like wtf, this 64 usd cpu when 5 times slower in most productivity tests only loses out by little in gaming benchmarks.
Meaning all these fancy new cpu gimmiicks n caches they keep adding, no games seem to use to its fullest potentials, i dareeven say, dont even bother using it all looking at these benches. zilch , zero benefits.
like comooon, hugely dissapointed to see this shit , wtf pc gamers, getting shafted n ripped off bigtime
the lowest price cpu performs up to 80% of the expensive one....
oh and the kicker, the cheap cpu uses almost 3* less power
Last edited by PickupArtist on Tue, 12th Sep 2017 23:29; edited 2 times in total
the wtf part is that i3 i5 i7 i9 for gaming u can see as each as a 5% increase in fps ... thats fucking sad when the price doubles for each category almost.
gamers deserve better , meh, future gaming rigs will now be lowest budget of the lowest, never spending a dime to much in this bullshit industry again
i expected at least a 100% performance difference, not a meager 20% , and yep, overclock it and u probably reduce the difference to like 5%.
not to mention the cheap cpu uses almost 3* less power 54 compared to 140 TDP
Last edited by PickupArtist on Tue, 12th Sep 2017 23:26; edited 1 time in total
the wtf part is that i3 i5 i7 i9 for gaming u can see as each as a 5% increase in fps ... thats fucking sad when the price doubles for each category almost.
gamers deserve better , meh, future gaming rigs will now be lowest budget of the lowest, never spending a dime to much in this bullshit industry again
i expected at least a 100% performance difference, not a meager 20% , and yep, overclock it and u probably reduce the difference to like 5%.
not to mention they use twice to three times the power in TDP
Hey, hey, I'm with you on this. At least to a very limited degree. But it's just not a surprise to me.
Besides, it's not like they're keeping these CPUs away from the public eye. If it fits their needs, they can go for it. This isn't meant as an excuse, I still think that many of the "better" CPUs are pretty overpriced considering their performance if you compare to recent generations.
It's more interesting to me that this shows how badly game's use the available power. But I'm also not a techie so I'm not sure if they even could if they wanted to.
its just sad, this whole decade the hardware industry has watched and learned from apple, as to who can bullshit the most pretty much. The inner kid in me who used to upgrade his rig almost every year or so last decade (1996-2006), now is looking at no cpu upgrade for the next 8 years or so ....
only thing that went up was my powerbill, needlesly i see now, those motherfuckers.
Last edited by PickupArtist on Tue, 12th Sep 2017 23:41; edited 1 time in total
Idk, I'm quite happy that I didn't have to upgrade all this time (in terms of CPU) and I'm pretty sure I actually still would do decent enough for some more with that 2500K if I'd just be gaming. But I do and also want to dabble with other things so I'll upgrade to one of those overpriced CPUs in October/November
Sin317-"im 31 years old and still surprised at how much shit comes out of my ass actually ..."
SteamDRM-"Call of Duty is the symbol of the true perfection in every aspect. Call of Duty games are like Mozart's/Beethoven's symphonies"
deadpoetic-"are you new to the cyberspace?"
Sin317-"im 31 years old and still surprised at how much shit comes out of my ass actually ..."
SteamDRM-"Call of Duty is the symbol of the true perfection in every aspect. Call of Duty games are like Mozart's/Beethoven's symphonies"
deadpoetic-"are you new to the cyberspace?"
Diminishing returns are found in many products. Indeed most people dont need the most expensive one. But to claim that only the cheap one here is somehow sensible is ridiculous as demonstrated by the video itself.
97th percentile make it obvious to me that I cant accept the performance of the G4XXX with Deus Ex and Tomb raider of the limited sample set, one of which even runs acceptably using the artificially limited pricy model.
For gamers though an 8 core isn't the best value option anyway though. Take a 4 core version like the 7700k and reduce the price from almost 600 to slightly above 300. But yes, price performance may not scale linearly.
So what's the best price/performance ratio CPU currently for gaming and emulators?
I still have an ancient first gen (!) i7 @ 3.3ghz.
In some games I'm clearly CPU limited, for others it is still fast enough though.
You can´t be serious? Lets recap this shit comparison, same gen pentiums has same IPC as higher core counter parts, this means in shit engines that uses 2 cores, works exactly the same as on monster 2000 dollar 16 core / 32 thread CPU.
Like I have ALWAYS said, the core thing is utter bullshit for anyone except professionals that need that many core. With games, nearly every benchmark shows little advantage. Sure, if you run all sorts of software next to your games it might work but when you consider the price difference ...
Right now I have i7-3770k CPU. I have had it for FIVE years now. Over the course of these 5 years I've been interested in upgrading but each time I checked the performance benefits in games, I discovered I get MAYBE a 5% increase and this for a €800 upgrade. Fuck that.
Right now I have i7-3770k CPU. I have had it for FIVE years now. Over the course of these 5 years I've been interested in upgrading but each time I checked the performance benefits in games, I discovered I get MAYBE a 5% increase and this for a €800 upgrade. Fuck that.
You can't just blame that on games, as benchmarks indicate barely any increase in speed anywhere
But seriously, for budget or value oriented costumers 60 vs 300 might be an easy choice
Right now I have i7-3770k CPU. I have had it for FIVE years now. Over the course of these 5 years I've been interested in upgrading but each time I checked the performance benefits in games, I discovered I get MAYBE a 5% increase and this for a €800 upgrade. Fuck that.
You can't just blame that on games, as benchmarks indicate barely any increase in speed anywhere
But seriously, for budget or value oriented costumers 60 vs 300 might be an easy choice
You would be better off buying a used i5 for that 60 instead of these Pentium CPUs.
red_avatar wrote:
Like I have ALWAYS said, the core thing is utter bullshit for anyone except professionals that need that many core. With games, nearly every benchmark shows little advantage. Sure, if you run all sorts of software next to your games it might work but when you consider the price difference ...
Right now I have i7-3770k CPU. I have had it for FIVE years now. Over the course of these 5 years I've been interested in upgrading but each time I checked the performance benefits in games, I discovered I get MAYBE a 5% increase and this for a €800 upgrade. Fuck that.
It's more like 5% per generation so it adds up eventually. It would make sens to upgrade to a modern CPU from a really old one like 3770K, I went from 3570K to the 6600K myself and even though I lost 300MHz on overclocks it's still faster than the 3570K was.
If you REALLY want value for money, buy a Skylake i3 or something maybe. Or just that used i5 really if you play anything from the last 10 years or something.
Architectural improvements can also help although the gains from these can be more varied but to use a extreme example the newer emulators appears to have some pretty good gains between even Intel's Sandy Bridge and the immediate successor to these, Haswell with upwards of some 20% gains although for general gaming it tends to be more about the clock speeds and having at least a dual core, ideally a quad though above that most games don't scale too well.
(Still going to be mainly GPU limitations for gaming too.)
There's more than gaming though, media playback or various types of software might see some good gains from newer CPU's too, I'm glad AMD is giving Intel some more competition though so they can get back into some actual competition.
Perhaps improve that issue with the CPU thermal and TIM stuff for one thing, not that your average user would be a overclock enthusiast but even without that bit it seems the newer CPU's sees some good temperature decreases though I don't know, even if tools have made it far easier popping the lid off of the CPU is a bit much but I can see why people do it.
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
