The "PC Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
As you may know, I'm saving for a new graphics card and I'm looking at the GTX 960 as a good card for the money that also works well with a standard 500w PSU.
But....what if I saved a bit more and bought a new PC? My CPU is not great, it's an A8 APU and it's struggling at times, the motherboard is creaky and only an FM2 and won't take anything other than the APUs due to the wonderful knobbling HP do on their Bios. So I'm thinking here's a challenge, find me a PC (on Amazon as I have vouchers making up some of my money towards it, or take £150-£200 off the maximum price) that will; a) run all the latest games at high settings or thereabouts (not necessarily ultra), b) costs less than or around £500 and c) looks pretty.
This is the best I've come up with so far:
Go!
But....what if I saved a bit more and bought a new PC? My CPU is not great, it's an A8 APU and it's struggling at times, the motherboard is creaky and only an FM2 and won't take anything other than the APUs due to the wonderful knobbling HP do on their Bios. So I'm thinking here's a challenge, find me a PC (on Amazon as I have vouchers making up some of my money towards it, or take £150-£200 off the maximum price) that will; a) run all the latest games at high settings or thereabouts (not necessarily ultra), b) costs less than or around £500 and c) looks pretty.
This is the best I've come up with so far:
Go!
Page:
All calm on the Western Front ;¬)
chasfh wrote:
pb wrote:
[i]chasfh wrote:
[i]"What they should have said is that in a direct comparison between AMD and Intel the AMD CPU will often see a drop of FPS in high end cards." = bottleneck
Read your own responses, pb, I'm not getting "shirty", just tired of repeating myself.
No, a bottleneck is when the CPU can't keep up with the card. A drop in FPS can also happen when the CPU drops frames for more physics based instructions that are nothing to do with the graphics card. You'll see it with a GTX 750 or R9 270 as much as with a high end card, so bottlenecking doesn't come into it and probably won't be the reason for their differences in the test.
Either way, it's very hard to prove that a CPU is bottlenecking a card or that the CPU is just slower. That's why I said the journalist was incorrect in the way they went about explaining things.[/i]
Really? So why mention GPU's at all? Read your own response.
"Just type "FX4300" in the search bar on Amazon, then take your pick if you want a ready-made system. Avoid the "FX 4300 Bulldozer" chips, you want FX4300 Piledriver. MAJORLY important, hugely different..."
MY suggestion from earlier in the post.[/i]
I believe I replied at the time, the prices were just not as good from the systems available. Since an i3 is the nearest equivalent in speed tests, an i5 would be the next step up.
Back to the PC Gamer quote, it's not really a good piece of advice in general to suggest 'any intel CPU' would be fine as an i3 can have a vastly different outcome to an i5 or i7 and the same is true of AMDs different FX chips. The higher end Intel chips are faster than anything but on the lower end there won't be much difference between an FX4300 and an i3 3220 as far as PC gaming, so it's a bit erroneous of the journalist to suggest otherwise.
pb wrote:
[i]chasfh wrote:
[i]"What they should have said is that in a direct comparison between AMD and Intel the AMD CPU will often see a drop of FPS in high end cards." = bottleneck
Read your own responses, pb, I'm not getting "shirty", just tired of repeating myself.
No, a bottleneck is when the CPU can't keep up with the card. A drop in FPS can also happen when the CPU drops frames for more physics based instructions that are nothing to do with the graphics card. You'll see it with a GTX 750 or R9 270 as much as with a high end card, so bottlenecking doesn't come into it and probably won't be the reason for their differences in the test.
Either way, it's very hard to prove that a CPU is bottlenecking a card or that the CPU is just slower. That's why I said the journalist was incorrect in the way they went about explaining things.[/i]
Really? So why mention GPU's at all? Read your own response.
"Just type "FX4300" in the search bar on Amazon, then take your pick if you want a ready-made system. Avoid the "FX 4300 Bulldozer" chips, you want FX4300 Piledriver. MAJORLY important, hugely different..."
MY suggestion from earlier in the post.[/i]
I believe I replied at the time, the prices were just not as good from the systems available. Since an i3 is the nearest equivalent in speed tests, an i5 would be the next step up.
Back to the PC Gamer quote, it's not really a good piece of advice in general to suggest 'any intel CPU' would be fine as an i3 can have a vastly different outcome to an i5 or i7 and the same is true of AMDs different FX chips. The higher end Intel chips are faster than anything but on the lower end there won't be much difference between an FX4300 and an i3 3220 as far as PC gaming, so it's a bit erroneous of the journalist to suggest otherwise.
pb wrote:
chasfh wrote:
[i]"What they should have said is that in a direct comparison between AMD and Intel the AMD CPU will often see a drop of FPS in high end cards." = bottleneck
Read your own responses, pb, I'm not getting "shirty", just tired of repeating myself.
No, a bottleneck is when the CPU can't keep up with the card. A drop in FPS can also happen when the CPU drops frames for more physics based instructions that are nothing to do with the graphics card. You'll see it with a GTX 750 or R9 270 as much as with a high end card, so bottlenecking doesn't come into it and probably won't be the reason for their differences in the test.
Either way, it's very hard to prove that a CPU is bottlenecking a card or that the CPU is just slower. That's why I said the journalist was incorrect in the way they went about explaining things.[/i]
Really? So why mention GPU's at all? Read your own response.
"Just type "FX4300" in the search bar on Amazon, then take your pick if you want a ready-made system. Avoid the "FX 4300 Bulldozer" chips, you want FX4300 Piledriver. MAJORLY important, hugely different..."
MY suggestion from earlier in the post.
chasfh wrote:
[i]"What they should have said is that in a direct comparison between AMD and Intel the AMD CPU will often see a drop of FPS in high end cards." = bottleneck
Read your own responses, pb, I'm not getting "shirty", just tired of repeating myself.
No, a bottleneck is when the CPU can't keep up with the card. A drop in FPS can also happen when the CPU drops frames for more physics based instructions that are nothing to do with the graphics card. You'll see it with a GTX 750 or R9 270 as much as with a high end card, so bottlenecking doesn't come into it and probably won't be the reason for their differences in the test.
Either way, it's very hard to prove that a CPU is bottlenecking a card or that the CPU is just slower. That's why I said the journalist was incorrect in the way they went about explaining things.[/i]
Really? So why mention GPU's at all? Read your own response.
"Just type "FX4300" in the search bar on Amazon, then take your pick if you want a ready-made system. Avoid the "FX 4300 Bulldozer" chips, you want FX4300 Piledriver. MAJORLY important, hugely different..."
MY suggestion from earlier in the post.
chasfh wrote:
"What they should have said is that in a direct comparison between AMD and Intel the AMD CPU will often see a drop of FPS in high end cards." = bottleneck
Read your own responses, pb, I'm not getting "shirty", just tired of repeating myself.
No, a bottleneck is when the CPU can't keep up with the card. A drop in FPS can also happen when the CPU drops frames for more physics based instructions that are nothing to do with the graphics card. You'll see it with a GTX 750 or R9 270 as much as with a high end card, so bottlenecking doesn't come into it and probably won't be the reason for their differences in the test.
Either way, it's very hard to prove that a CPU is bottlenecking a card or that the CPU is just slower. That's why I said the journalist was incorrect in the way they went about explaining things.
"What they should have said is that in a direct comparison between AMD and Intel the AMD CPU will often see a drop of FPS in high end cards." = bottleneck
Read your own responses, pb, I'm not getting "shirty", just tired of repeating myself.
No, a bottleneck is when the CPU can't keep up with the card. A drop in FPS can also happen when the CPU drops frames for more physics based instructions that are nothing to do with the graphics card. You'll see it with a GTX 750 or R9 270 as much as with a high end card, so bottlenecking doesn't come into it and probably won't be the reason for their differences in the test.
Either way, it's very hard to prove that a CPU is bottlenecking a card or that the CPU is just slower. That's why I said the journalist was incorrect in the way they went about explaining things.
"What they should have said is that in a direct comparison between AMD and Intel the AMD CPU will often see a drop of FPS in high end cards." = bottleneck
Read your own responses, pb, I'm not getting "shirty", just tired of repeating myself.
Read your own responses, pb, I'm not getting "shirty", just tired of repeating myself.
chasfh wrote:
pb wrote:
[i]chasfh wrote:
[i]1) I never, EVER said "faster"
2) I never, EVER mentioned a "conspiracy"
3) "CPU hamstringing GPU= Bottleneck, however you wrap it up, and that's WRONG
Anyone who thinks CPU speed is the ONLY factor that counts for a gaming pc probably ought to brush up on their pc knowledge. That's what your analogy suggests, that's what your argument suggests, and quite frankly, that's about as short-sighted as they come.
Thanks pete for posting. It highlights the fact that my sub-£500 pc is running the same game with the same settings as a £1500 pc. Sure, he's probably getting more than the 60 fps that I'm getting, but that's a difference I doubt most people would notice/ be worried about.
To use your own analogy, £1500 might well pull away faster, but I'm still getting there on time, and if there's a "speed bump" on they way, well, I'm driving straight through.
Which would any sensible person prefer?
"Seemed to be hit or miss based on certain hardware configurations, but most of the issues were for some high end cards and CPU combinations."
Thanks for proving my point.
CPU hamstringing GPU= Bottleneck - Yes. Fortunately, I wasn't talking about that and for the third time of trying to explain, games use both CPU and GPU. Bottlenecking is uncommon and would affect the framerate but even without bottlenecking there will be a variable framerate depending on the CPU or Graphics card you use.
Use the same graphics card and 2 different CPUs on a game and you'll see a different in framerate. Some games use more CPU intensive code than others so they will have a greater difference, others less so if they're less CPU intensive. The fact is that in a like-for-like test, AMD CPUs almost always have the lower framerate.
Again, I must stress that this does not stop some AMD CPU/GPU combinations from hitting 60fps at 1080p but is something to be considered when buying a new PC and trying to eek out enough power for it to hit 60fps on games 2 years down the line.
If we're relying on AK for testing, lets just hope all developers badly code their games in future and there is no progress. The point is that AK is the high street, most games are a race track.[/i]
Oh, please! What a ludicrous, circular, ridiculous statement, and, no, most games are NOT the "race track". Never have been, never will be. Assassin's Creed Unity is another example, Farcry 4, the Witcher 3, (these are just games I've played myself, I like to back my statements up with actual experience, but I'm sure you can visit any game forum for yourself to see examples).
And, again, for more than the third time, I am not/ have not ever relied on a single game to stress my point. You might see that if you read back a bit.Assassin's Creed Unity is another example, Farcry 4, the Witcher 3, (these are just games I've played myself, I like to back my statements up with actual experience, but I'm sure you can visit any game forum for yourself to see examples).
At what point do all of the "that's because" points thrown back at me to try to "explain" why my pc runs well under "certain circumstances" add up to "my god, he right, it just works!" Assassin's Creed Unity is another example, Farcry 4, the Witcher 3, (these are just games I've played myself, I like to back my statements up with actual experience, but I'm sure you can visit any game forum for yourself to see examples).
For example, I state that AK runs well on my machine, everyone goes "nonsense!". That is, until a multitude of other sites start saying "bad for top end hardware", then all of a sudden it's accepted and "That's because"...Assassin's Creed Unity is another example, Farcry 4, the Witcher 3, (these are just games I've played myself, I like to back my statements up with actual experience, but I'm sure you can visit any game forum for yourself to see examples).
For example, I state that a quad core would suit you better than a six-core, you disagree, then later in THIS SAME THREAD you pose that as a REASON for my pc performing well under "certain circumstances". And that's a bad thing, why? Assassin's Creed Unity is another example, Farcry 4, the Witcher 3, (these are just games I've played myself, I like to back my statements up with actual experience, but I'm sure you can visit any game forum for yourself to see examples).
Your example above simply states the obvious, which I have NOT DISAGREED WITH. However, it does NOT change the fact that the way you and others have presented it suggests that the graphics card is hobbled by an AMD CPU rather than simply the CPU running differently. Don't change your argument if you really want to argue.
Please note how I repeat a certain part of my response just to ensure it's not missed again.
This really is the LAST time I am responding. Knock yourself out, go for it.[/i]
I love it.
You are the one that implied that I said the graphics card is 'hobbled' by the CPU (actually, some of the AMD cards do have a problem with lower end CPUs, both Intel and AMD ones, but that's another point and the GTX cards rarely have a problem with any CPU) when I have always said that the CPU is one of the limiting factors in framerate performance.
I disagreed about the quad core FX4300 (2 physical cores) for the reason that I couldn't find a system at a good price with one in and I had previously stated that I didn't want to build my own at this point in time. Cores are pretty much irrelevant and, unfortunately, so is clock speed these days since everyone uses their own version of it.
You started to get shirty at the point where I said I could get a FX 6300 but couldn't find a FX4300 system and that I'd looked at a whole bunch of stats from actual game benchmarks with these 2 and for some reason the FX4300 didn't seem to run as fast, though there was very little in it. In fact, I suggested this one. and was weighing up whether this would be better than this one at £10 more (though now £30 more) or even the GTX 970, which is similar to an AMD 390, though I couldn't see the AMD card in the options.
The AMD card was certainly better than the original GTX but the AMD CPU was slower than the Intel one, which I'd clearly said was a decision I was making at the time.
My original request was for a system from Amazon (where I have my vouchers) that could run the majority of games at 1080p 60fps and do it for as much as the foreseeable future as possible. I don't think you actually came up with a real recommendation, but if you still have one then I'm fine to look at it, as I've always been.
pb wrote:
[i]chasfh wrote:
[i]1) I never, EVER said "faster"
2) I never, EVER mentioned a "conspiracy"
3) "CPU hamstringing GPU= Bottleneck, however you wrap it up, and that's WRONG
Anyone who thinks CPU speed is the ONLY factor that counts for a gaming pc probably ought to brush up on their pc knowledge. That's what your analogy suggests, that's what your argument suggests, and quite frankly, that's about as short-sighted as they come.
Thanks pete for posting. It highlights the fact that my sub-£500 pc is running the same game with the same settings as a £1500 pc. Sure, he's probably getting more than the 60 fps that I'm getting, but that's a difference I doubt most people would notice/ be worried about.
To use your own analogy, £1500 might well pull away faster, but I'm still getting there on time, and if there's a "speed bump" on they way, well, I'm driving straight through.
Which would any sensible person prefer?
"Seemed to be hit or miss based on certain hardware configurations, but most of the issues were for some high end cards and CPU combinations."
Thanks for proving my point.
CPU hamstringing GPU= Bottleneck - Yes. Fortunately, I wasn't talking about that and for the third time of trying to explain, games use both CPU and GPU. Bottlenecking is uncommon and would affect the framerate but even without bottlenecking there will be a variable framerate depending on the CPU or Graphics card you use.
Use the same graphics card and 2 different CPUs on a game and you'll see a different in framerate. Some games use more CPU intensive code than others so they will have a greater difference, others less so if they're less CPU intensive. The fact is that in a like-for-like test, AMD CPUs almost always have the lower framerate.
Again, I must stress that this does not stop some AMD CPU/GPU combinations from hitting 60fps at 1080p but is something to be considered when buying a new PC and trying to eek out enough power for it to hit 60fps on games 2 years down the line.
If we're relying on AK for testing, lets just hope all developers badly code their games in future and there is no progress. The point is that AK is the high street, most games are a race track.[/i]
Oh, please! What a ludicrous, circular, ridiculous statement, and, no, most games are NOT the "race track". Never have been, never will be. Assassin's Creed Unity is another example, Farcry 4, the Witcher 3, (these are just games I've played myself, I like to back my statements up with actual experience, but I'm sure you can visit any game forum for yourself to see examples).
And, again, for more than the third time, I am not/ have not ever relied on a single game to stress my point. You might see that if you read back a bit.Assassin's Creed Unity is another example, Farcry 4, the Witcher 3, (these are just games I've played myself, I like to back my statements up with actual experience, but I'm sure you can visit any game forum for yourself to see examples).
At what point do all of the "that's because" points thrown back at me to try to "explain" why my pc runs well under "certain circumstances" add up to "my god, he right, it just works!" Assassin's Creed Unity is another example, Farcry 4, the Witcher 3, (these are just games I've played myself, I like to back my statements up with actual experience, but I'm sure you can visit any game forum for yourself to see examples).
For example, I state that AK runs well on my machine, everyone goes "nonsense!". That is, until a multitude of other sites start saying "bad for top end hardware", then all of a sudden it's accepted and "That's because"...Assassin's Creed Unity is another example, Farcry 4, the Witcher 3, (these are just games I've played myself, I like to back my statements up with actual experience, but I'm sure you can visit any game forum for yourself to see examples).
For example, I state that a quad core would suit you better than a six-core, you disagree, then later in THIS SAME THREAD you pose that as a REASON for my pc performing well under "certain circumstances". And that's a bad thing, why? Assassin's Creed Unity is another example, Farcry 4, the Witcher 3, (these are just games I've played myself, I like to back my statements up with actual experience, but I'm sure you can visit any game forum for yourself to see examples).
Your example above simply states the obvious, which I have NOT DISAGREED WITH. However, it does NOT change the fact that the way you and others have presented it suggests that the graphics card is hobbled by an AMD CPU rather than simply the CPU running differently. Don't change your argument if you really want to argue.
Please note how I repeat a certain part of my response just to ensure it's not missed again.
This really is the LAST time I am responding. Knock yourself out, go for it.[/i]
I love it.
You are the one that implied that I said the graphics card is 'hobbled' by the CPU (actually, some of the AMD cards do have a problem with lower end CPUs, both Intel and AMD ones, but that's another point and the GTX cards rarely have a problem with any CPU) when I have always said that the CPU is one of the limiting factors in framerate performance.
I disagreed about the quad core FX4300 (2 physical cores) for the reason that I couldn't find a system at a good price with one in and I had previously stated that I didn't want to build my own at this point in time. Cores are pretty much irrelevant and, unfortunately, so is clock speed these days since everyone uses their own version of it.
You started to get shirty at the point where I said I could get a FX 6300 but couldn't find a FX4300 system and that I'd looked at a whole bunch of stats from actual game benchmarks with these 2 and for some reason the FX4300 didn't seem to run as fast, though there was very little in it. In fact, I suggested this one. and was weighing up whether this would be better than this one at £10 more (though now £30 more) or even the GTX 970, which is similar to an AMD 390, though I couldn't see the AMD card in the options.
The AMD card was certainly better than the original GTX but the AMD CPU was slower than the Intel one, which I'd clearly said was a decision I was making at the time.
My original request was for a system from Amazon (where I have my vouchers) that could run the majority of games at 1080p 60fps and do it for as much as the foreseeable future as possible. I don't think you actually came up with a real recommendation, but if you still have one then I'm fine to look at it, as I've always been.
Steam stats from Sept 2015:
PC's using 4 cpu's ..... 43.97%
PC processor .... Intel 75.54% ... AMD 24.46%
PC Video card .... Nvidia 53.29% ... ATI 27.05%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 +3.50% usage since May 2015
:¬)
Possible setups to consider ....
Best gaming pc review 2015
PC's using 4 cpu's ..... 43.97%
PC processor .... Intel 75.54% ... AMD 24.46%
PC Video card .... Nvidia 53.29% ... ATI 27.05%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 +3.50% usage since May 2015
:¬)
Possible setups to consider ....
Best gaming pc review 2015
pb wrote:
chasfh wrote:
[i]1) I never, EVER said "faster"
2) I never, EVER mentioned a "conspiracy"
3) "CPU hamstringing GPU= Bottleneck, however you wrap it up, and that's WRONG
Anyone who thinks CPU speed is the ONLY factor that counts for a gaming pc probably ought to brush up on their pc knowledge. That's what your analogy suggests, that's what your argument suggests, and quite frankly, that's about as short-sighted as they come.
Thanks pete for posting. It highlights the fact that my sub-£500 pc is running the same game with the same settings as a £1500 pc. Sure, he's probably getting more than the 60 fps that I'm getting, but that's a difference I doubt most people would notice/ be worried about.
To use your own analogy, £1500 might well pull away faster, but I'm still getting there on time, and if there's a "speed bump" on they way, well, I'm driving straight through.
Which would any sensible person prefer?
"Seemed to be hit or miss based on certain hardware configurations, but most of the issues were for some high end cards and CPU combinations."
Thanks for proving my point.
CPU hamstringing GPU= Bottleneck - Yes. Fortunately, I wasn't talking about that and for the third time of trying to explain, games use both CPU and GPU. Bottlenecking is uncommon and would affect the framerate but even without bottlenecking there will be a variable framerate depending on the CPU or Graphics card you use.
Use the same graphics card and 2 different CPUs on a game and you'll see a different in framerate. Some games use more CPU intensive code than others so they will have a greater difference, others less so if they're less CPU intensive. The fact is that in a like-for-like test, AMD CPUs almost always have the lower framerate.
Again, I must stress that this does not stop some AMD CPU/GPU combinations from hitting 60fps at 1080p but is something to be considered when buying a new PC and trying to eek out enough power for it to hit 60fps on games 2 years down the line.
If we're relying on AK for testing, lets just hope all developers badly code their games in future and there is no progress. The point is that AK is the high street, most games are a race track.[/i]
Oh, please! What a ludicrous, circular, ridiculous statement, and, no, most games are NOT the "race track". Never have been, never will be. Assassin's Creed Unity is another example, Farcry 4, the Witcher 3, (these are just games I've played myself, I like to back my statements up with actual experience, but I'm sure you can visit any game forum for yourself to see examples).
And, again, for more than the third time, I am not/ have not ever relied on a single game to stress my point. You might see that if you read back a bit.Assassin's Creed Unity is another example, Farcry 4, the Witcher 3, (these are just games I've played myself, I like to back my statements up with actual experience, but I'm sure you can visit any game forum for yourself to see examples).
At what point do all of the "that's because" points thrown back at me to try to "explain" why my pc runs well under "certain circumstances" add up to "my god, he right, it just works!" Assassin's Creed Unity is another example, Farcry 4, the Witcher 3, (these are just games I've played myself, I like to back my statements up with actual experience, but I'm sure you can visit any game forum for yourself to see examples).
For example, I state that AK runs well on my machine, everyone goes "nonsense!". That is, until a multitude of other sites start saying "bad for top end hardware", then all of a sudden it's accepted and "That's because"...Assassin's Creed Unity is another example, Farcry 4, the Witcher 3, (these are just games I've played myself, I like to back my statements up with actual experience, but I'm sure you can visit any game forum for yourself to see examples).
For example, I state that a quad core would suit you better than a six-core, you disagree, then later in THIS SAME THREAD you pose that as a REASON for my pc performing well under "certain circumstances". And that's a bad thing, why? Assassin's Creed Unity is another example, Farcry 4, the Witcher 3, (these are just games I've played myself, I like to back my statements up with actual experience, but I'm sure you can visit any game forum for yourself to see examples).
Your example above simply states the obvious, which I have NOT DISAGREED WITH. However, it does NOT change the fact that the way you and others have presented it suggests that the graphics card is hobbled by an AMD CPU rather than simply the CPU running differently. Don't change your argument if you really want to argue.
Please note how I repeat a certain part of my response just to ensure it's not missed again.
This really is the LAST time I am responding. Knock yourself out, go for it.
chasfh wrote:
[i]1) I never, EVER said "faster"
2) I never, EVER mentioned a "conspiracy"
3) "CPU hamstringing GPU= Bottleneck, however you wrap it up, and that's WRONG
Anyone who thinks CPU speed is the ONLY factor that counts for a gaming pc probably ought to brush up on their pc knowledge. That's what your analogy suggests, that's what your argument suggests, and quite frankly, that's about as short-sighted as they come.
Thanks pete for posting. It highlights the fact that my sub-£500 pc is running the same game with the same settings as a £1500 pc. Sure, he's probably getting more than the 60 fps that I'm getting, but that's a difference I doubt most people would notice/ be worried about.
To use your own analogy, £1500 might well pull away faster, but I'm still getting there on time, and if there's a "speed bump" on they way, well, I'm driving straight through.
Which would any sensible person prefer?
"Seemed to be hit or miss based on certain hardware configurations, but most of the issues were for some high end cards and CPU combinations."
Thanks for proving my point.
CPU hamstringing GPU= Bottleneck - Yes. Fortunately, I wasn't talking about that and for the third time of trying to explain, games use both CPU and GPU. Bottlenecking is uncommon and would affect the framerate but even without bottlenecking there will be a variable framerate depending on the CPU or Graphics card you use.
Use the same graphics card and 2 different CPUs on a game and you'll see a different in framerate. Some games use more CPU intensive code than others so they will have a greater difference, others less so if they're less CPU intensive. The fact is that in a like-for-like test, AMD CPUs almost always have the lower framerate.
Again, I must stress that this does not stop some AMD CPU/GPU combinations from hitting 60fps at 1080p but is something to be considered when buying a new PC and trying to eek out enough power for it to hit 60fps on games 2 years down the line.
If we're relying on AK for testing, lets just hope all developers badly code their games in future and there is no progress. The point is that AK is the high street, most games are a race track.[/i]
Oh, please! What a ludicrous, circular, ridiculous statement, and, no, most games are NOT the "race track". Never have been, never will be. Assassin's Creed Unity is another example, Farcry 4, the Witcher 3, (these are just games I've played myself, I like to back my statements up with actual experience, but I'm sure you can visit any game forum for yourself to see examples).
And, again, for more than the third time, I am not/ have not ever relied on a single game to stress my point. You might see that if you read back a bit.Assassin's Creed Unity is another example, Farcry 4, the Witcher 3, (these are just games I've played myself, I like to back my statements up with actual experience, but I'm sure you can visit any game forum for yourself to see examples).
At what point do all of the "that's because" points thrown back at me to try to "explain" why my pc runs well under "certain circumstances" add up to "my god, he right, it just works!" Assassin's Creed Unity is another example, Farcry 4, the Witcher 3, (these are just games I've played myself, I like to back my statements up with actual experience, but I'm sure you can visit any game forum for yourself to see examples).
For example, I state that AK runs well on my machine, everyone goes "nonsense!". That is, until a multitude of other sites start saying "bad for top end hardware", then all of a sudden it's accepted and "That's because"...Assassin's Creed Unity is another example, Farcry 4, the Witcher 3, (these are just games I've played myself, I like to back my statements up with actual experience, but I'm sure you can visit any game forum for yourself to see examples).
For example, I state that a quad core would suit you better than a six-core, you disagree, then later in THIS SAME THREAD you pose that as a REASON for my pc performing well under "certain circumstances". And that's a bad thing, why? Assassin's Creed Unity is another example, Farcry 4, the Witcher 3, (these are just games I've played myself, I like to back my statements up with actual experience, but I'm sure you can visit any game forum for yourself to see examples).
Your example above simply states the obvious, which I have NOT DISAGREED WITH. However, it does NOT change the fact that the way you and others have presented it suggests that the graphics card is hobbled by an AMD CPU rather than simply the CPU running differently. Don't change your argument if you really want to argue.
Please note how I repeat a certain part of my response just to ensure it's not missed again.
This really is the LAST time I am responding. Knock yourself out, go for it.
chasfh wrote:
1) I never, EVER said "faster"
2) I never, EVER mentioned a "conspiracy"
3) "CPU hamstringing GPU= Bottleneck, however you wrap it up, and that's WRONG
Anyone who thinks CPU speed is the ONLY factor that counts for a gaming pc probably ought to brush up on their pc knowledge. That's what your analogy suggests, that's what your argument suggests, and quite frankly, that's about as short-sighted as they come.
Thanks pete for posting. It highlights the fact that my sub-£500 pc is running the same game with the same settings as a £1500 pc. Sure, he's probably getting more than the 60 fps that I'm getting, but that's a difference I doubt most people would notice/ be worried about.
To use your own analogy, £1500 might well pull away faster, but I'm still getting there on time, and if there's a "speed bump" on they way, well, I'm driving straight through.
Which would any sensible person prefer?
"Seemed to be hit or miss based on certain hardware configurations, but most of the issues were for some high end cards and CPU combinations."
Thanks for proving my point.
CPU hamstringing GPU= Bottleneck - Yes. Fortunately, I wasn't talking about that and for the third time of trying to explain, games use both CPU and GPU. Bottlenecking is uncommon and would affect the framerate but even without bottlenecking there will be a variable framerate depending on the CPU or Graphics card you use.
Use the same graphics card and 2 different CPUs on a game and you'll see a different in framerate. Some games use more CPU intensive code than others so they will have a greater difference, others less so if they're less CPU intensive. The fact is that in a like-for-like test, AMD CPUs almost always have the lower framerate.
Again, I must stress that this does not stop some AMD CPU/GPU combinations from hitting 60fps at 1080p but is something to be considered when buying a new PC and trying to eek out enough power for it to hit 60fps on games 2 years down the line.
If we're relying on AK for testing, lets just hope all developers badly code their games in future and there is no progress. The point is that AK is the high street, most games are a race track.
1) I never, EVER said "faster"
2) I never, EVER mentioned a "conspiracy"
3) "CPU hamstringing GPU= Bottleneck, however you wrap it up, and that's WRONG
Anyone who thinks CPU speed is the ONLY factor that counts for a gaming pc probably ought to brush up on their pc knowledge. That's what your analogy suggests, that's what your argument suggests, and quite frankly, that's about as short-sighted as they come.
Thanks pete for posting. It highlights the fact that my sub-£500 pc is running the same game with the same settings as a £1500 pc. Sure, he's probably getting more than the 60 fps that I'm getting, but that's a difference I doubt most people would notice/ be worried about.
To use your own analogy, £1500 might well pull away faster, but I'm still getting there on time, and if there's a "speed bump" on they way, well, I'm driving straight through.
Which would any sensible person prefer?
"Seemed to be hit or miss based on certain hardware configurations, but most of the issues were for some high end cards and CPU combinations."
Thanks for proving my point.
CPU hamstringing GPU= Bottleneck - Yes. Fortunately, I wasn't talking about that and for the third time of trying to explain, games use both CPU and GPU. Bottlenecking is uncommon and would affect the framerate but even without bottlenecking there will be a variable framerate depending on the CPU or Graphics card you use.
Use the same graphics card and 2 different CPUs on a game and you'll see a different in framerate. Some games use more CPU intensive code than others so they will have a greater difference, others less so if they're less CPU intensive. The fact is that in a like-for-like test, AMD CPUs almost always have the lower framerate.
Again, I must stress that this does not stop some AMD CPU/GPU combinations from hitting 60fps at 1080p but is something to be considered when buying a new PC and trying to eek out enough power for it to hit 60fps on games 2 years down the line.
If we're relying on AK for testing, lets just hope all developers badly code their games in future and there is no progress. The point is that AK is the high street, most games are a race track.
Page: