Nvidia Volta gaming GPUs are not in the 'foreseeable future'

Saying that your i5 2500 performs better on stock than the 1300x is more of an insult to Intel than to AMD, considering that a clocked 1300x outperforms an i5 7400. 6 years laster, Intel sells worse CPU's for pretty much the same money they did 6 years ago. Go figure.

 

All reviewers, and you pretend to speak for them too. Yet you see stuff like this:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3214626/computers/build-a-budget-ryzen-gaming-pc.html

 

You're right about that. More cores only guarantees increases in productivity suites (provided that the cores themselves don't suck horribly like the first FX series did), not overall system performance, especially in gaming. I can say however that in my with multi-core processors, more cores means longer usable life. A quad-core CPU with an insanely high clock may be better at gaming and overall use at the time of its release but what happens to that CPU when programs suddenly want more than four? The six and eight core CPUs with the lower clocks may function more slowly but the four core CPU won't function properly at all.

 

What does this have to do with what I said? I said the R5 has absolutely fantastic VFM, and actually, the review you linked to debunk me seems to absolutely agree with me. Here, let me quote it

" Ryzen 5 overtook Intel’s Core i5 chips as the best CPU for mainstream buyers, enabling truly versatile computer builds and 8-thread gaming PCs for previously unheard-of prices"

"Now the affordable Ryzen 3 series has finally arrived, and while its value proposition is a bit more mixed (as you can see in the discussion in the video below)"

If anything, it completely debunks everything you have been saying for the last 20 or so posts. LOL, you really need to try harder.

From the same website btw, comes the following gem

"The problem is, people don’t want complicated answers. They want simple answers and they want you to pick for them. In that case, Ryzen 5 is the way to go. It burns Core i5 to the ground in multi-threaded applications performance and doesn’t give up much in single-threaded performance."

 

Soooo..... you work at Intel then? LOL

 

And you know that how? All this about DF. They are just some garbage site, sponsoerd by AMD's marketing team. Why should anyone trust them.

 

But then the conclude:
"That’s a hell of a lot better than your $550 would get you just a few months back. Affordable quad-core computing is finally here, and it’s finally built for the future."

Which is to say the R5 from a few months back is overpriced. You want the more affordable quad-core computing solution.

 

How do you know they are sponsored by AMD? I can say the same thing about ANY link you provide that shows the i5 better you know.

Fact is, they called out the R7 for being atrocious vfm for gaming, so they aren't biased at all. You just didn't like their conclusions and so you are throwing mud cause you are biased. Heck, techspot themselves said that the i5's are done nowadays. So did gamernexus. W/e, I'm done, you are just either too much of a fanboy or trolling me at this point.

 

Think? More like KNOW. I'm a heavily-decorated Tom's Hardware expert with one of my posts published in Tom's Guide. I've been a member there for almost eight years and I used to live there but I hardly go back anymore because it's no longer the site that I joined. I remember the "good old days" before Intel (seemingly) had their hooks in them. The attitudes there now seem to reflect AnandTech and oddly enough, both sites share an owner. Just in case someone wants to question me about it (and we both know who that would likely be), here's my profile there:
http://www.tomshardware.com/community/profile-305421.htm

 

Figure you fall for nonsensicl hyperbole. Look at the gaming charts show from the same article:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3186...ins-for-best-mainstream-power-cpu.html?page=3

Guess what they have to provide the same nonsense platitudes in the "why you don't need to freak out" section, but all those words and still no hard answers. If the R5 was priced correctly why has its price also dropped more than 10% or $30. See:
http://www.microcenter.com/product/477456/Ryzen_5_1600X_36GHz_6_Core_AM4_Boxed_Processor
And with th $30 mobo discout that would make is about $190.

If it such hot value, why has its price been reduced a little over 3 months in? The answer is AMD overpriced them to start with just like the R7 1800x. AMD would have done much better for themselves to start with the R3 release first them add the R5 and the R7. All the way till August of 2017, they basically let the 7600K stand unchallenged.

 

Thanks for pointing it out, cause these 2 are driving me nuts throughout all these pages.

 

He author of that article never even mentioned the word value or VFM whatever that means. R5 can't fit in $550 build, because it is too expensive, and there is no good justification to move up beyond $550 for gaming unless you are really going for top gaming performance.

 

You are kinda boring me. Last time I repeat myself. Launch benchmarks matter not. No agesa updates, games weren't patched etc. In RotR that the i5 was crushing the R5 in this benchmark, nowadays after the Ryzen patch the R5 is having a lead. You know it, but for some reason you are just pretending you don't. You are definitely trolling, and I keep getting baited.

Because that's natural with technology. Time goes by, things lose their value. Didn't the i7 lose value? Didn't the i5?

The i5 got decimated on April 11, the day R5 was released. Sorry, try harder. You saw those videos, the i5 bottlenecks a 1060 in cpu heavy games.

 

I completely agree. So if you are going for top gaming performance (a gpu of 1070 or above) the R5 1600 is a fantastic vfm. Almost every reviewer agrees with me.

 

That's sort of a chicken and egg issue. Most productivity and creative software (that can be) are tuned for multi-core CPUs. General software can be so lightweight it's not going to matter - speed or cores. So as 4 physical cores become less of the norm replaced by 6, 8 and 12 core CPUs then I am sure software developers will come up with great uses for all them cores. It's going to be years before the majority of desktop users are in the +4/4 camp though.

 

Actually a lot reviewers would got 7700K for top gaming performance, so they won't agree with you see:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-pc-builds,4390.html
https://techbuyersguru.com/1500-high-end-gaming-pc-build
https://www.gamespot.com/gallery/best-high-end-gaming-pc-build/2900-955/
https://elitegamingcomputers.com/top-gaming-computers/

 

Again, dishonesty. That's not what I said, I said it's absolutely fantastic VFM. Do you have anyone that disagrees with it? What you posted is nonsense, vfm is nowhere to be seen, it just says high end gaming PC, no mention of value is in there. Of course you have an infinite amount of money and you only want to game 7700k is the way. That's not what's called VFM though, that's called "I have more money than I know what to do with".

Didn't you get bored being slammed across the room with logic? Isn't it sad being wrong in pretty much everything? Like seriously, just stop, it's embarrassing already.

PS1. Also the recomendations on some of those are pretty horrible. Tom's hardware is absolutely atrocious there! But so is elitegaming. Only a 1080 on 1500$ PC? 8 gigs of ram? LOL, GTFO. You are a pathetic troll

 

By what metric you evaluate VFM whatever that made up acronym means. Sure you go strawman's wfm chart where you are always right. Big whoopdeedoo.

If you got limited money go with 1300x on a $550 or less build. There is not enough to be gained to be in the muddle middle. If you want high end performance, do NOT stop half way, the 7700K is the way to go. The R5 value proposition is being attack from both sides, both from the top end and the from the budge end.

And insulting people with name calling like troll and dishonest, is really only point out that your are that dishonest troll. As your own posts have already proven.

 

VFM is actually clear cut, it means fps / $ (or euro, whatever). The R5 1600 is an absolute beast when it comes to that.

Sure if you plan to game on just a 1060 then 1300x or 1200 are okay. If you plan to go for a 1070 then the 1600 is better. The 7700k only makes sense if you get a 1080ti and you want to play at 1080p 144hz monitor. Which I don't. I'd much rather get 1440p or 4k. In which case, again, the R5 >>> i7 simply because it gets the job done and is cheaper.

https://techspot-static-xjzaqowzxaoif5.stackpathdns.com/articles-info/1450/bench/Average.png

Here you can get an idea of the VFM compared to your precious 7700k. It's obvious that the R5 has a better VFM.

Now stop getting embarrassed.

 

Oh we are back to that chart again. LOL. You said you are dishonest from comparing the 1600x with the 7800x, yet you do it again. LOL.

FPS/$ is not why you go 7700K, it is because you want the that last 3-10 fps gain, and you are willing to pay for it. If you can't understand that, you are embarassing yourself.

If you want to compare FPS/$, the R5 loses terribly to the R3 by the simple fact that it is priced 50% lower for 5% less effective performance and up to 30% less fps performance. You are embarassing yourself for not understanding such basic math.

You can see the performance charts here:
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-5-1600-vs-AMD-Ryzen-3-1300X/3919vs3930
https://www.techspot.com/review/1455-ryzen-3/page3.html
https://www.tomsguide.com/us/ryzen-3-1300x-benchmark-tests,review-4548.html
http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3001-amd-r3-1300x-review-vs-7350k-intel-response/page-4

The R5 like the 7600K is caught in the muddled middle, all you can say you love your R5 and you will put up with its limitations and call it good enough, but that is your subjective opinion. To maximize saving you would go R3. To maximize gaming performance you would have to go 7700k.

 

No I'm not, I'm comparing it to the 7700k. I even said so in the very post you quoted. The heck is wrong with you?

I don't care why people buy it, you are flipping the argument again. You said the R5 1600 is overpriced, I said repeatedly that it is not and that it is a great value. The above graph shows it. Every reviewer agrees with me. You were wrong. PERIOD

You are wrong, again. Of course the R3 is great, the thing is it can't scale drive a card higher than a 1060. Therefore, here comes the R5 1600

Wrong. An R3 can't drive a 1080ti at 1440p, therefore I had to buy something better. An i7 would surely get the job done, but I would have spend more money. So, I saved some money and got all of the performance. Since I'm also into rendering the i7 is hilariously atrocious at that, the R5 1600 pees on the i7's grave. Therefore, the R5 1600 was the best bang for the buck It's not just "good enough". It demolishes the 7700k for 200€ less money. That's insane value right there.

And judging by the chart above, the performance difference between an R5 1600 and a 7700k on 1440p would be....0. So, the heck are you talking about?

Stop being wrong, it is getting boring.

 

Says you. That is from the article comparing the 1600x with the 7800x. You keep using it so you are being dishonest as you said yourself.

That is some bogus lie you put out there. Where is the proof buddy? You make the claim now show some proof.

Most people buying a 1300x is focused on saving money and probably won't get a 1080ti, but to say the R3 can't is just complete blatant obvious lie.

We can see it handle a 1070 see:
https://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/amd-ryzen-3-1300x-1200-4c4t-cpu-review/8/

We can see it handle a 1080 see:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_3_1200/4.html

And someone actually had some Ryzen3 with GTX1080ti at 1080p
https://www.theindiantalks.com/amd-releases-affordable-ryzen-3-cpus-desktops/35851

BTW the higher the resolution, the less the CPU matters, the GPU on limits will become the dominating factor. So where is your proof it can't drive a GTX1080ti?

You been on here putting lies trying to make yourself feel good about the R5.

 

The fact is the chart show is to be very much non-zero. And here is more data to show that R5 is not better than even the i5 for 1080p, 1440p, or 2160p(also known as 4k) see:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/05/amd-ryzen-5-review-1600x/2/

"At launch, AMD recommended reviewers test Ryzen at higher resolutions like 1440p and 4K. Sure enough, at those resolutions the difference between chips quickly disappears. But high-resolution testing, where lower frame rates decrease the workload on the CPU, merely mask the problem. And even then, there are some differences. What's telling are the all-important minimum frame rates. While the differences aren't huge, they do largely favour Intel at 4K, where reaching a consistently smooth 60FPS remains a challenge for the 1080 Ti"

You so called great value is all in your head. If you really want to drive a 1080ti, the 7700k is your only option.

 

I don't care what the article compares. It has an 7700k thrown in there, so that's what I'm used it for.

The proof is in the very links you yourself posted. You are so clueless you actually managed to debunk yourself, once again.

In the very first link, with a 1070, you can see the R3 being a bottleneck right there. The same on Ghost recon and total war warhammer, it lags behind the i5.

In the second article of techpowerup you can also see that increasing the resolution won't decrease the frame rate, which is an obvious sign of a CPU bottleneck. You can see that in Fallout 4 , Hitman, Civ 6, dishonored 2, and in farcry 4 to some extent. You can also see that your mighty 7700k is also a bottleneck for a 1080 in 1080p. It just shows how full of **** you have been. How kind of you to send me links for reviews that debunk you!

https://www.techspot.com/review/1463-ryzen-3-gaming/

This whole review completely proves I'm right. The R3 fails to scale beyond a 1070. It even bottlenecks that one.

Now begone, you've been embarrassed enough already.

 

I don't pay attention to launch date benchmarks, sorry, you have to try harder. Though I have to admit, the 1600 performs better than the 7700k in some games even on launch date benchmarks!! Didn't know that, thanks for clarifying.

https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/05/games.018-1440x1080.png
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/05/games.027-1440x1080.png
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/05/games.024-1440x1080.png

And yes, the i5 is better, we already proved that. Here, let me remind us



LOL, that's called bottlenecking a 1060 in a 4 years old game! GJ i5, Intel will be proud