491th (0.491 sec) makes or breaks some kills

[Minorika]

Just now, hobobobo said:

There is even some difference between 200fps and 1000fps, but only for pro players. As far as i remember, cs registers shots by frames so having the shot registered on 100th (0.5 sec) frame vs 491th (0.491) sec makes or breaks some kills

Ah i see.

Thank you

[Bananasplit_00]

3 minutes ago, hobobobo said:

There is even some difference between 200fps and 1000fps, but only for pro players. As far as i remember, cs registers shots by frames so having the shot registered on 100th (0.5 sec) frame vs 491th (0.491 sec) makes or breaks some kills

yah for just CS:GO fps actiually matters, but its piss easy to run so...

[Cookybiscuit]

4 minutes ago, Minorika said:

Not a big enough one for me apparently

And you said you have a 144hz display right? How can you see 200fps then? I may be mistaken, if so i apologize.

Go in a server by yourself and try capping to 100FPS, move the mouse around, then 200FPS, then move the mouse around. My display isn't even 144Hz and I can see the difference straight away. If you want to test this blind you could bind the FPS cap toggle command to a key and use an autoclicker to press the key a random number of times so you don't know if it landed on 100FPS or 200FPS. My monitor is only 110Hz but it's still easy to see the difference.

5 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Actually they would make it look better. It fixes tearing as you just said. That is one of the reasons freesync on TV's is a big deal for consoles and home teathre pc's. Watching a 24 fps movie at 24hz is gonna be better than watching a 24 fps movie at 60 hz. That is the point of these technoligies 

So Ryzen is better because it gets a lower framerate and lets you use Freesync/GSync more of the time? 

 

I've never been able to see any difference watching 24FPS movies at different refresh rates, but that could just be me.

 

Getting sidetracked talking about CSGO, the point is Ryzen is still a disaster for games.

[hobobobo]

2 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

Getting sidetracked talking about CSGO, the point is Ryzen is still a disaster for games.

~10% deficit in most games is hardly a disaster

[Cookybiscuit]

Just now, hobobobo said:

~10% deficit in most games is hardly a disaster

It's not 10%, it's more like 30%, total disaster.

[Minorika]

4 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

It's not 10%, it's more like 30%, total disaster.

Even if it is 30%

It´s still enough to make Intel try to do something about it creating a beautiful competition in which the consumer always wins.

And it´s going to get even better in the future since AMD will hopefully close that 30% gap more and more. 

[hobobobo]

5 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

It's not 10%, it's more like 30%, total disaster.

I can find a handfull of games where it is anything close to 30%, and all those are in 1080p. On avarage its 5-15%, especially if the game was not made when a black person was reciting his first presidential pledge.

[Bananasplit_00]

9 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

It's not 10%, it's more like 30%, total disaster.

oh? do you have something beyond CS:GO to back that up? i dont remember Ryzen being 30% behind tbh

[cj09beira]

3 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

oh? do you have something beyond CS:GO to back that up? i dont remember Ryzen being 30% behind tbh

it must be arma 

[Coaxialgamer]

2 hours ago, Cookybiscuit said:

Ryzen is a disaster for single-threaded workloads.

 

 

Are you really using csgo as a benchmark?  It's NEVER ran ran the best on ryzen, just like gta 5. That's not a surprise and shouldn't be. 

[Cookybiscuit]

2 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

oh? do you have something beyond CS:GO to back that up? i dont remember Ryzen being 30% behind tbh

Here's an average to make things simple, complete disaster for Ryzen even against the humble 8400.

 

 

[Cookybiscuit]

Just now, Coaxialgamer said:

 It's NEVER ran ran the best on ryzen, just like gta 5. 

Is that AMD's fault or Intel's?

[hobobobo]

1 minute ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

oh? do you have something beyond CS:GO to back that up? i dont remember Ryzen being 30% behind tbh

There are a few, Asheas of the benchmark for example. Admitedly, the tests i saw had ryzen on 2666 ram, so 3200 would shrink the difference another ~5%

[hobobobo]

1 minute ago, Cookybiscuit said:

Here's an average to make things simple, complete disaster for Ryzen even against the humble 8400.

 

 

Using 720p benchmark is a bit (a fair bit) disengenious. Post the same 9game avarage for 1080p and 1440p and then it would be fair

[Bananasplit_00]

1 minute ago, Cookybiscuit said:

Here's an average to make things simple, complete disaster for Ryzen even against the humble 8400.

 

 

 

aaaaand its only 15% behind the 8700K even at 720p? idk where you are getting 30% from here, not even the 1500x is 30% behind the 8700K

[jde3]

Ok.. wait a minute. @Cookybiscuit You have a 110Hz monitor but your sure there is a difference between 100fps and 200fps? How do you know without double blind  testing and ... let me expand on this a little.. as we are biologic there is a limit to what our senses can detect, our sense of smell and our hearing isn't so great compared to other animals, our eye sight is somewhat better but there will come a time like there did with audio where there just isn't any improvement yet to be made. (unless your a dog with audio or an alien with video), How do you know without double blind testing, that you aren't already there?

 

I'm trying to understand why it would even matter if Intel was better for games. (that I assume it is though for reasons that may not have anything to do with the processor design itself) That wouldn't make Ryzen less good. It is what it is and people like it.. it's design is what I really like that is what gets me excited. Things that affect the computing industry are important and Ryzen has had a good effect, on both AMD and Intel.