define a "mainstream consumer", because I fail to understand this type of logic.
)?
You want to compare a 2000$ workstation CPU to sub 500$ mainstream CPUs? O_o Why?
The heck are you talking about? The only big difference in 1% lows is in world war z, and that's at 1080p with the minimum frames already above 144. Seriously, the heck are you drinking?
Keep reading through their CPU forums...
The Ryzen platform has been plagued with reported "game stuttering" issues since release.
Please see the AMD forums for more information.
Besides the "Standby memory cleaner"; there is no fix.
There is a reason why many "gamers" are jumping ship....
While Ryzen is a HUGE jump over the FX/FM platform; it was rushed (in order to keep AMD out of bankruptcy).
We're hoping that the 3rd generation corrects this (and other) issue(s).
-This comes by way of a user who posted in the nvidia forums.
Obviously not checked this at all. My ~$75 Gigabyte AB350 Gaming 3 Motherboard had chipset drivers released a few days ago to support 3rd gen Ryzen... At least do some research about what boards support 3rd gen Ryzen before stating the motherboards are too expensive. Intel is still the king of expensive boards.
Is this a post from 5 years ago? No people do not turn SMT or HT off anymore (well maybe HT now due to security issues). HT / SMT has not been an issue in games in ages.
Keep reading through their CPU forums...
The Ryzen platform has been plagued with reported "game stuttering" issues since release.
Please see the AMD forums for more information.
Besides the "Standby memory cleaner"; there is no fix.
There is a reason why many "gamers" are jumping ship....
While Ryzen is a HUGE jump over the FX/FM platform; it was rushed (in order to keep AMD out of bankruptcy).
We're hoping that the 3rd generation corrects this (and other) issue(s).
-This comes by way of a user who posted in the nvidia forums.
Yes and if I go to the Nvidia or Intel forums I too can find any issue I search for as well
I'm not going to pretend this somehow means it is widespread. You seem to jump to conclusions based on a simple forums search. Using that logic I could "prove" Intel, Nvidia, or AMD have any and every issue. Black screen? BSOD? You can get pages and pages of both on any hardware forum. It's always curious when someone links a forums search as "evidence", more so that the person doing the linking it in the first place somehow believes it in any way constitutes anything other then it actually is. Worse still that someone would come to the conclusion that issues presented on a forum represent more occurrences then they actually appear on the forums a.k.a "widespread" based once again on nothing but a search results page.
This statement is incorrect. Steve from GamersNexus recommends a 9900K for high refresh rate gaming. He most certainly did not say "do not buy the 3900X for gaming". I'm going to post a link as you seem to thrive off stripping reviews of their context
It is amazing to me that someone could hear "I recommend the 9900K for gaming only rigs" and interpret it as "Don't buy the 3900X for gaming only rigs!". The 9900K getting the recommendation doesn't suddenly make the 3900X bad for gaming.
You also seem to have left out the fact that steve recommended the 3600 for all categories, including gaming.
The review pretty clearly shows the cooler performing well even with the flagship CPU. But yeah, don't like it sell it on eBay for $30. That's what I did with my 2700X cooler. I'm thinking you haven't actually seen the wraith max in person. It isn't a rinky dink Intel stock cooler, it's pretty hefty. You are about the first person I've seen complain about a free 125w TDP RGB cooler.
What are you talking about? The 3700X is above the 9700K in productivity by a wide margin.
I can also show you multiple Premiere results that put Ryzen above. It depends a lot on the workload, but it seems that the majority of tests are very much in favour of Ryzen even when using Premiere:
Who talked about CS? You again with this non sense just like when we talked about Ryzen 2000 vs Intel. you also said in that time that the difference was minimal, now Ryzen 3000 is out and the difference is minimal, so afterall 2000 was far right? Yeah....
Do yourself a favor and go check what happens when you play games like:
- Battlefield V Multiplayer COnquest Large 64 players
- Black Ops 4 Multiplayer
- Quake Champions
- Escape from Tarkov
- Arma 3
- Apex Legends
Use 1080p with Low/Medium settings with a good GPU. Watch the comparasions between AMD and Intel on that scenario, specifically the 0,1% lows. Even on this review with GPU bottleneck and SINGLE PLAYER, you can see Intel leads on Battlefield. 125fps 1% lows vs 111 on AMD, 168 average vs 155. That´s with GPU at 100%.
You DO NOT need a 2080 ti to take advantage of a faster gaming CPU. Most people that play shooters online use lower settings to get the highest fps possible, and on those scenarios the GPU usage is already lower than 100% for the most part, wich also reduces input lag as any FPS player knows (100% usage = more Mouse latency, you want the GPU at 85% max, preferbaly lower than that).
There are some nasty differences on that scenario, this is just an example, with a whooping 40fps difference:
Another example, from GN with a whooping 50fps difference:
Talk more about "5%" difference.
You guys have problems admiting things as they are. I have no problems saying 3900x obliterates any Intel offer productivity wise as it costs same as 9900k and does WAY more at most productivity tasks, but saying AMD RYzen 3000 is as good as Intel in games or that "You won´t notice" is straight BS. Sorry.
And you guys want to talk about GPU bottlenecked situations? Fine, go grab a R5 2600 for 120€ then, it will offer same performance or within 5%, costing 2 to 3 times less.
Who talked about CS? You again with this non sense just like when we talked about Ryzen 2000 vs Intel. you also said in that time that the difference was minimal, now Ryzen 3000 is out and the difference is minimal, so afterall 2000 was far right? Yeah....
Do yourself a favor and go check what happens when you play games like:
- Battlefield V Multiplayer COnquest Large 64 players
- Black Ops 4 Multiplayer
- Quake Champions
- Escape from Tarkov
- Arma 3
- Apex Legends
Use 1080p with Low/Medium settings with a good GPU. Watch the comparasions between AMD and Intel on that scenario, specifically the 0,1% lows. Even on this review with GPU bottleneck and SINGLE PLAYER, you can see Intel leads on Battlefield. 125fps 1% lows vs 111 on AMD, 168 average vs 155. That´s with GPU at 100%.
You DO NOT need a 2080 ti to take advantage of a faster gaming CPU. Most people that play shooters online use lower settings to get the highest fps possible, and on those scenarios the GPU usage is already lower than 100% for the most part, wich also reduces input lag as any FPS player knows (100% usage = more Mouse latency, you want the GPU at 85% max, preferbaly lower than that).
There are some nasty differences on that scenario, this is just an example, with a whooping 40fps difference:
Another example, from GN with a whooping 50fps difference:
Talk more about "5%" difference.
You guys have problems admiting things as they are. I have no problems saying 3900x obliterates any Intel offer productivity wise as it costs same as 9900k and does WAY more at most productivity tasks, but saying AMD RYzen 3000 is as good as Intel in games or that "You won´t notice" is straight BS. Sorry.
And you guys want to talk about GPU bottlenecked situations? Fine, go grab a R5 2600 for 120€ then, it will offer same performance or within 5%, costing 2 to 3 times less.
Who talked about CS? You again with this non sense just like when we talked about Ryzen 2000 vs Intel. you also said in that time that the difference was minimal, now Ryzen 3000 is out and the difference is minimal, so afterall 2000 was far right? Yeah....
Do yourself a favor and go check what happens when you play games like:
- Battlefield V Multiplayer COnquest Large 64 players
- Black Ops 4 Multiplayer
- Quake Champions
- Escape from Tarkov
- Arma 3
- Apex Legends
Use 1080p with Low/Medium settings with a good GPU. Watch the comparasions between AMD and Intel on that scenario, specifically the 0,1% lows. Even on this review with GPU bottleneck and SINGLE PLAYER, you can see Intel leads on Battlefield. 125fps 1% lows vs 111 on AMD, 168 average vs 155. That´s with GPU at 100%.
You DO NOT need a 2080 ti to take advantage of a faster gaming CPU. Most people that play shooters online use lower settings to get the highest fps possible, and on those scenarios the GPU usage is already lower than 100% for the most part, wich also reduces input lag as any FPS player knows (100% usage = more Mouse latency, you want the GPU at 85% max, preferbaly lower than that).
There are some nasty differences on that scenario, this is just an example, with a whooping 40fps difference:
Another example, from GN with a whooping 50fps difference:
Talk more about "5%" difference.
You guys have problems admiting things as they are. I have no problems saying 3900x obliterates any Intel offer productivity wise as it costs same as 9900k and does WAY more at most productivity tasks, but saying AMD RYzen 3000 is as good as Intel in games or that "You won´t notice" is straight BS. Sorry.
And you guys want to talk about GPU bottlenecked situations? Fine, go grab a R5 2600 for 120€ then, it will offer same performance or within 5%, costing 2 to 3 times less.
I said, ONLINE. Not singlep layer campaign. Plus, I´m not the only one saying this. Take a look at conclusions on TpU about the 3900x, listed as cons.
See? I´m not the only one disapointed and no matter how many "5%" BS you guys throw at it, it won´t change the fact these CPUs in gaming compete with 7700k from 2017.
dont woory so uch about the cpu , even a quad core Apollo lake N3455 will do.. but get lots of ram min 8gb 16gb better 32gb best.
