Fractal Design Meshify 2 Compact chassis review
Sabrent Rocket 4 PLUS 2TB NVMe SSD review
MSI Radeon RX 6900 XT GAMING X TRIO review
Guru3D Q1 Winter 20/21 PC Buyer Guide
AOC CU34G2X monitor review
Silicon Power UD70 PCIe 3.0 NVMe SSD review
Patriot Viper Steel RGB 3600 MHz (2x 16GB) review
ClockTuner 2.0 for Ryzen (CTR) Guide
Silicon Power US70 PCIe 4.0 NVMe review
Guru3D Rig of the Month - January 2021
AMD Ryzen 7 3800X review
Posted by: on: 08/16/2019 11:36 AM [
99 comment(s) ]
We reviewed pretty much all Series 3000 processors from AMD, however one review had been missing, until today that is, join us un a review of the feisty and spicy Ryzen 7 3800X eight-core processor.
Read article
Advertisement
pages « 3 4 5 6 > »
airbud7
Senior Member
Posts: 7835
Senior Member
Posts: 7835
Posted on: 08/16/2019 02:14 PM
"Superiority" is not an issue here - we're talking about being able to install w7 for different reasons:
1. having programs that do not run well under w10 or cannot even be installed there (due to the w10's infamous feature to "reject" the "obsolete" apps and programs)
2. having some older hardware
3. wanting to have more control over the system(s) (either on a single-boot or a multi-boot machine)
But you might be too young or too inexperienced to fully understand this, so I don't blame you for your simple-mindedness ("not everything that flies is meant to be eaten" - a Serbian proverb in a loose translation).
------------------------------
@airbud7@
Why should be microbe-soft even asked to do anything about it? Aren't AMD and not-very-intelligent-any-more in charge of writing their "inf" file packages to support THEIR hardware under an already well known op system?
Dude I was just as hard headed as you about windows 10..."I loved 7" So about 3 months ago I said WTH let's do it.....took about 1hour and bam! ....windows 10 is better/faster and still free!
PS: Did I mention I was hard headed....Grrrrr!....:p
"Superiority" is not an issue here - we're talking about being able to install w7 for different reasons:
1. having programs that do not run well under w10 or cannot even be installed there (due to the w10's infamous feature to "reject" the "obsolete" apps and programs)
2. having some older hardware
3. wanting to have more control over the system(s) (either on a single-boot or a multi-boot machine)
But you might be too young or too inexperienced to fully understand this, so I don't blame you for your simple-mindedness ("not everything that flies is meant to be eaten" - a Serbian proverb in a loose translation).
------------------------------
@airbud7@
Why should be microbe-soft even asked to do anything about it? Aren't AMD and not-very-intelligent-any-more in charge of writing their "inf" file packages to support THEIR hardware under an already well known op system?
Dude I was just as hard headed as you about windows 10..."I loved 7" So about 3 months ago I said WTH let's do it.....took about 1hour and bam! ....windows 10 is better/faster and still free!
PS: Did I mention I was hard headed....Grrrrr!....:p
asturur
Senior Member
Posts: 1009
Senior Member
Posts: 1009
Posted on: 08/16/2019 02:47 PM
I do not know... my old i7 990x with ddr3 on a x58 with a sata 2 SSD on windows 7 feels snappier than my windows 10 at default on an athlon 2700x with ddr4 and samsung 970 evo.
I have no idea why.
I do not know... my old i7 990x with ddr3 on a x58 with a sata 2 SSD on windows 7 feels snappier than my windows 10 at default on an athlon 2700x with ddr4 and samsung 970 evo.
I have no idea why.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 40242
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 40242
Posted on: 08/16/2019 02:52 PM
No that is a way too simplified assumption as graphics quality evolves year by year demanding more powerful GPUs. The framerate targets stay at 60~144 FPS, so for the bigger part that range is all that matters for a processor.
Game developers choose a target FPS say 60 or 144 FPS, and adapt image quality settings based on the mainstream hardware available. With faster graphics cards comes better graphics. Compare the first and last Tomb Raider and notice what happens.
Do you still game at a graphics quality level of 2006? CPU limitation, therefore, is less of a factor compared to GPU limitation, it's also the same reason that so many people still have an older CPU and play their games just fine. You're focussing on the 720p results a little too much, whereas 1440p paints a more realistic picture as ion the en, 99% of the time any PC is GPU limited in games.
52
720p difference between 9900k and 3800x is going to creep at 1440p with 4000 series Nvidia card in other words AMD cpu still suck for gaming.
No that is a way too simplified assumption as graphics quality evolves year by year demanding more powerful GPUs. The framerate targets stay at 60~144 FPS, so for the bigger part that range is all that matters for a processor.
Game developers choose a target FPS say 60 or 144 FPS, and adapt image quality settings based on the mainstream hardware available. With faster graphics cards comes better graphics. Compare the first and last Tomb Raider and notice what happens.
Do you still game at a graphics quality level of 2006? CPU limitation, therefore, is less of a factor compared to GPU limitation, it's also the same reason that so many people still have an older CPU and play their games just fine. You're focussing on the 720p results a little too much, whereas 1440p paints a more realistic picture as ion the en, 99% of the time any PC is GPU limited in games.
52
Ricardo
Senior Member
Posts: 161
Senior Member
Posts: 161
Posted on: 08/16/2019 02:54 PM
Conclusion
720p difference between 9900k and 3800x is going to creep at 1440p with 4000 series Nvidia card in other words AMD cpu still suck for gaming.
Yes, any processor other than a OC'ed 9900k sucks for gaming. You're absolutely right. No question there. Anyone that buys anything else is just wrong. Period. Did I said you're right? Because you are.
Conclusion
720p difference between 9900k and 3800x is going to creep at 1440p with 4000 series Nvidia card in other words AMD cpu still suck for gaming.
Yes, any processor other than a OC'ed 9900k sucks for gaming. You're absolutely right. No question there. Anyone that buys anything else is just wrong. Period. Did I said you're right? Because you are.
pages « 3 4 5 6 > »
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Posts: 15106
"Superiority" is not an issue here - we're talking about being able to install w7 for different reasons:
1. having programs that do not run well under w10 or cannot even be installed there (due to the w10's infamous feature to "reject" the "obsolete" apps and programs)
2. having some older hardware
3. wanting to have more control over the system(s) (either on a single-boot or a multi-boot machine)
But you might be too young or too inexperienced to fully understand this, so I don't blame you for your simple-mindedness ("not everything that flies is meant to be eaten" - a Serbian proverb in a loose translation).
------------------------------
@airbud7@
Why should be microbe-soft even asked to do anything about it? Aren't AMD and not-very-intelligent-any-more in charge of writing their "inf" file packages to support THEIR hardware under an already well known op system?
1. Windows 10 has compatibility mode and sandbox mode, on top of that VM is a thing. Screenfilter will stop apps from running, but literally that's an extra click.
2. Windows 10 requirements are fairly low, 1 ghz cpu, 1gb ram, dx9 enabled gpu, that's pretty low.
3. You still have access to registry, MSconfig, system32 folder, and so on. If you have the pro version you still have group policy and RDT access.