Report: More PC gamers are turning to AMD's processors

Lionvibez

Posts: 1,972   +1,254
Any 1990's PC can browse the internet.
Do you actually believe this?

All pc's from the 1990's are single core and not alot of ram. Have you tried loading chrome on a single core machine with 512mb-1GB of ram with Windows 98 ( XP wasn't out until like 2001). Then try to go to any modern website. I guarantee you will stop in frustration within 15 mins. So I don't argee with this part.

And the your list seems to be mostly older games. Which would explain why you don't see a need to upgrade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Evernessince

TheBigT42

Posts: 437   +342
In the server world, it is a real concern. There should be no issue, right? Well, if you are managing virtual machine hosts, transferring a live VM from an intel to a AMD server can cause problems. Both VMware and HyperV warn of this issue. So if you already have a ton of intel srvers and need another few, guess which ones are more likely to be stable? AMD EPYC offers a good value, but it will take time and testing before businesses are willing to risk downtime to buy AMD over intel.
Yes big difference in the Virtual world...You need to have All Intel Hosts or All AMD.
With VMware if can also be an issue (A LOT Smaller of an issue) to have different generations of CPUs. You need to have Enhance vMotion Compatibility turned on so all Hosts run the VMs at the oldest CPU level
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lionvibez

Evernessince

Posts: 5,311   +5,772
I don’t have any direct benchmarks. However, from gamers nexus review you can see a stock 7700K is around 7% faster than an overclocked R5 3600;


If you then look at gamers nexus review of the 7700K there is only 1fps difference between the 7700K and the 4790K at stock as they are very similar chips;



Ergo, it’s reasonably safe to assume that the 4790K when overclocked will be faster than a 7700K and therefore faster than the overclocked R5 3600 in games. I can confirm this personally, my housemate has a stock 7700K and gets a lower single and multithreaded score in cinebench than my 4790K at 4.9ghz does. I understand it’s not a direct comparison but it’s hard to find reviewers that have directly compared a 4790K with a 3xxx Ryzen part. This YouTube video is the best I can find and they most trade blows at stock, however the i7 will gain much more from an overclock than the Ryzen part.
The 3600 wins in 4 of the 7 presented benchmarks on GamersNexus. Where did you get your "7700K is around 7% faster" figure from? You don't provide the math here nor does GN provide that information.

The only mention of 7% on that page is this:

"At 1080p, the R5 3600’s stock 155FPS AVG shows a ~7% improvement over the 2600 overclocked to 4.2GHz "

I really don't see how those numbers will add up to 7%, especially when one of the 3 games the 7700K does win in is a fraction of a percentage better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lionvibez

Karl Hungus

Posts: 69   +40
Do you actually believe this?

All pc's from the 1990's are single core and not alot of ram. Have you tried loading chrome on a single core machine with 512mb-1GB of ram with Windows 98 ( XP wasn't out until like 2001). Then try to go to any modern website. I guarantee you will stop in frustration within 15 mins. So I don't argee with this part.

And the your list seems to be mostly older games. Which would explain why you don't see a need to upgrade.
Obviously I was being facetious. Very little is required to browse the internet. Do you know games at all? NONE of those are 'older' games. Try running DCS World with High settings and AA enabled and tell me how your frames are (free download to get you started). Use Google if you need help...
 

Lionvibez

Posts: 1,972   +1,254
Obviously I was being facetious. Very little is required to browse the internet. Do you know games at all? NONE of those are 'older' games. Try running DCS World with High settings and AA enabled and tell me how your frames are (free download to get you started). Use Google if you need help...
Lol since I've been playing games for about 30 years now I think I do.

DCS world release date Oct 17,2008
Steel Beasts Pro PE release date July 2019
Squad release date December 2015
Post Scriptum release date August 9, 2018
Workers & Resources release date March 15, 2019
Combat Mission release date May 31, 2000
ANNO 1800 release date April 12, 2019
Transport Fever 2 release date Dec 11, 2019

I looked at the system requirements for all of these games you don't really have any heavy hitters in that list boss.

DCS World Recommended Requirements

  • CPU: Core i5+
  • CPU SPEED: Info
  • RAM: 16 GB
  • OS: OS 64-bit Windows 7/8/10
  • VIDEO CARD: NVIDIA GeForce GTX780 / ATI R9 290 DirectX11 or better
  • PIXEL SHADER: 5.0
  • VERTEX SHADER: 5.0
  • FREE DISK SPACE: 30 GB
  • DEDICATED VIDEO RAM: 3 GB
 
Last edited:

Shadowboxer

Posts: 912   +543
There are games now that use more than 4 cores the battlefield series is a good example. So this statement isn't accurate. And how can you make this claim about the life time of todays cpu's?

The next gen of consoles will be using 8 core Zen 2 chips, so games will be made to use more than a Quad core with in the lifetime of those consoles, those same games will see PC ports for some of them.

Alot of new AMD build these days are using the 3700x only those on limited budgets would be using the 3600.

If you guys want to stick to Haswell Quads for 10 years enjoy I already play games that a quad core is a bottleneck.
There is a tiny amount of games that benefit from having 6 cores over 4. But those same games run worse on a 6 core at 3ghz than a quad core at 4ghz. They are still more sensitive to single core performance than core count.

If you think a gaming system is bottlenecked by a quad core then you definitely don’t understand what you are talking about and I suggest you go away, learn about the subject you are talking about and then come back and apologise...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Squid Surprise

Lionvibez

Posts: 1,972   +1,254
If you think a gaming system is bottlenecked by a quad core then you definitely don’t understand what you are talking about and I suggest you go away, learn about the subject you are talking about and then come back and apologise...
LMAO okay!
 

anth85

Posts: 6   +3
Imagine not even knowing that the "business market" has been using AMD processors the entire time. I do CGI - 3D architectural visualization, specifically - for a living. Perhaps you've seen all the Vray and Corona and Cinema 4D benchmarks on this site before? That's us. That's what we use, as data sets when upgrading our computers.

That's THE business market for these processors. Me. I've still got two 8350s and an 8120 running and rendering right now, in fact. That's how the "business market" is working.
Again, missing the point. How many people do CGI stuff for a living? Compare that to your standard admin worker/receptionist type. Sure AMD may have been better for some things, but go on HP's or Dell's website and find me a business desktop or laptop with an AMD chip in it. For those that don't have those specialist requirements, Intel has a massive market lead, and that annoys me.
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 912   +543
Again, missing the point. How many people do CGI stuff for a living? Compare that to your standard admin worker/receptionist type. Sure AMD may have been better for some things, but go on HP's or Dell's website and find me a business desktop or laptop with an AMD chip in it. For those that don't have those specialist requirements, Intel has a massive market lead, and that annoys me.
That appears to be something that can change quite quickly, 6 months ago no one in our office had any AMD parts, now most of our new laptops have Ryzen parts and the machines for the interns are AMD A10s (god help them lol). Remember Ryzen is relatively new and still inferior to Intel when it comes to laptop hardware (until Ryzen mobile 4xxx parts are out - then it will be interesting to see if they are faster than Intel’s 10nm stuff). Unfortunately however we have all received Ryzen 2xxx parts which all have dreadful battery life.