I've built three machines each with liquid cooling, two of which are older than three years old and they've not had one issue with their all-in-one liquid coolers. They've been solid performers.
I mean that Pubg is a game where once you hit a certain fps wall, doesn´t matter how much power you throw at it, it won´t go past that framerate. Be it with a 9900k at 6ghz or 720p low settings with a 2080ti.
I have a 240hz monitor where I play online games and a 4k 60hz as secondary.
You can´t reach locked 180-240 fps on Apex Legends, Battlefield V, Escape from Tarkov, Quake Champions, Black Ops 4 or WW2 with an AMD cpu right now, only 9700k or 9900k. If you are talking about locked 138fps for Gsync/FreeSync on 144hz monitors, then again, 2700x can´t do it on every game as you mentioned. Probably Zen2 will be able to deal with any game at 144hz wich a 138fps lock (optimal zone for Gsync/FreeSync), but let´s see if it can deal with 165hz and 240hz, that´s the doubt here.
Just because you use 144hz and you are happy with it, doesn´t mean other users do not want an even smoother experience. It depends on each one preference. So by your logic no one should buy the new AMD CPUs or Intel high end CPUs because no one needs more than a 2600x for gaming? (your own words).
If your pump is noisy then it's probably damaged, return itA noisy pump and a dust magnet that has the same chances of leaking liquid to your components as a big air cooler has of bending a motherboard, while being more expensive, got it.
Thats wrong, there is no wall in PUBG anymore. I get anything from 100 to 350 on my 8700k.
According to the benchmarks from this very site you cant get a locked 144 on 8700 9700 or 9900k in BF V. That's what I'm basically saying. No CPU can lock (literally lock) 144 on most games. I have 4000c16 ram and I can't lock it in PUBG. Sure Intel does better than AMD, but I really don't think the experience is that much different.
By my logic I'm saying we are splitting hairs here. Of course we I assume are enthusiasts (I mean I "upgraded" from an r5 1600 to 8700k), but for the average gamer an R5 1600 is already an insane overkill imo.
Even on single core in geekbench someone compared i7 7700k with 3600 at same clocks and the AMD chip still lost:
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/13330826
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/13342120
Plus the fact the 6 core and 8 core CPUs will still have 2x CCX design, so latencies will still happen in gaming.
That is comparison between overclocked Intel 4.2ghz vs AMD 3.6ghz base clock and 4.2ghz boost clock.
This you should look at, same clocks, same speed.
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/13391861
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/13330826
According to the benchmarks from this very site, neither can sustain anywhere near close to a 144fps lock. And no, they are not gpu bottlenecked, have you actually seen teh bench? They get the exact same fps in 1080p and 1440p.Battlefield V? I have a 9700k @ 5ghz and I NEVER drop from 190fps on Battlefield V Conquest Large 64 players on Narvik or Devastation (the most intensive maps). This website benchmarks have a GPU bottleneck in place. Ryzen 2700x can´t even sustain constant 138fps on the same game.
And if we talk about the "average gamer" as you said, then even an i3 9100f 80€ quad core will do, or a Ryzen 1500x. High refresh gaming is a thing in 2019, people want more frames, specially on multiplayer games like Apex, Fortnite, CoD, Battalion etc, wich are some of the most played games right now on PC.
[PC ONLY] CRASHES SPECIFIC TO INTEL CPUs
We investigated the crash reports from many people who were crashing frequently and found that Intel CPUs sometimes were not executing the instructions properly in one particular function. A common example was an instruction that only reads a register crashed on writing to invalid memory. With the help of many forum users, we found that lowering the clock speed always fixed the crashes, even if the CPU wasn't overclocked or overheating. Thanks everyone, with a big shout out to Falkentyne, TEZZ0FIN0, JorPorCorTTV, and MrDakk!
This has been by far the most commonly reported PC crash over the last month or so and we’ve notified Intel about the issue. In the meantime, we’ve put a workaround in this patch to avoid the crashing at your original clock speeds just by changing the instructions used by that one function.
It doesn't look that big. Assuming the fan is a 120 or 140mm then the heatsink is a fairly standard size, probably up to 165mm tall. The MB shouldn't be under any stress - that's the job of the retention bracket to take the weight. Plus that heatsink looks fairly slim - I've seen much bigger blocks from beQuiet or Noctua. MUCH bigger.Dude, that's a huge heatsink! I wouldn't at all be comfortable with that hanging off the side of my motherboard.
According to the benchmarks from this very site, neither can sustain anywhere near close to a 144fps lock. And no, they are not gpu bottlenecked, have you actually seen teh bench? They get the exact same fps in 1080p and 1440p.
Granted, if you lower the settings you'll get more fps, but so will the Ryzen. So, have you actually seen an R7 2700x with a 2080ti on low settings in BFV and it couldn't sustain 144 frames as you claimed? Please, send me the link.
Also, since its 2019, im assuming besides high refresh gaming people want their games not to crash.
And I'm quoting the apex legend's developers, BY FAR THE MOST COMMONLY REPORTED PC CRASH
https://www.ea.com/games/apex-legends/news/performance-update-may-2019
I would say most gamers run their CPU on air. Even narrowing it down to just enthusiasts, there are plenty of comparison studies showing that a good air cooler is just as effective as using water cooling and can be just as quiet. After that, it's mostly down to looks versus cost versus maintenance.Also, what gamer runs their CPU without a AIO water cooler..? (fans?...lol)
I would say most gamers run their CPU on air. Even narrowing it down to just enthusiasts, there are plenty of comparison studies showing that a good air cooler is just as effective as using water cooling and can be just as quiet. After that, it's mostly down to looks versus cost versus maintenance.
[QUOTE="LogiGaming, post: 1751299, member: 404517"
ALso you are talking about this review from techspot about BF V right? Then yes, it was GPU bottlenecked as you can see from the GPU usage, and STILL Ryzen couldn´t let the GPU be utilized at more than 90% a LOT of times. Look at those atrocious 1% lows caused by lack of CPU juice
Did you actually watch the MSI Afterburner/RTSS graphs? Look at GPU usage and then tell me is not a bottlenecked GPU test. Then look at the other video I shown you with the GPU at 50%/60%. That´s a proper non bottlenecked GPU test. If you are running your gpu at 85% to 100% usage you are already on bottlebeck territory, is not how you analyze how much a CPU can handle as far as average fps is concerned. Convenient that you ignored the other video I shown you and also the older one with the 9900k with 220-250fps across every map on the same RTX 2080ti at low settings.
Now it´s your turn to show me a Battlefield V test at low settings with GPU usage on the 50%/60% with a 2700x vs Intel cpu. Go on, I will here be waiting for that.
If you done any benchmarking yourself you would realize that ~90% GPU usage is not a gpu bottleneck. If it's not hitting 99%, its your CPU. It's OBVIOUS in that particular bench, since he is getting 151 avg on 1080p and 142 on 1440p!! Apparently, you aren't an expert in benchmarking.
Take a look at the 2070 numbers. It gets 131 fps on 1080p and 90 on 1440p. THAT's a gpu bottleneck, on both resolutions. The other one isn't
Don't let's be silly.This is beyond ridiculous now. 768p, 720p resolutions? 180-200fps? what is this? whats the point? even Ryzen+ can have almost same performance at 1440p and 4k than Intel, I'm tired of hearing every PC elitist screaming 4k or bust but now we are discussing who gets to 500 fps at 360p?
This is beyond ridiculous now. 768p, 720p resolutions? 180-200fps? what is this? whats the point? even Ryzen+ can have almost same performance at 1440p and 4k than Intel, I'm tired of hearing every PC elitist screaming 4k or bust but now we are discussing who gets to 500 fps at 360p?
I've read and I'm not being silly, who cares what my CPU can handle if at 1440/4k it can give me 60+ fps, what's the point a 9900k@5Ghz can give you 140fps at 1440p and a 2700x can give you 110 fps but consuming half the energy and less hot, it can be the other way around. The thing is we need to stop justifying our decisions and start being real, objectively speaking Ryzen is good enough for almost everything, now if you want to go beyond what's necessary to justify that Intel can give you more fps or whatever, I'll tell you you're the one being silly here but based in your username 60 fps is not enough probably 200 fps will be in more time and so on.You are being silly here. Did you read it all? What a gtx 1060 does at 720p low settings, a RTX 2080 does at 1080p low settings. If you dont have an high end gpu, the only way to know how much fps your cpu can handle on a certain game is reducing graphics, no one said I play at 720p. Stop being silly and read.
I've read and I'm not being silly, who cares what my CPU can handle if at 1440/4k it can give me 60+ fps, what's the point a 9900k@5Ghz can give you 140fps at 1440p and a 2700x can give you 110 fps but consuming half the energy and less hot, it can be the other way around. The thing is we need to stop justifying our decisions and start being real, objectively speaking Ryzen is good enough for almost everything, now if you want to go beyond what's necessary to justify that Intel can give you more fps or whatever, I'll tell you you're the one being silly here but based in your username 60 fps is not enough probably 200 fps will be in more time and so on.
I've read and I'm not being silly, who cares what my CPU can handle if at 1440/4k it can give me 60+ fps, what's the point a 9900k@5Ghz can give you 140fps at 1440p and a 2700x can give you 110 fps but consuming half the energy and less hot, it can be the other way around. The thing is we need to stop justifying our decisions and start being real, objectively speaking Ryzen is good enough for almost everything, now if you want to go beyond what's necessary to justify that Intel can give you more fps or whatever, I'll tell you you're the one being silly here but based in your username 60 fps is not enough probably 200 fps will be in more time and so on.
Don't let's be silly.
350fps at a nice clean VGA 480p will do just fine.
Now I'm a casual because I see 200fps redundant. LOL, first it was " not HD? you're a casual", " not 1080p? go away casual", "4k or bust casual", " 60 fps minimum or you're a casual", " 140 fps is not enough, below that is for casuals" and in the future 500fps and 10k. SMHSo just because 60fps is enough for you it must be enough for everyone? no! I mostly play online shooters, I want locked framerate at high fps because I dont want graphics, I want frags. Simple as that. The higher the fps the lower the input lag, and steady fps is very important for a good aim too! And nl, 60fps or 100fps are not enough to me.
If you are a casual gamer and accept 60fps, Single player games etc, thats fine! But dont act like thats all everyone needs. Everyone wants different experiences. I would never play 4k 60hz if I had the chance to play 1080p 240hz, for example. Only if I played tomb raider or something.