Rage3D Discussion Area

Rage3D Discussion Area (http://www.rage3d.com/board/index.php)
-   General Hardware (http://www.rage3d.com/board/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   Intel 11x00 Gen thread (http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=34052106)

Nascar24 Mar 10, 2021 08:00 AM

As usual, none of it makes a difference when you are a high end 4K gamer, still GPU limited. And I bet it will be a couple of generations of GPU's that make any difference at all. I believe you would be better off with the more core Ryzen 5900X. At least you would see some performance increase in other applications.

acroig Mar 10, 2021 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nascar24 (Post 1338273527)
As usual, none of it makes a difference when you are a high end 4K gamer, still GPU limited. And I bet it will be a couple of generations of GPU's that make any difference at all. I believe you would be better off with the more core Ryzen 5900X. At least you would see some performance increase in other applications.

All I do is game and........ watch specialty vids. :bleh: ;)

The cost is not worth it in the least. A 3080 Ti would probably be a better investment BUT God knows when that'll come out and how much it'll cost and when one can actually buy one and...... :bleh:

the_sextein Mar 10, 2021 08:07 AM

If you can't see ahead of you more than 2 steps it may seem that way but If a 4080 doubles the performance of the 3080 then you would hit a CPU bottleneck in games like cyberpunk 2077 as they are currently CPU bottlenecked at 90FPS but we are hitting a GPU bottleneck of 50FPS at 4k so we don't experience it. Double GPU performance and you get 100FPS minimums with a 90 FPS CPU bottleneck cutting up your performance in the next two years. Keep the system for 2 GPU upgrades or four years of ownership and the 11900K will be holding the system back at 4K way more than the 5080 GPU.

The best time to upgrade is when a new platform launches with PCIE 5 and DDR5 but ignoring a 15% performance lead and acting like it won't matter during the lifetime of the platform is just plain wrong in my opinion.

Nascar24 Mar 10, 2021 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_sextein (Post 1338273531)
If you can't see ahead of you more than 2 steps it may seem that way but If a 4080 doubles the performance of the 3080 then you would hit a CPU bottleneck in games like cyberpunk 2077 as they are currently CPU bottlenecked at 90FPS but we are hitting a GPU bottleneck of 50FPS at 4k so we don't experience it. Double GPU performance and you get 100FPS minimums with a 90 FPS CPU bottleneck cutting up your performance in the next two years. Keep the system for 2 GPU upgrades or four years of ownership and the 11900K will be holding the system back at 4K way more than the 5080 GPU.

The best time to upgrade is when a new platform launches with PCIE 5 and DDR5 but ignoring a 15% performance lead and acting like it won't matter during the lifetime of the platform is just plain wrong in my opinion.

We already had this argument and it didnt mean a hill of beans.:p By the time it makes a difference you will be changing out your CPU.

the_sextein Mar 10, 2021 08:55 AM

If you plan to upgrade your system every 2 years then I agree because the CPU will constantly be upgraded with the GPU, otherwise I don't. Games like anno are cpu bound at 4k right now. Just because the majority of games remain GPU bound at 4k doesn't mean that I am stupid and GPU's will be the limiting factor for all time lol. you still fail to grasp why people benchmark at 1080P and think if it doesn't give immediate rewards then there is no point. We just witnessed CPU bottlenecks climb from 1080P to 1440P, do you seriously think that I am wrong because 4k remains GPU bound at the moment? If you plan to stay at 4k instead of upgrading to 8K then you are going to see the CPU play a much more important role in maintaining FPS since GPU's will be pushing 100+ FPS at 4k during the lifetimes of these new platforms. I'm surprised more games aren't CPU bound at 4k but there are some and by the end of the next two years we will see an increasing amount of CPU limitations. Chips that were 20% faster back in 2018 will push ahead by 20% in the end. If you plan to replace your system every 3 years instead of 5 then you can sidestep it but you are paying nearly 2X as much in order to sidestep a problem you wouldn't have had if you had bought the better CPU.

acroig Mar 10, 2021 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nascar24 (Post 1338273540)
We already had this argument and it didnt mean a hill of beans.:p By the time it makes a difference you will be changing out your CPU.

Right, agreed. I'm looking for a 2-3 year CPU. I recognize some of the new tech such as PIe 4.0 and resizable BAR by themselves are no big deal but I'd like something that might add up to 10% more FPS than current for a not crazy amount of $.

the_sextein Mar 10, 2021 09:08 AM

I'd consider the 11900K a crazy amount of cash though. I mean, it's the highest of the high end so it's going to cost you even if you do stay with the 490 platform. All I'm saying is that when the next GPU launch comes out it will change what is CPU bound. We already have CPU limitations at 4K on some titles right now. How do you think it's going to look when the 4080 comes out? Ignoring a 15% performance advantage is just plain dumb. CPU and GPU limitations flip flop over the course of time. Unless you buy a new CPU every time a GPU is released you are bound to hit CPU limitations at some point. Especially if you stop moving up in resolution which I'm willing to bet most of us are staying at 4k for a good long time. If people are going to ignore performance advantages that don't immediately effect their bottom line then they are buying blind and wasting their money. Only people who plan to upgrade every time a new GPU is released are free of this issue and I'm willing to bet they value owning the fastest regardless of weather it will benefit them or not.

Nascar24 Mar 10, 2021 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_sextein (Post 1338273544)
I'd consider the 11900K a crazy amount of cash though. I mean, it's the highest of the high end so it's going to cost you even if you do stay with the 490 platform. All I'm saying is that when the next GPU launch comes out it will change what is CPU bound. We already have CPU limitations at 4K on some titles right now. How do you think it's going to look when the 4080 comes out? Ignoring a 15% performance advantage is just plain dumb. CPU and GPU limitations flip flop over the course of time. Unless you buy a new CPU every time a GPU is released you are bound to hit CPU limitations at some point. Especially if you stop moving up in resolution which I'm willing to bet most of us are staying at 4k for a good long time. If people are going to ignore performance advantages that don't immediately effect their bottom line then they might as well never upgrade their CPU lol. See how well that works out over the course of 5 years and tell me you won't feel it.

You thought the samething the last round, we acutally argued about it, and I came out on top:p , I dont see it making a difference anytime soon with the current CPU's. It made zero difference at 4K.

acroig Mar 10, 2021 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_sextein (Post 1338273544)
I'd consider the 11900K a crazy amount of cash though. I mean, it's the highest of the high end so it's going to cost you even if you do stay with the 490 platform.

Yeah, let's see what the rest of the line can do and how much it's priced at. I mean a 9900K is still $249! :nuts:

the_sextein Mar 10, 2021 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nascar24 (Post 1338273549)
You thought the samething the last round, we acutally argued about it, and I came out on top:p , I dont see it making a difference anytime soon with the current CPU's. It made zero difference at 4K.

I stated an irrefutable fact about bottlenecks and made a guess that we would see them at 4k once the 3000 series released. We do see them on some titles but I admitted that it wasn't as obvious as I thought it was going to be. It's important to note that our systems are still being used yes? You bought your setup in 2019 and you are already dangling that one little exception in my face like a child? Why don't we wait until the 4080 is released and see how you feel then? I know we argued about many other things as well and I was correct about all of them. I don't talk about things I don't understand and I don't make uneducated purchases. I make educated guesses at times and of course they are not always going to be correct. That doesn't mean that we will remain GPU bound at 4K for all time and CPU performance no longer matters lol.

Nascar24 Mar 10, 2021 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_sextein (Post 1338273555)
I stated an irrefutable fact about bottlenecks and made a guess that we would see them at 4k once the 3000 series released. We do see them on some titles but I admitted that it wasn't as obvious as I thought it was going to be. It's important to note that our systems are still being used yes? You bought your setup in 2019 and you are already dangling that one little exception in my face like a child? Why don't we wait until the 4080 is released and see how you feel then? I know we argued about many other things as well and I was correct about all of them. I don't talk about things I don't understand and I don't make uneducated purchases. I make educated guesses at times and of course they are not always going to be correct. That doesn't mean that we will remain GPU bound at 4K for all time and CPU performance no longer matters lol.

:lol: Woah easy there buttercup, just stating the facts, and I once again stand by them again, not going to make a difference any time soon. I dont remember you being correct about any of them.:p

the_sextein Mar 10, 2021 09:51 AM

Define "anytime soon" because I'm pretty sure when most people buy a new platform they don't plan to replace it before a single GPU cycle is released. Right now we are GPU bound at 50FPS at 4k so CPU bottlnecks above 50FPS are unobservable. What do you think is going to happen when GPU power doubles during the lifetime of a new system? You think your CPU is never going to run into a bottleneck at 4k even though there are games that do it now with proof that you are wrong? I'm honestly surprised you even build PC's considering how little you understand about them. Continue believing your "facts" anyone who argues that faster hardware is pointless is clearly missing the point. It might be pointless right now but all hardware will eventually be used and bottlenecked or we would never need to upgrade again. It's common sense. Why pay the same amount for slower hardware? If he has a use for more cores than I agree the 5900X seems like a good CPU but it's not going to do much for him considering what he already owns. An extra 11% on top the 5900X gains is a little more observable. He could see 20 to 25% performance increases in some circumstances. that isn't to say that his current tech couldn't get him by until a much more beneficial platform is available but if he is determined to purchase now he might as well buy the CPU that is clearly better at gaming and priced competitively.

Nascar24 Mar 10, 2021 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_sextein (Post 1338273562)
Define "anytime soon" because I'm pretty sure when most people buy a new platform they don't plan to replace it before a single GPU cycle is released. Right now we are GPU bound at 50FPS at 4k so CPU bottlnecks above 50FPS are unobservable. What do you think is going to happen when GPU power doubles during the lifetime of a new system? You think your CPU is never going to run into a bottleneck at 4k even though there are games that do it now with proof that you are wrong? I'm honestly surprised you even build PC's considering how little you understand about them. Continue believing your "facts" anyone who argues that faster hardware is pointless is clearly missing the point. It might be pointless right now but all hardware will eventually be used and bottlenecked or we would never need to upgrade again. It's common sense. Why pay the same amount for slower hardware? If he has a use for more cores than I agree the 5900X seems like a good CPU but it's not going to do much for him considering what he already owns. An extra 11% on top the 5900X gains is a little more observable. He could see 20 to 25% performance increases in some circumstances. that isn't to say that his current tech couldn't get him by until a much more beneficial platform is available but if he is determined to purchase now he might as well buy the CPU that is clearly better at gaming and priced competitively.

This is a pointless excercise, you are so stuburn about your beliefs about hardware you still cant see straight after our last debate about this. First your looking at Intel slides which I wouldnt believe in the first place. I would say you are several GPU generations away from it making a difference and by that time your going to change your CPU. Your 4080 is not going to push the current CPU's where the GPU is not the limiting factor just like the last time. I would hands down take the 12 Core 5900X over your 8 core Intel is pushing out these days based on pricing of course. Thats also not taking into account new games being able to use more CPU cores.

the_sextein Mar 10, 2021 10:15 AM

I'm stating that faster hardware is beneficial. Yes I am very adamant that this is true. More than 8 cores has had no real world benefit in gaming and is in fact up to 5 FPS slower at times. The consoles that games are built around are not going to change for another 4 years or more. Just like the need to increase PCIE bandwidth you will also need to increase your CPU to keep up with the GPU as it increases generation to generation. The faster the CPU you buy now, the longer you can go before you need to replace it. Common sense. It doesn't have to push higher FPS at 4k right now, it will eventually as soon as the GPU catches up with it. Of course the GPU will eventually catch up with the CPU at 4k. It already has on some titles and at all resolutions that came before it. We would run into more CPU bottlenecks at 4k on current games if GPU performance was a little faster not to mention doubled. Future games will come out during the life of a new system which will be even more challenging. Come on dude are you trying to troll me?

Nascar24 Mar 10, 2021 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_sextein (Post 1338273569)
I'm stating that faster hardware is beneficial. Yes I am very adamant that this is true. More than 8 cores has had no real world benefit in gaming and is in fact up to 5 FPS slower at times. The consoles that games are built around are not going to change for another 4 years or more. Just like the need to increase PCIE bandwidth you will also need to increase your CPU. The faster CPU you buy now, the longer you can go before you need to replace it. Common sense. It doesn't have to push higher FPS at 4k right now, it will eventually as soon as the GPU catches up with it. Of course the GPU will eventually catch up with the CPU at 4k. We would run into CPU bottlenecks at 4k on current games if GPU performance doubled. Not to mention future games that will come out during the life of a new system which will be even more challenging.

The whole just because the console is 8 cores does not make it so the PC side cant use more cores when needed. Thats just plain non sense. And I will wait for independant reviews before beliveing an Intel slide, most slides I have seen in the past from them have been fud, I guess they could have changed with this one and taken a page from AMD but I will believe it when I see it.

acroig Mar 10, 2021 10:36 AM

The only game I've seen that actually benefits from more cores is maybe Cyberpunk.

the_sextein Mar 10, 2021 10:37 AM

Yes I already stated that I am hesitant to believe an intel slide but that's beside the point. You are seriously arguing that slower hardware is better because AMD. You made the more cores is better comment last time and you were proven wrong. How many years has AMD had more cores and got it's face smashed in? At some point more cores will be used. They eventually moved on from 4 cores to 8 when the consoles did. I'm sure that will happen again, when the consoles do. There are games that use more than 16 threads right now. In fact Cyberpunk is one of them and the performance increases until you hit 8 cores, after that it slows down. Most games are built around consoles though and are even less likely to utilize the extra power how a PC game like cyberpunk does.

Nascar24 Mar 10, 2021 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acroig (Post 1338273576)
The only game I've seen that actually benefits from more cores is maybe Cyberpunk.

I would suspect that is going to change going forward. Development is going to catch up and start using them sooner rather than later.

Nascar24 Mar 10, 2021 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_sextein (Post 1338273579)
Yes I already stated that I am hesitant to believe an intel slide but that's beside the point. You are seriously arguing that slower hardware is better because AMD. You made the more cores is better comment last time and you were proven wrong. How many years has AMD had more cores and got it's face smashed in? At some point more cores will be used. They eventually moved on from 4 cores to 8 when the consoles did. I'm sure that will happen again, when the consoles do. There are games that use more than 16 threads right now. In fact Cyberpunk is one of them and the performance increases until you hit 8 cores, after that it slows down.

You talk the same nonsense as last time and how much you want to bet when the 4080 comes out just like the last time the numbers are going to be the same? You are for the most part arguing nonsense if you think its going to catch up with the next gen of graphics card. Not going to happen.

acroig Mar 10, 2021 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nascar24 (Post 1338273580)
I would suspect that is going to change going forward. Development is going to catch up and start using them sooner rather than later.

I would agree but I've assumed this for the last 4+ years and it has yet to really materialize.

This is why Intel can still hold their own on a 14++++++++++ process, pure clock speed. They better get their act together before AMD can do 5GHz+. :bleh:

acroig Mar 10, 2021 10:42 AM

Guys, let's keep the conversation civil please........

the_sextein Mar 10, 2021 10:48 AM

I'm trying to be civil but...Christ.

Nascar24 Mar 10, 2021 10:49 AM

I thought I was keeping it civil even after his insults.:cool:

acroig Mar 10, 2021 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_sextein (Post 1338273592)
I'm trying to be civil but...Christ.

You can do it. I can see both sides, you both make good points, reality is right in between. Don't make it personal. :)

the_sextein Mar 10, 2021 10:55 AM

When you have a CPU bottleneck of 90FPS and your graphic card can only do 60FPS then you don't run into a CPU bottleneck. Cyberpunk 2077 has a 90FPS CPU bottleneck at 1440P and is GPU bound at 50FPS at 4K. You double the GPU performance and you get 100FPS which is higher than the CPU bottleneck of 90 FPS so you are CPU bound at 4k. Same thing happened at 1440P over the last two generations of GPU. This concept is not hard to grasp and is an absolute fact. Is that cutting it close? Depends on how long you keep your system. If you plan to upgrade to a 4080 two years after you buy it and then upgrade to a 5080 two years after that then you will be holy sh!t I'm CPU bottlenecked all the time. If you plan to keep the system for 3 years and only upgrade the system once then you will run into a slight bottleneck towards the end of the systems life and the extra 10 or 20% or whatever will be appreciated. No point buying slower stuff should be an obvious statement to anyone I would think.

Nascar24 Mar 10, 2021 11:00 AM

We will never agree on this just like the last time, I guess we have to wait another year or more for the results once again. Also if your buying this kind of hardware, your not going to stick with the same system anyways, that is just fact as well. So I wouldnt be looking out more then 2 years when your an enthusiast. I 100 percent believe your next gen 4080 or whatever its called is not going to bottleneck todays CPU.

acroig Mar 10, 2021 11:01 AM

I upgrade almost every GPU gen. CPU/mobo usually every 3+ years.

Nagorak Mar 10, 2021 11:18 AM

I am also skeptical you'll see meaningful CPU limitations at 4K even with a 4080. You can always find a few weird outliers, but for most circumstances I don't think it's going to happen.

Also you have to consider that most high end CPUs can now put out over 100 FPS in games, so you also have to ask yourself whether it matters if you're CPU limited at 150 FPS. Like do you really care? At some point it becomes irrelevant. Even Ryzen 3000 was really "fast enough for gaming".

acroig Mar 10, 2021 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nagorak (Post 1338273604)
Even Ryzen 3000 was really "fast enough for gaming".

Big fan of the 3600, lots of bang for the $150 buck I paid for it.

Nagorak Mar 10, 2021 11:26 AM

Regarding the 11900K, it could be faster for gaming, or maybe just about the same speed. The 10900K already really trades blows with the top Ryzen 5000 CPUs. You can see this in the Hardware Unboxed review where they don't enforce the stock power limits (unlike Gamers Nexus).

I'd be wary of cherry picked data from Intel. Depending on which games you pick, the 10900 can be shown to be significantly faster than the 5950X or significantly slower.

I'm a little skeptical of much improvement in gaming based on the Anandtech early review though. It could be that the current BIOS is ****, but considering we're only a couple weeks out from launch it seems to be getting late to push out a new BIOS if they want reviewers to use it.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:52 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All trademarks used are properties of their respective owners. Copyright 1998-2011 Rage3D.com