I agree with Flight Sim 2020.The only two games I’m interested in seeing benchmarks for right now are Crysis Remastered and Microsoft Flight Simulator.
They are the most demanding.
I guess its good that some people you know use computers for other things than just playing games lol.Zen2 gaming performance is pathetic. Can not beat a 6 year old architecture heavily slowed down by security patches. Jesus Christ, if there had been no patches, Intel would have been almost on par in productivity with Amd.
That is why Microsoft has developed "Direct Storage" API (Series X/S also uses DS API) which the new RTX 3000 (and likely RDNA2) support.I constant used many cards but found when using them you got little to no speed improvements.
When I started investigating why I constant had issues witt mutiple cards installed if I used 2, 3 or 4 cards the each step lower performance gain made me decide to stop using more cards.
Especially because the software developers did not really had an interest in making this work better, for them it was just some silly people using such amounts of cards.
In most cases the slots are reduced to X8 or even less often some of the older boards claimed to have full speed but in reality most of the time you never got them working at that speeds for real.
Anyway most motherboards switch to lower speeds on the bus when using more cards.
In reality when pci-e 3.0 came out I already noticed hardly any difference if the slot ran in pci-e x8 speeds or with full x16 the difference was so minor that it made for me the conclusion that the cards are not really needings those lanes for real. Maybe there are some limits into play which I actually never have investigated. However I found on almost everything in consumers boards that they often have alot of limits or use alot of pci-e lanes sharing.
For instance when you want to use alot of ssd's to make a raid setup you often kinda end up in a recipe of disaster. So the thing is with all my experiments I ended up that I actually need to buy a very expensive PRO board for what I like todo. But even those often have huge issues when you want do what I do.
The same goes for NVME I bought a board with 3 nvme slots guess what all 3 share 1 pci-e lane and worse is that the sata devices use the same freaking pci-e lane.
And actually after trying to find a game board which really can do what I want I ended up with nothing NO board is able to run a sata ssd raid and 2 or 3 nvme at the same time, all consumer boards switch of the sata ports or you have to remove at least 2 nvme drives or all sata drives.
But worse is that the pci-e slots often are very limited as well, they sell these for high prices but they actually all switch back to x8 or less if you start using more slots.
And no I do not consider myself as a heavy user, but yes I like to do weird things.
People keep blabbing that nvme is so fast, ITS not only in certain multi user environments they are fast not in a single user environment. I have been telling thousands of people that sata is still the faster gaming drive, but nobody believed me even if they saw it with their own eyes. People mocked me and called me many bad names but fact is I am right a normal SATA SSD is in most cases often faster with games and such. Hell even with many heavy workloads sata does beat the crap out the most overhyped so called super fast drives. One thing is for sure I love the tiny cards and the way can be be build into your system and take so little space thats the major point I love them. Performance wise they still are slower than several good sata based ssd.
I can not tell you why but I really have tested it alot and my games run better on the fast sata drives I have. Yes they are so called slower in synthetic benchmarks but those are idoit products which do not really show anything else than a hyped potential sell product.
In reality the numbers are often bleak for new products. Sata ssd was not and still are not such a fake upgrade they are king in performance. Funny enough I hate several reviewers and one of them kinda proved what I am telling people for years, he made a video about and there is now worldwide proof about what I been telling people for many years when nvme came out.
Nobody in a single user environment can make use of these so called superspeeds if your gaming nor could anyone show me a real life scenario where the so called 3500 Mb/s was actually used in normal work.
But my main point still is games never ever ran better or faster and thats a fact I been telling after nvme was released. Real world performance is often lower than the best sata ssd's can perform at. Now we need to know why the so called speed kings fail to be as fast or why they can not come near that speed when we are gaming.
I read that some game developers are busy trying to improve game loading performance but still its a very difficult subject, there are many limits in play here so making games load faster needs some real serious thinking and probably new tech to actually make improvements.
For now SATA ssd is really still the best for loading games [ PERIOD ]
Now we are at PCI-e 4 and I see actually again the same there is little to no gain in the new standard slots, nobody has showed me a real life setup where the PCI-e 4 slot shows a superb speed increase at all. Again I do not want to buy a os called PRO board because A) they are overpriced B) need a very overhyped plenty of cores cpu are super prices which I do not need or ever use. C) actually turns out to be often the same big pain in the behind with conflicts and problems. And do not really add something for gaming in fact its a fact they are almost allways slower for gaming.
Lets make one thing clear there are hardly any games out there who people actually play and I mean not the ones being used as a benchmark ... (hint 1) which is actually almost the only DX12 game you always see as a benchmark (hint 2)
Back on the point no games actually really make use of more than 1 to 4 cores some people showed me some results but they actually are fake the os and other tasks being used are showing usage and NOT the game is actually using more than 4 Threads. Besides the above mentioned benchmark toy, which hardly is played by people anymore. There are hardly any games which need more than 4 cores for real so again the same story what I need a 12c/24t cpu for I do not know I can not think of any real world scenario besides Pro work which I do not need nor do anymore.
Thats why I did not upgarde really from my 6700k there is no real gain, I even proved to many friends my 6700k ran better than their expenssive new toys in most cases. And the 77ook ran slower in my games so that was a no go either. However I was hoping that a newer board would solve my problems with my high demands and allowed the setup I wanted.
But in reality I ended up getting yet another cold shower, the on paper should work motherboard did again did not run what I want as all other before.
Alot of promises and sell arguments again being nonsense and lies again from the hardware sellers....
Do not believe the companies on delivering what they promise or claim if your a high end user, thats my only advise I can give, and above all do not believe anything so called benchmarks tell you.
They are often BS [ period ]
Yep, DF did a great break down. Was surprised to see how many visuals did not translate well.I agree with Flight Sim 2020.
Crysis Remastered appears to be CPU limited. Digital Foundry had a great video covering this. In short it looks like even with an Intel 10900K CPU or Ryzen 3900X CPU, it is essentially using just one CPU core for most of the heavy hitting.
Well this was a good read in a while from Techspots comments!That is why Microsoft has developed "Direct Storage" API (Series X/S also uses DS API) which the new RTX 3000 (and likely RDNA2) support.
Well over 100fps in the majority of games is far from pathetic. Also believe or not there are people who actually use their computers to do more than just gaming mate.Zen2 gaming performance is pathetic. Can not beat a 6 year old architecture heavily slowed down by security patches. Jesus Christ, if there had been no patches, Intel would have been almost on par in productivity with Amd.