i3 I3 8100 with 1050ti will it bottleneck?

[JoostinOnline]

6 hours ago, App4that said:

Not really. For gaime the 1151v2 offers a better upgrade path. Not only do you get Coffee lake, but the upcoming 10nm Cannon Lake. On AM4 Ryzen 2 is still behind Coffee Lake in pure gaming performance. Zen 2 "might" catch the AM4 socket up, but then you have Cannon Lake that "could" pull ahead again.

 

So looking to the future, it's anyone guess what will happen. Looking at right now Coffee Lake is the pure gaming performance winner. As a owner of both a AM4 and Coffee lake build, Coffee Lake is miles ahead in stability for daily tasks. Instantlly noticable going between them. Zen 2 might help fix that, but this is 2018, not 2019. 

Is there any guarantee that Intel won't use a different socket with Cannonlake?

[App4that]

3 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

Is there any guarantee that Intel won't use a different socket with Cannonlake?

Going off their partch note there is, but anythings possible. AMD could decide getting DDR5 to market before Intel is more important to their promise and we see the AM5 socket with the 3000 series. Any given Sunday. 

[JoostinOnline]

6 minutes ago, App4that said:

Going off their partch note there is, but anythings possible. AMD could decide getting DDR5 to market before Intel is more important to their promise and we see the AM5 socket with the 3000 series. Any given Sunday. 

I'm so happy there is good competition again, but buyer's remorse is a bitch.

[ExalyThor]

On 5/7/2018 at 3:11 AM, Emberstone said:

My stock Founders Edition GTX 1070 was being held back by my R5-1600X overclocked to 4.0 GHz in a lot of games. Was pretty annoying to be at ~20 fps in a Guild Wars 2 world event like Tequatl or the Shatterer, which wasn't any better than my eight-year-old i7-980X at 4.0 GHz; or hitting 40 fps or so dips during the Leviathan raid in Destiny 2 while my friends on cheaper Intel CPUs were well over 60 with the same graphics card.

 

It was really only the well-optimized, heavily multi-threaded ones like Overwatch and Doom that were getting most out of my GPU when I was on Ryzen.

 

That said, Ryzen+ is much better in this regard due to better memory support and reduced cache and inter-CCX latencies.

Its just lack of optimization. From my personal experience, an oc 1080 got maxed out by the 1600 at 1080p in most titles. But there are exceptions like 7 days to die where even the 1060 doesnt work too hard while ryzen craps itself.

[Princess Luna]

On 5/6/2018 at 9:46 PM, JoostinOnline said:

Is there any guarantee that Intel won't use a different socket with Cannonlake?

The Z390 chipset specifically will support 10nm, however it still is a big mystery if the current z370 and the locked variants will.

 

By the way I also fail to understand this whole thing of being angry at Intel for making a CPU so good that last you all those years, if the i7 2600k managed such a long life, way much longer than the competitor at the time FX8350/9590, how the heck is that a bad thing?

 

People are weird in someways...

 

Also this thread is the perfect example of LTT these days OP specifically stated to want an Intel CPU, gets shit all over from AMD white knights... facepalm... it's fine give an alternative but insist on it and try making OP feel bad is not alright... and people should also stop treating the Ryzen 5 2400G as some sort of miracle.

[JoostinOnline]

32 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

By the way I also fail to understand this whole thing of being angry at Intel for making a CPU so good that last you all those years, if the i7 2600k managed such a long life, way much longer than the competitor at the time FX8350/9590, how the heck is that a bad thing?

It only managed a long life because they only had a single competitor, and AMD was basically limping along. They were allowed to exist so Intel couldn't be accused of having a monopoly (at least that's how I see it). Intel didn't have to try, and were free to dictate the market. Software didn't progress as much as it could have because there was no consumer hardware to keep utilize advancements. If Ryzen hadn't been developed, we probably would have been stuck with quad cores for several more years.

 

It's not really Intel that people are mad at, just the situation as a whole.  When corporations buy up any smaller competitors and become so big (with so many patents) that it's impossible for new competitors to enter the market, the consumer suffers.

[Princess Luna]

1 minute ago, JoostinOnline said:

.

Oh yes Ryzen did us marvelous we all can agree that Intel had no hurry to quit milking us with over-priced quadcores... but it's still weird get upset for not being able to spend money as frequently we still had games and applications improving noticeably across those years... maybe hardware got a bit stuck on time but software wise all kept going forward perfectly fine ^^

[Emberstone]

9 hours ago, TheSponyX said:

Its just lack of optimization.

That and the big latency issues gen 1 Ryzen had, which were fixed pretty hard. I've got a lot of faith in Ryzen+'s gaming capabilities now. So much so that I'm pretty miffed I spent $550 on my mobo + 8700K when the 2600X kicks plenty of ass in games. Could've spent less than half that and been fine if I had the foresight to predict that Ryzen+ would make strides in games that particularly hated gen 1. I switched back to Intel around Christmas.

 

But oh well, that's how the tech industry goes. The newest product always makes you wonder why you didn't wait.

 

Anyway, PUBG really hated gen 1, for example, but Ryzen+ does fine. It gets around 30+ more FPS from the benchmarks I've seen.