ASRock X670E Steel Legend review
Solidigm P44 Pro (1TB/2TB) M.2 NVMe SSD Review
EnGenius ECW336 WIFI6E Access Point review
MSI MEG Z790 ACE review
Deepcool LT720 LCS Cooler Review
Arctic A35/I35 A-RGB air coolers review
Minisforum HX90G (Ryzen 9 5900HX + RX 6600M) mini PC review
MSI MPG Z790 Edge (DDR4) review
MSI GeForce RTX 4080 Gaming X TRIO review
Deepcool CH510 chassis review
Review: Intel Core i7 8700K processor
It is time to check out the new six-core proc from Intel, yes the Core i7 8700K will be put through our benchmark paces and yes this is Coffee Lake. The processor does a good job and manages to make a sturdy impression, as well as it being tweakable over 5.0 GHz on all six cores.
Read the review right here.
Review: Gigabyte Aorus Z370 Gaming 7 - 10/05/2017 03:01 PM
In this review we check out that delicious Gigabyte Aorus Z370 Gaming 7 motherboard, we'll pair it with the six-core Core i7 8700K. Yes, this is the new Coffee Lake platform. Read the review right ...
Review: Gigabyte Aorus Z370 Ultra Gaming - 10/05/2017 03:00 PM
One more from Gigabyte, the nicely priced Aorus Z370 Ultra Gaming motherboard getrs tested. Will it perform as fast as the more expensive Gaming 7? Read the review right here....
Review: MSI Z370 Godlike Gaming - 10/05/2017 02:59 PM
MSI has joined the party as well with their enthusiast targeted MSI Z370 Godlike Gaming motherboard, we'll again match it up with the new six-core Core i7 8700K. How do three Ethernet jacks and the o...
Review: Riotoro CR1080 Reversed Compact PC Chassis - 10/03/2017 10:27 AM
We review the Riotoro CR1080 Compact PC Case Mini Tower, a product series that is designed for compact builds with decent looks. This case can house a regular ATX motherboard, but also has a special f...
Review: Cooler Master Cosmos C700P Super Tower Chassis - 09/28/2017 02:00 PM
We review the Cooler Master Cosmos C700P which they released today. the legend is back in a new 2017 jacket! That means included RGB LED system, tempered glass side panel with not one but two bends, a...
FranciscoCL
Senior Member
Posts: 257
Joined: 2015-03-23
Senior Member
Posts: 257
Joined: 2015-03-23
#5481400 Posted on: 10/13/2017 03:27 PM
I would prefer minimun fps information in the current tested resolutions (or just 1080p) instead of 720p results.
I would prefer minimun fps information in the current tested resolutions (or just 1080p) instead of 720p results.
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9797
Joined: 2011-09-21
Senior Member
Posts: 9797
Joined: 2011-09-21
#5481406 Posted on: 10/13/2017 03:47 PM
More info is never a bad thing.
Pure minimum is not a good indication as it can falsely flag a runt frame as a minimum. 99 percentile should be used.
I think 720p results are a lot of work for little added information. Perhaps on a for cpu views for those wanting to know. I really like the way your views are ran presently. I find them to be very relevant in actual gaming, which I think everyone really wants most.
More info is never a bad thing.
I would prefer minimun fps information in the current tested resolutions (or just 1080p) instead of 720p results.
Pure minimum is not a good indication as it can falsely flag a runt frame as a minimum. 99 percentile should be used.
Agent-A01
Senior Member
Posts: 11603
Joined: 2010-12-27
Senior Member
Posts: 11603
Joined: 2010-12-27
#5481414 Posted on: 10/13/2017 04:06 PM
It would be fact, if it were real.
As i stated, and will continue to state since i have an FPS counter that is enabled in all games that allow, Ryzen processor + 1440p + 144hz + 1080 ti = 144fps+ in the majority of games that a 1080 ti would be capable of getting 144fps, and the games that it doesn't, intel generally doesn't get 144fps either since it's the GPU, because they are either too demanding even for a 1080 ti at the highest settings (or unoptimized), or they have an FPS cap on them and at that point, it really doesn't matter.
I'm not saying that that intel doesn't get better FPS in some games, that is fact, but it's by no means the majority, it's only in some (@1440p, 144hz, 1080 ti, highest settings possible, etc.), and most of the time when that happens, it's a very small difference, or its above 144fps either way, so who cares.
The only people who refute this are elitist intel fanboys that will hold onto one, two, MAYBE three benchmarks showing that their lord and savior performs better as to why "you'd get a better experience with Intel vs AMD at 1440p" as if somehow those 1, 2 or 3 benchmarks = all of gaming.
So my point still stands as to my reply: I don't know where this "bottom line" is that typhon6657 speaks of, since it doesn't exist.
"two, MAYBE three"
I could pull out dozens of benchmarks that refute that statement.
But one would say "oh that's a bad engine, it's an older game, who cares it's above my refresh rate" etc.
Nothing elitist about wanting a high min FPS; clearly you play different games than I.
Even BF1 8700k is significantly faster than ryzen in 64player servers, a game that's known to be well threaded.
For me, 100 vs 144fps is easily noticeable.
Ryzen is a good choice for refresh rates up to 100hz generally.
Past that, there are many games that it will not keep up.
It would be fact, if it were real.
As i stated, and will continue to state since i have an FPS counter that is enabled in all games that allow, Ryzen processor + 1440p + 144hz + 1080 ti = 144fps+ in the majority of games that a 1080 ti would be capable of getting 144fps, and the games that it doesn't, intel generally doesn't get 144fps either since it's the GPU, because they are either too demanding even for a 1080 ti at the highest settings (or unoptimized), or they have an FPS cap on them and at that point, it really doesn't matter.
I'm not saying that that intel doesn't get better FPS in some games, that is fact, but it's by no means the majority, it's only in some (@1440p, 144hz, 1080 ti, highest settings possible, etc.), and most of the time when that happens, it's a very small difference, or its above 144fps either way, so who cares.
The only people who refute this are elitist intel fanboys that will hold onto one, two, MAYBE three benchmarks showing that their lord and savior performs better as to why "you'd get a better experience with Intel vs AMD at 1440p" as if somehow those 1, 2 or 3 benchmarks = all of gaming.
So my point still stands as to my reply: I don't know where this "bottom line" is that typhon6657 speaks of, since it doesn't exist.
"two, MAYBE three"
I could pull out dozens of benchmarks that refute that statement.
But one would say "oh that's a bad engine, it's an older game, who cares it's above my refresh rate" etc.
Nothing elitist about wanting a high min FPS; clearly you play different games than I.
Even BF1 8700k is significantly faster than ryzen in 64player servers, a game that's known to be well threaded.
For me, 100 vs 144fps is easily noticeable.
Ryzen is a good choice for refresh rates up to 100hz generally.
Past that, there are many games that it will not keep up.
FranciscoCL
Senior Member
Posts: 257
Joined: 2015-03-23
Senior Member
Posts: 257
Joined: 2015-03-23
#5481422 Posted on: 10/13/2017 04:22 PM
More info is never a bad thing.
Pure minimum is not a good indication as it can falsely flag a runt frame as a minimum. 99 percentile should be used.
You are rigth. I was thinking in 1% and 0,1% lows.
More info is never a bad thing.
Pure minimum is not a good indication as it can falsely flag a runt frame as a minimum. 99 percentile should be used.
You are rigth. I was thinking in 1% and 0,1% lows.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 1369
Joined: 2014-11-19
I think 720p results are a lot of work for little added information. Perhaps on a for cpu views for those wanting to know. I really like the way your views are ran presently. I find them to be very relevant in actual gaming, which I think everyone really wants most.