Gaming in 2017 is truly the worst. I have to pick between a stuttering

>>59221806

personally I'd pick consistent lower average over stuttering any day, but do as you wish.

>over 250 fps in OverWatch on ultra is bad performance

8% lower, but more consistent average with better support for future games.

PS4 and Xbox use 8 cores. Guess where we'll be heading

File: srslyguys.jpg (38KB, 640x456px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 640x456px

>>59221806
>When you eventually have a 1280 ti from nvidia in 3 years these cherry picked 480p benchmarks will matter
>When games use better API's in the future that can use more threads, the extra cores won't matter

>>59222020
this lets just all sell our computers now

File: 1468984453267.jpg (128KB, 500x591px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 500x591px

>>59222020
what smoother frametime line tells us?
that CPU can't handle a GPU driver?
or that CPU can't handle part of game code?

my bet that GPU driver calls are multi threaded already it can handle driver better but gets stuck on game code a bit which will be fixed/adapted in newer games anyway
meaning it has higher longevity than 7700K which has much bigger frame time jumps and would bottleneck new GPU faster

explain to me why i'm wrong

>>59222113
What I'm saying is the "just wait" meme is coming from the 480p benchmark shills and they don't even realize it. It's still only 10% to 15% behind so in the worst case scenario when the 7700k is pushing 60fps an AMD build will likely be around 54-50fps. I would bet more on something that has ~155% the overall power eventually coming out ahead. It's also quite rare to only have one thing running on your PC anymore. It's all somewhat absurd right now.

>>59221806
ITT: Nit picking gamefags picking nits.

File: gtav.png (2MB, 2560x1312px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1312px

>>59221806
Fake news

The 7700k does not stutter, in fact it gets way better minimum frame rates

Literally no reason to buy Ryzen

>>59221986
>more consistent average
>30 fps lower 1% mins across the board in 15 different reviews

Are we talking about the same product Mr marketer?

>>59221806
Oh no, do I get 140 or 150 fpses in my games, this is of utmost importance! Just can't have those dips from 450 to 430fps in LoL, I might lose a game and then my friends won't deem me the best!

>>59222390
The faster Intel chip is also $160 cheaper

>>59222215
Minimum is still an average, that says nothing about stuttering, where's the frametime graph.

>>59222505
Yeah, but do you really need that for gaming is my point and is it really that important.

Also, I haven't checked the price of AM4 motherboards, but aren't AMD boards generally cheaper so you'd end up at similar price point

>>59222505
1700 is $20 cheaper not sure what you're smoking

>>59221806
Is the stuttering just a common problem that Intel CPUs have always had?

I get stutters on my i5-2500k that I never noticed since I have a 7970 that never dropped under 60fps minimum until recently.

Anyway I feel like the 1700 is at least worth it in gaming for its price. A 1700 system is only like $30 more than an i5-7600k one.
Smoothness and minimums are more important. So as games and Windows(uses fucking Intel compiler) optimize for Ryzen better, I think it'll show to be the better gaming processor overall.
Its biggest problem is that older games like Watch Dogs 2 and Rise of the Tomb Raider where it does especially bad, when it shouldn't, probably aren't going to get patches for it.
But Prey launches soon. I want to see benchmarks on that when they're working with Bethesda.

>>59221806

C'mon. Would you rather have stutter-free gameplay, absolutely crushing multithreaded performance and more bang for buck building an AMD system (where future CPUs will likely slot right in the same socket) or 8% more performance?

Some people act like it's an 80% performance gap. FFS get some perspective.

File: dog1.jpg (51KB, 604x402px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 604x402px

>>59222732

I have an i5 3570k @ 4.4 Ghz and I notice stuttering in games at times even without max load with a Fury X. Very frustrating desu.

I wasn't considering upgrading but all these reports of smoother gameplay are honestly making me consider an R5 or the lowest R7.

>>59223090
Yeah it's not just like subjective reports.
Tom's hardware and computerbase.de both did frametimes analysis and the Ryzen does look very smooth.

But some people are reporting dips on older games like Arma2 and shit, but I don't play those.
Some people claimed Arteezy, a dota2 streamer, was getting FPS dips down to 30fps using Ryzen but I can't see confirmation of that since his past broadcasts are only available to subscribers.
But on average I've seen that the Ryzen 7 CPUs have little to no stutters compared to the 7700k and 6900k both across the majority of games I've seen that tested on. It's just a shame their minimums aren't even higher right now.

I'm actually just considering the 1700. Even if the 1600X is clocked 7.5% higher per core, it's 2 less cores. And the 1700+mobo only costs $30 more than a 7600k+mobo+cooler. I'm not sure... I'm not in a rush though so just waiting to figure out whether a 1600X or 1700 is better for me. I think I'm definitely getting ethier of them.

The difference from the 1700 and 1800X only seems to be like 3-7% in gaming. Almost nothing. But that just makes the 1700 a better value.

>>59223335

In Dota 2 Linux benchmarks for Ryzen Dota 2 was doing shit. It seems to be something engine related. But knowing Valve and their tech demo state for Dota 2 I'm sure they'll patch it real quick. But also not a game I play.

But yes I'd much rather have 8% lower averages when all my games are running above 90 fps bare minimum than have stuttering like I have now.

>>59221806
>everything in this image

Placebo effect. CPU has no effect on frame times (unless of course you are demanding more from the CPU than it can give).

>>59223537

You say placebo effect but multiple frametime analysis show smoother frametimes and many reviewers have outright mentioned it.

So no, not placebo. The assumption that CPU can't have an effect on frametimes is idiotic.

>>59223090
>Fury X
>stuttering

I wonder what the problem could be. Surely it's the cpu.

>>59223583
The CPU does not handle frame timing so it makes no sense for it to affect it. However, there is the possibility for a driver conflict, so I suppose it's possible.

>>59222569
That's the 7700k compared to the 1800x

If you want to compare to the 1700 it's far worse.

The 1700 is $330 and the Intel 7600K is $240 and beats it.

>>59223695
If you have a microcenter near you, they're selling the 7700k for $319. I'm finding it even harder to justify Ryzen because the motherboards are not as cheap as AM3+ boards were either. They're already on the level of Z270 at price.

>>59222215
>still posting that pre-release benchmark
>the one where 5GHz OC'd 7700k loses to stock 7700k on average

I envy your persistence and hope you earn many a shekel.

>>59223765
>They're already on the level of Z270 at price.

That's sad. It's almost like AMD wants Ryzen to fail.

>>59223824
They obviously do not want it to fail, and the platform is just about on the level of features as Z270 if not achieving parity with it, so of course the board partners will charge that. AMD has no control over this. I just think it was a missed opportunity to establish more users and keep them on that platform.

Now, on Ryzen pricing, yeah, they fucking dropped the ball. 50 - 100 dollars less for each chip and they would probably be seeing a LOT more adoption. Honestly though, I think AMD did really good on these chips for where they were previously, and if they keep pushing the envelope, we'll see better competition next time. The people calling Zen a total failure are exaggerating massively.

>>59223640

Definitely not the GPU, as I'm not limited by VRAM and I had it with my 980 too.

>>59223765
B350 motherboards are as cheap as hell. Like $70-$90 for decent quality ones.

B350 allows overclocking and shit, you just won't get to 4ghz all core on one. I'm just going to get a B350 myself. The X370 are all boards meant to compete with high end Z270 boards while B350 are made to compete with the like $120-$150 Z270 boards.

Also Microcenter gives you $30 off for buying Ryzen and a motherboard together, which makes it like $85 cheaper than a 7700k for a 1700.

>>59223824
To be fair, they don't have much say in how the board makers set prices.
But by all means, unless you plan ludicrous overclocking, save yourself some money and get the B350 chipset.

>>59223824
Don't believe uninformed comments you read on /g/. That poster doesn't know what they're talking about and hasn't compared the price of comparable cpu+motherboard+cooler combos.

>>59223897

They priced it too low actually.

If they priced it at 600+ retarded gamers would stop looking at it screaming about how it's worse than 4 core i7's in single core work loads.

File: desktop phenom logo.jpg (159KB, 894x588px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 894x588px

Phenom II x4 955 - works well for me still after almost 7 years use. really only demanding tasks that push it hard is when i do video encoding. Also photoshop but it favors the ram more than cpu. Gaming is mostly older titles (1999-2004) so nothing really stressful. I think I'll keep my trusty Phenom II a while longer (in fact I have a spare in case this one dies)

>>59223919
>Also Microcenter gives you $30 off for buying Ryzen and a motherboard together, which makes it like $85 cheaper than a 7700k for a 1700.
They do that with all high end mobos and CPUs, including the 7700k. I'm coming off of 990FX right now.

>>59222020
>In 3 years
Most people with money to burn on a $500 CPU will upgrade within 4 years anyways tho

>>59223090
>Fury X
>Stuttering at max load
>it must be my 3790k because AMD are so popular lately!

>>59222215
OP's pic references the 1800x not 1700

>>59224233
>reading comprehension

File: 1487713399637.jpg (70KB, 634x477px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 634x477px

>>59223640
R9 Fury passthrough, here.
It's a damn fine card and not a stutter for miles.

Hitching can be any number of things but it's probably a software issue or misconfiguration.

>>59221806
>8% lower average
We're talking 8% lower average with games at artificially low resolutions and graphics settings specifically designed to bottleneck at the CPU. These sorts of settings are necessary when you're specifically trying to benchmark a CPU, but they are not representative of typical use cases. Realistic settings are basically never going to bottleneck at the CPU, so most users are going to see literally 0% difference 100% of the time.

If you compare it to Bulldozer/Piledriver, it really was the case that the CPU was so shitty it -would- bottleneck in typical use cases. The same cannot be said for Ryzen unless you're deliberately trying to cause a CPU bottleneck.

>>59224193
Okay then. The 1700+mobo is *still* cheaper than the 7700k+mobo+cooler even with the instore-only discount on the 7700k which hardly anyone can get and most people spend more on gas driving there than they save.

I don't know what's so hard to understand about this for some of you. It's extremely simple math. You only have to add two numbers together on one side, then add 3 numbers together on another.

>>59224270
AMD did have frame stutter issues on all GCN cards for a time. But they've been fixed.

>>59224390
I can fill my tank from E with 93 octane gas for $35.

File: 7Ccfzay.jpg (33KB, 562x750px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 562x750px

>>59224390
Why are you adding in coolers now? Most of us have one laying around. 1700 is $329, 7700K is $319 and better perf for gaming. Mobos are around the same price. And why the hell would you get a high end chip and then use the fucking stock cooler? I'd use AMD's new Wraith stock since it is pretty good, but the 1700 doesn't come with the Wraith, it comes with the Wraith Spire. Additionally, you are more likely to have to buy a new cooler (seriously, who uses fucking stock?) with Ryzen because of the new socket unless you have a noctua cooler like I do and can get free upgrade kits, or you get the ASUS Crosshair which can mount AM3+.

I also pass Microcenter on the way home from work, so I don't really use any more gas than I already was going to in the first place. Unless you're going on a fucking mecca pilgrimage, I doubt you're going to use more than $10 bucks worth of gas.

>>59221817
Second, I value consistency over peak. but then again, I wont be getting a 144hz monitor till at least oleds come out unless the price for 144 is damn near on part with 60 at 1440p

>>59222020
the issue is only present if you don't go to 1440p or 4k, and if graphics stagnate to accommodate 1440-4k adoption.

>>59221806
>X causes frame stuttering or has otherwise poor performance. I wont post any test to prove this though

>>59222215
so, tell me, how did the ryzen get to 85fps, 4 away from the best 7700 average, when ints minimum and max are so much lower?

it consistently drives a higher frame rate with lower lows, or it constantly drives a closer to 85 with very few peaks over or under.

meanwhile on the 7700 I would cap the frame rate because I honestly can't stand huge frame variance all the time, hell my current computer can get 60+ in gta5 but usually hovers around 20~ fps, so I cap the shit to 30 and be done with it, no more wildly different frame rates fucking with me.

>>59224605
Mobos are not around the same price. An equivalent AMD board is $30-$50 cheaper than an Intel one unless you're comparing H170 to A320.

Intel charges a big licensing premium from motherboard manufacturers for Z270 boards.

The Ryzen stock cooler is equivalent to a $30 one at worst.

You're not just pulling straws, you're bullshitting.

>>59224696
X370 boards were going from 100 to 175 before scalpers came in. 250ish including the Crosshair. Z270s are the same fucking range. You might be thinking X99 which has the absurd prices. Which they do but they also have more features and are not comparable. Stop being in fucking denial, faggot. I love AMD and want them to do well, (I'll probably go Ryzen for my home server since ECC support) but right now they're being beat out in price and perf.

The included cooler is NOT equivalent to a $30 cooler like the 212 EVO. The Wraith is, which is why I praise it, excellent stock cooler, but not the fucking Wraith Spire. Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

>>59221806

Please post any evidence you have that Intel's CPU are a 'stuttering mess'. That, or I guarantee you're a shill presenting a false question designed to make Ryzen the 'obvious' answer.

File: r7-i5i7-price-comparison.png (130KB, 973x893px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 973x893px

>>59224767
You only need a B350 to do a mild overclock on the Ryzen, and mild overclocks is what they're best at anyway.
On the other hand, you can't overclock a K processor without a Z270 as minimum.

For 95%+ of people there is no reason to get a X370 over a B350.
You just get 6 USB 3.1G1 ports on the i/o instead of 2, 4 Sata ports instead of 2, and 28 PCI-E lanes instead of 26.
B350 is still enough for a GPU and 2 full speed M.2 Sata drives, which covers the use case for 95%+ of people.

The $80-$90 B350 boards are equivalent quality to the $130-$140 Z270 boards.
<It is fair to say that this is an equivalent build. It would be wrong to compare a $250 crosshair to a bargain basement Z270. All the X370 boards are really high end while the Z270 ones vary greatly to the point that they're equivalent to B350 boards instead.

That said, it would be reasonable to say to wait for some review roundups of B350 boards. Motherboard availability is so low right now. Reviewers aren't sending hardly any out for the next few days.

>>59221806
SHOW ME MICROSTUTTER STATISTICS OR SHUT THE FUCK UP

File: Ryzen mins.png (42KB, 634x430px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 634x430px

>>59225030
>evidence posted
it'll be denied won't it?

>>59224609
>oleds come out
Enjoy waiting 2 years

>>59224116
nice mine start having really bad stuttering issue after it got past 117 C°
the funniest thing is it didn't stopped he was just shutting cores off until it got below 113 and then back up again

how well does ryzen oc?

>>59225100
INTEL BTFO

File: schilling.png (199KB, 648x532px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 648x532px

>buying a microstutter piece of shit trash cpu

Damn Intel BTFO

>>59224220
>>59224639
It's not supposed to make sense guys. It's the "just wait" meme from the 480p benchmark crew while saying the "just wait" meme about the API's is a meme. They're conflicting statements anticipating the future while saying to not anticipate the future.

>>59225295

Are you blind? Ryzen was the only one to stutter hard enough to almost reach 30. You can't tell the difference between ~5ms varience (but it looks 'fuzzy' on the graph), but you sure as hell can tell when one of your frames suddenly takes ~3x longer than the previous one(!), jumping from ~10ms to almost 30ms, as with Ryzen.

>>59222215
>The 7700k does not stutter, in fact it gets way better minimum frame rates
how stupid are you?

>>59225114
I've waited like 6 years so far. Whatever.

I'm not upgrading until I can get an HDR10 3440x1400 34" that's at least 100hz (120hz freesync would be nicer) and covers at least 94% of DCI-P3. Which probably means an OLED.

>>59225295
Wow. Like half the average gap in frametimes.
If they can just get their frametimes down slightly lower, it'd be godly.

>>59225342
On a single frame per for each CPU. That's much better than the repeated stutters the 7700k is getting in other games.

>>59225360
That "leaked" bench was proven fake and you guys are still buying it. Sad.

File: 137519045.png (29KB, 727x365px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 727x365px

>>59224116
mah nigga

File: 1430709127524.gif (892KB, 260x146px) Image search: [Google]

892KB, 260x146px

>>59221806
>AMD pulls >40% IPC improvement out of their ass
>on a fucking shoestring budget
>AMD finally back to offering 90% while undercutting and actually sticking to sockets
>Intel force to pricecut

>Intel shills move goalposts

good goyim guys
monopolies are best for the consumer

here's to another ten years of stagnation once Intel takes back the market again!

>>59225342
assuming that graph is showing the game running at 60fps constantly, you sure as shit could tell if the frametimes are hovering at 20ms. It should be sub-16ms all the time.

>>59225430
When they put out a 4 core 8 thread unlocked chip for 200 bucks, I'll buy it.

>>59221806
You have then a very shitty rig.
Stutter, besides microstutter can arise from several bottlenecks including SSD/HDD, memory and network.

Personally on gta5 i have silk perfomance over M2 NVM with 7700K and 1080SLI 3400 mhz ddr4.

Sorry i forget, AMD cant run higher ddr4 frequencies. Its okay. At least the cores dont park idle.

>>59225055
You can fully OC with Z170, prices are somewhat cheaper. Im still on ASROCK K6 z170 5ghz with 1.3v damn stable.

>>59225428
Mine's getting pulled once my 1700X shows up. It's been a good half decade but I've waited long enough.

File: 209-630.1488454496.png (45KB, 630x424px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 630x424px

>>59225100
That source is trash. From the same source

>>59225475
im having a hard time not buying a 1700 desu

>>59225432
That is one of the reasons running 100+fps at minimum is ideal.

>>59225055
I grabbed an Asus B350 board and it was in stock and cheap. Nobody on Newegg knows that uATX and mATX are the same thing so nobody is buying it.

>>59225514
I'm a bit poor at the moment, so i'm holding out for 1600X. I'm 7 years on the stock cooler, this thing sounds like a jet taking off!

>>59225535
Everyone saying Ryzen is absolutely crap for gaming is overeacting. Its an average okay cpu, but if you plan to only play with it you can get absolute better performance out of 7700K, if you are prone to OC it to 5ghz.

As long as you plan to mainly game and use as a general workstation the 1700 seen to be the best price/performance ratio if you manage to OC it to at least 3.8/3.9 ghz.

>>59221806
>midrange and budgetrange aren't even out yet
>people are already losing their shit

Wait for Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 3 and whatever alterations in pricing on both sides.

Only retards build on fucking launch.

>>59224116
>Phenom II x4 955
I love my 955 BE and I've used it for 7 years. Price-performance ratio was insane. I even played Witcher 3 with GTX 760. It's getting too old tho so I ordered 7600k (I'm on budget), rip 955.

>>59225569
As someone who was too stubborn to buy Intel the money I saved not upgrading when I wanted to over the last 6 years has paid for two motorcycles.
Of course, I stopped buying intel after that whole CPU on a card bullshit from the Pentium 3. Fuck I'm getting old.

>>59225529
DX12 in that game is known to have issues.

>>59225100

>>59225586
i came to this exact conclusion, the thing that is holding me back is wondering if there will be a better version in a year

>inb4 waitfag

>>59225634
Apparently only with AMD.

>>59225635
It'll be the same socket, unlike Intel's. Just upgrade then if they do.

>>59222215
>overclocked avg is lower than stock
>ayymd average 3-4fps lower
really cracks my 'rons

>>59225586
7700k at 5ghz is a gigantic housefire in dire need of delidding. There's no point in OCing it past 4.8 unless you want more e-peen points.

>>59225529
>DX12 in Battlefield One

Kek. GPUs aren't even able to get a higher FPS with it over DX11 in the game.

File: 1435412494318.gif (674KB, 414x317px) Image search: [Google]

674KB, 414x317px

>>59225620
>Phenom II
Ayyyy lmao

llano architecture here. My 500$ AMD laptop ran Witcher 3 on medium settings just fine five fucking years after I bought it

Playing Darksouls 3 on it now.

When the lower end Ryzen come out and DDR4 prices settle down, I'll build a desktop and enjoy it for another five years. Then upgrade the CPU because AMD isn't run by Jews and actually has long term support for their sockets

>>59225658
based amd making sockets great again

>>59225403

>On a single frame per for each CPU. That's much better than the repeated stutters the 7700k is getting in other games.

What's worse, a stutter that's very obviously jarring and annoying every minute or so, or <10ms variance that you'll never notice ever?

>>59225432

It's not locked to 60FPS dingus. If the frametimes are hovering around 20ms, then it's no longer 60FPS by definition ...

>>59225690
You can see that test is locked at 120fps and the other one favoring AMD is locked at 144fps.

A 1080 can get that kind of static fps in some maps. Just looking at the ground which these tests probably did it's easy.

>>59225114
got one of the better 1200p monitors, and no reason to upgrade till contrast gets good for cheap

>Finally bought 1080p monitor
>In the year 2012+5
>Now everyone makes comparisons at 1200p, 2k, 4k, etc
>I don't give two fucks

Fuck it I'm going back to my 1280x1024

>>59225720
A single 25ms frametime is worse than dropping from 8ms to 20ms+(~<50fps) for 5 frames straight, dude.

Why don't you answer your own question? Oh, you're too dumb and need it explained to you. That's bad.

>>59225703
this

currently using a 965 oc'd. love this cpu so much, serving me well since 2009.

waiting for the 1600x, even if it will lag behind intel i wont hand a shekel to those kikes.

and you are hearing this from an Israeli.

>>59225854
Israeli hate diaspora Jews, don't they?

>>59225854
>and you are hearing this from an Israeli.
Nobody hates Jews quite like other Jews

Well, except me. I fucking hate Zionists with the fury of a thousand suns.

>>59225898
cant speak for all the kikes, but i personally hate the hassidic ones. they are literal parasites here in israel and across the globe.

they are reproducing at alarming rates, and grow in political power due to their numbers. leech of the rest of the population through wellfare and choke the country with their religious and cultural bullshit. they must be gassed.

>>59225703
The Phenom and Athlon 64 were actually good.

Ryzen is basically "Phenom IV" if "Phenom III" had existed instead of that Bulldozer mistake.

File: cry3-99th[1].png (5KB, 518x230px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 518x230px

>>59225834

I just realised that we're using Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, and Haswell for comparison here. Are you fucking kidding me? What kind of fucking joke is this? May as well sub the Ryzen chips for 8350 then!

And in any case:

>A single 25ms frametime is worse than dropping from 8ms to 20ms+(~<50fps) for 5 frames straight, dude.

What? You're agreeing with me then.

A 20ms spike (as in, from average of ~8 to ~28ms) is worse than skipping from 8-20-8-20-8-20-8-20-8-20. That brief 12ms fluctuation just won't be anywhere near as noticeable. Besides, this is one (cherry picked) data point we're discussing here.

THIS is the proper graph to compare it to: http://techreport.com/r.x/2017_03_01_AMD_s_Ryzen_7_1800X_Ryzen_7_1700X_and_Ryzen_7_1700_CPUs_reviewed/cry3-fps.png

And attached pic is the handy dandy graph that summarises it all for us.

Man, /g/ just endlessly confirms how fucking retarded it is on a daily basis, no wonder why they love these chips so much. Eating hype like it's a bag of wet shit, their favourite snack.

File: 1336155420.png (57KB, 236x276px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 236x276px

>>59225984
>>59225854
>>59225703
>>59225620
>>59225428
>>59224116


All this Phenom love. I never knew there were still so many of us around. God bless.

File: 1400099785739.png (80KB, 983x1013px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 983x1013px

>>59226024
>>59225984
>>59225854

Llano pre-dates Phenom ii. It's the old K10, but with a dieshrink. Still overclocks with the K10 overclocking tool like a fucking champ. Got a 1.2 Ghz boost without changing anything and mine wasn't even a high-end Llano.

Athlon ii. Still kicking in 2017. Fuck yeah.

>>59226022
Problem with this is that Crysis 3 gets almost 50% higher framerates with HT enabled making it an unfair comparison since SMT is currently broken and dropping performance by 8-12% (and they don't note they're disabling SMT so they probably aren't)
I bet if you had frametimes for the 7700k, they'd still be as wildly over the place even if the 99th percentile is lower. Especially so if you did the same test with HT disabled.


Benchmarks are just fucked up now. Need to wait for SMT to get fixed.

Hopefully when Prey comes out in a few days, it'll actually have Ryzen optimizations and SMT working in it since AMD and Bethesda have a partnership. But at the very least, all reviewers should have been testing SMT on/off.

>>59221806

Stop being bloody babies. CPUs are fucking painful as fuck at gaming even the bargain basement shit. CPU hasn't matter much for gaming for over a decade now. The GPU is what limits 90% of the users and content out there. CPU performance is only an issue with sandbox games, poorly-coded of garbage and grand strategy games at late states.

>ITT: Retards youngfags who never use anything older than a Core 2 and Athlon 64

>>59223090

It is because the dual-channel DDR3 holds back SB and IB overclocked on some games that love memory bandwidth (Fallout 4, GTA5). That's why Skylake had a nice gain over haswell under such titles since it has DDR4.

>>59226024
PII was the last genuinely good cpu AMD made. Zen isn't a disaster like bulldozer but it's nothing like PII or Athlon back in their days. When will AMD finally deliver...

Ryzen is more for work, but has no iGPU.

Intel is for gayming, but comes with an iGPU..

Makes no sense.

Do you all have single ranked RAM or do you even care about your >2400Mhz DDR4 ram are running at that speed max.

If you use 4 dual ranked ram, then you will get 1866Mhz max. speed.

Enjoy buying overpriced single ranked ram, just to get the best out of your CPU.

File: I TRIED SO HARD.png (21KB, 633x479px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 633x479px

JUST

File: 6796dea0928e922d.png (58KB, 645x773px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 645x773px

>>59226024
>Had a rig with a 965 and a radeon 6850
>fucker was cheap but an absolute champ for performance
>burgled few months back
>fuckers nicked it
>never got it returned, no evidence on who did it
>tfw

It still hurts /g/, she was ready for retirement when Ryzen 5 comes

>>59226303
wow its almost like a bunch of people shorted stocks surrounding a major relase announcement

>>59226303
>>59226440
Yeah, not a single analyst is recommending a sale on AMD right now.

They're still neutral, or saying it's made a new opportunity to buy in more.

>>59226389
this made me actually sad, anon. :(

You doing okay?

File: cry3-lakes[1].png (11KB, 620x269px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 620x269px

>>59226141

It's one thing to say that "Ryzen is fucked up at the moment, hopefully it'll be fixed", and another thing to say "Ryzen has better frametimes" and then link a graph comparing it to ancient CPUs.

Furthermore, you're vastly overestimating the HTing benefit, that's only true on dual cores and such, because the jump from 2 to 4 threads is huge, not so much 8 (already generous) to 16.

And no, the frametimes for the 7700K aren't all over the place - If they were, then how the fuck would the 99th percentile test be excellent?

< THIS was the graph I was meant to link last time, I accidentally linked and attached the same image last post.

>>59226223
You're crazy, Ryzen is almost as significant as the Athlon 64 if not as significant. It has some trouble out of the gate with its chipset but it's still very competitive and it's not even completely released yet. There's still the low and mid range parts that will disrupt Intel's main OEM clients and AMD server products are looking extremely promising which will disrupt Intel's server lineup as well.

>>59226473
I'm doing alright thank you anon. got my laptop to tide me over for now, waiting on insurance money so I can start buying equipment for my new machine, might see if I can pick up a Phenom cheap but I've seen they are harder to find now.

>>59226501
Okay that one is much better, Anon. For that game at least.

But it's still unfair at this point to compare HT enabled to SMT enabled since HT gives a 20-50% performance increase while SMT is broken in games, but will surely be fixed, and is giving 8-12% worse performance.

All these benchmarks for the Ryzen need to be taken with a huge helping of salt.

When HT was first around, for years it was giving 5-45% performance decreases, like so: >>59224473
Potentially, SMT should be accounted for much sooner so people don't have to manually disable SMT. At the very least, developers should be checking to make sure they only apply their HT optimizations when it's actually Intel's HT and not AMD's SMT.

>>59226569
>disrupt Intel

Nah.

Intel will just lock contracts again, and only pay a slap on the wrist a decade after for illegal practices long after AMD implodes from it a second time.

Pretty sure the dent in Moore's Law from Intel's Jewery is measurable.

>>59226598
You can make a 1700 system for pretty cheap.
Comes with a cooler. B350 motherboards are only $80-$90.

File: getgraphimg.png (65KB, 600x661px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 600x661px

>>59221806

>>59226618
>B350 motherboards are only $80-$90.

This is the greatest thing nobody is talking about.

The overclock-capable chipset starts in budget-tier
All Ryzen CPUs can be overclocked

Fucking golden. Fuck Intel.

>>59222215
>Fake news
this is my favorite meme

File: getgraphimg (1).png (66KB, 600x661px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 600x661px

>>59221806
>>59226643

>>59221806
i7 6700K and above and you will be happy

File: getgraphimg (2).png (67KB, 600x661px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 600x661px

>>59221806
>>59226654
>>59226643

>>59226618
I'll keep that in mind thanks anon

>>59225331
Both of them are valid concerns though.

when you remove a gpu bottleneck, you see the cpu one, so the very low resolution benchmarks are showing what the cpu does, because scaling the game up to 1080/1440/2160p doesn't touch the cpu much if at all, it hits the gpu.

most reviewers are correct in pointing out that you do keep your cpu far longer than gpu.

but there is also a concern that maybe the apis wont effectively thread or even can effectively thread. Then if they can, the 8 core you have now is a bit pointless as zen+ will be here, if not zen++

And I say this as someone who doesn't know which ryzen to get, roll dice on silicon lottery with the 1700, or just say fuck it and get a 1800x for guaranteed clocks.

>>59226644
>>59226739
What most people don't realize (or forcibly ignore) is that the X370 motherboards are equivalent to the $200-$300 Z270 boards, while the B350 boards are equivalent to the $120-$150 Z270 motherboards.
AMD has more sensible steps to their chipset than Intel, and lower licensing fees to the mobo manufacturers.

A B350 is enough for an 16x PCI-e GPU and 2 full speed M.2 Sata drives.

>59225055

>>59223335
>>59223535
Dota after recent updates eats a single core like a mother fucker, rtz dropping into the 30s sounds pretty bad, usually streams like that only get down to about the 70s/80s from what I've seen.

Er
>>59225055

>>59221806
which cpu has less input lag?

All I wanna know is how well Ryzen does with Factorio.

0.15 is out later this month.

Priorities and all.

>>59226826
my fucking nigga

>>59226809
I think it could be board too.

A few people with Gigabyte motherboards seem to be getting way, way better performance even compared at 720p.

Ryzen single core shouldn't be that bad. It's probably windows scheduler and game engine quirks fucking it up.

>>59226826
OH SHIT
>also where the fuck is Egg with the Factorio episodes

why would you buy this high range of a cpu for gaming alone?

I have a 4 year olf i5 and and 770 and I can run every game on max settings at 60fps vsync. I don't understand, I would have this cpu in my work computer or something, not my gaming machine

>>59226959
>I don't understand

Moving goalposts.

Before Ryzen was confirmed to be godsend, all debates were budget to mid-range.

Now Intel's grassroots team has to post about their 1000$-tier processor to a bunch of gamers to stay relevant.

>>59226741
I think when you look at it, the CPU load to instruct the GPU has continued to make progress in terms of efficiency though. In particular for the newer API's it seems like in almost any high end system the largest difference will continue to ONLY be the GPU.

The Vulkan implementation of doom could fill every frame of a 144hz monitor at 1080p with a good GPU and a lowly stock 2500k. The question becomes if game logic will be capable of multi-thread optimizations in the future, as the draw calls even for games that have bleeding edge graphics seem to care little for a beefy CPU.

I think the 480p demos showing frame rates regularly in the 200-300 range should be an indicator that there may not even be a point for having such a high single thread performance in the future, as overall processing capability is being sacrificed. I won't be surprised if we see relatively soon the results of developers optimizing game logic for a real 8 cores, and the result could easily make the now 10% average difference in frames vanish.

Either way the worst case scenario on the AMD side is in the distant future when your CPU bound system is hitting 50fps because of it's single thread performance, a 7700k would be sitting at 60fps. The best case scenario for AMD is developers getting the full 55% extra performance out of the chip and when a Ryzen system is sitting at 60fps, the 7700k could be down to 39fps. Even taking somewhere in the middle, and it looks promising for an AMD build being rather future proof.

>All this discussion of GPU bottlenecks
>CPU bottlenecks are basically never the issue
>Just take the budget option CPU
>Put more money into a better videocard

>Factorio update cometh

THE END IS NIGH

>>59223090
4.4 what kind of shitty oc that

>>59221806
Wow what a scientific observation they have there.

>>59222873
8% more performance.

>>59227116
Hello 2009.

>>59227316
>Hello 2009.

>All this discussion of GPU bottlenecks
>CPU bottlenecks are basically never the issue
>Just take the budget option CPU
>Put more money into a better videocard

>Dwarf Fortress update cometh

THE END WAS NIGH

File: 1486121555794.png (12KB, 492x212px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 492x212px

>>59225475
>what is a 1400x and 1300
If you want XFR, it's 200 USD
No XFR? 175 USD

>>59226959
idk if 4k needs a better cpu, but 144hz does

>>59227370
Xfr is enabled on all chips.

>>59221806
Wait, so is this true?, i have seen a couple of reviewers saying that the "frame times" were great on Rysen, but i thought the GPU's were the ones responsible for that

>>59228046
No the CPU plays the biggest part in smooth framerates. Stutters are almost always on the CPU end.

GPUs now days are extremely consistent. The CPU has so much more going on that can slow it down with I/O and the OS doing shit.

>>59226389
How does someone steal a PC and get away with it? were you away or something?

File: 1475478839131.jpg (198KB, 1273x1024px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1273x1024px

>>59227997
Are you that faggot who goes into all these threads and posts "ryzen doesnt support ecc" and other lies?

>>59222873
I work in scientific computations so a bit more power in single core performance is irrelevant to me since all my shit is parallelized

>>59227092
Somewhat true, but we can see that cores don't normally scale linearly, I honestly doubt that in the processors life that games will come out regularly that shit on quad cores that hard, it will likely be 8 cores boosts performance but no sane dev is going to write off quad cores or 8 threads till the game simply can't run on them.

File: Untitled-1-640x353.jpg (29KB, 640x353px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 640x353px

>>59228521
Um.. Ryzen multithreading scales better than linearly.

You get more than 8x performance from 8 cores over single threaded.

>>59228575
A better example might be comparing Cinebench single thread score vs nT.

It gets 162 single core. 1624 multithreaded. That's over 10x the performance.
It's why it's unbeatable when it comes to the record on an overclock. Not even the 6950X with 10 cores and over a 5ghz+ overclock all-core can match its multithreaded performance

>>59228046
>We’ll get into specific scenarios of single-GPU and multi-GPU stuttering in the following pages, but briefly, stuttering can occur at several different points in the rendering pipeline. If the GPU takes longer to render a frame than expected – keeping in mind it’s impossible to accurately predict rendering times ahead of time – then that would result in stuttering. If a driver takes too long to prepare a frame for the GPU, backing up the rendering pipeline, that would result in stuttering. If a game simulation step takes too long and dispatches a frame later than it would have, or simply finds itself waiting too long before Windows lets it submit the next frame, that would result in stuttering. And if the CPU/OS is too busy to service an application or driver as soon as it would like, that would result in stuttering. The point of all of this being that stuttering and other pacing anomalies can occur at different points of the rendering pipeline, and become the responsibility of different hardware and software components.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6857/amd-stuttering-issues-driver-roadmap-fraps/3

>>59221806
What I do is get the PC I need for other stuff, and then just play what it happens to be capable of running, which is still multiple lifetimes worth. I spend most of my free time on other stuff and most of my expendable income traveling.

>>59228610
This is outdated though and it's not incredibly rare for the GPU to take longer than expected to render a frame when it comes to controlled benchmarks.

This was back when AMD had drivers issues that caused stuttering that doesn't happen anymore.

>>59221806
Ask for the devs use a decent API that dont overhead the fucking CPU, GPUOpen initiative is there, devs just need to do their fucking job.

>>59221806
>ryzen sucks AyyMD IS FINISHED AND BANKRUPT
>but goy i5-2500K still can game fine

>>59228575
Who ever made that chard should be shot.

>>59222732
Stuttering is a common problem that DirectX have always had.

>>59226809
the worst I saw when he was streaming was 58.

people are getting confused, when you alt tab the game caps frmaerate to 30 by default, hwich is whats happening

not that 58 is good for dota2. Before they updated the ui I was getting between 90-190fps on a stock i7-860. After they updated the UI I started getting between 40-120fps, pretty shit.

I was going to upgrade anyways, but after I got a 7700K at 5ghz with fast ram I get 150-300 fps. I'm actually gpu limited at min settings now during teamfights, hit 100% on my 7950.

anyways, ryzen shouldn't be that shit if they patch the game to not destroy a single core again.

This whole thread is triggering my autism. Call it AMD SMT for fuck's sake, HT is an implementation of SMT by Intel.

>>59224116
to bad Phenom cant take 4K videos and encoding over 720p is a pain in the ass, usually 11fps on 1080p encoding.

>>59228718
stfu you know when people say SMT they mean AMD's SMT unless the context makes otherwise clear.

>>59228711
lmao it's some other company's middleware for their new UI, isn't it? I bet it'll be hard to multithread.

File: spics.png (66KB, 642x575px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 642x575px

>>59226024
Add me up, senpai. Im craving for a CPU upgrade but shit is getting messy. My old Phenom is still an important ally.

>>59228756
no, its their own now, it used to be scaleform which worked well enough

im too lazy to look up what they call it, but it performs like shit. pressing the scoreboard button literally cuts your framerate in half. every single piece of the ui thats open just destroys the framerate.

>>59228756
Make me faggot.

my theory has to do with xeons

you can get same fps as 4.5ghz i57600 now on 8 years old xeon with any videocard, it doesn't get bottlenecked even dual titan x is fine,
drivers are multithreaded for a long time, they can't be efficient otherwise

but game logic gets slightly stuck on new arch, same way xeons were crap for gaming 10 eyars back,
meaning ryzen has more years in it than 7700K

so make your choice, also it smooths out driver overhead to non existent even now, look at frametime graphs i7 ahs jumps to 60ms at times, ryzen keeps it under 16ms

>>59228795
They call it Panorama. It's some XML/CSS/JS thing.
I figured when I saw it that it was some other company's middleware. For being Valve made with its highly paid employees, I didn't think it'd be so shitty.

>>59228464
He is right tho. The 1700 have a XFR of +50Mhz while the 1700X and 1800X is +100Mhz

>>59221806
D A M A G E C O N T R O L
A
M
A
G
E

C
O
N
T
R
O
L

>>59228595
AMD smart prediction is a huge achievment, if you keep pushing the tests on cinebench the results tends to be higher. In a 6 pass test it got higher and higher everytime.

>>59228711
GPU will always try to work at 100% no matter what.

>>59225823
640 half life was comfy

>>59228999
800x600 morrowind was suffering, i'd do it again

>>59226303
RIP

>best AMD still has lesser thread performance than $75 Pentium

>>59229112
that's not true

>>59229271

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

>>59229281
>single thread

>>59229398
muh bad old game engines

>>59229281
>cpubenchmark

Yeah well its float and integer math performance single core is even better than the 7700k.

>>59221806
The reason it was stuttering is because the Bogbros activated Intel ME. Enjoy the botnet.

File: e41979d2-56c9-4bef-cb8b-388e2b7d640e.png (204KB, 488x464px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 488x464px

>>59226024
A fucking lightning strike killed my 965BE.

I miss it.

>>59226598
id invest in a gun to defend yourself against niggers

File: 1474645021436.png (4KB, 236x176px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 236x176px

>>59228831
Seriously, I need a source for that one. I've heard nothing of the sort until just now

How bad the stuttering issue on kaby lake? Just got a 7600k and I'm thinking it'll be okay but stuttering would kinda suck

>>59229635
why america doesn't have lightning rods?
I hear this a lot from americans that lightning strikes houses etc.

We have houses with lightning rods constructed by law here.

>>59229651
AMD slides, I missed it too

>>59229652
congrats, i5 can't play gta5 without stutter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUNAvkY6Ops

>>59229635
Did you not have a UPS? Or was it too much even for that?

File: 1485494631942.png (474KB, 1200x848px) Image search: [Google]

474KB, 1200x848px

>>59229675
>4:30
>"you'd expect that lowering resolution would increase performance, but it actually decreases"
>Those low res benches will be a stuttering mess
INTEL CORE SERIES BTFO
THANKS PENTIUM 3(P6)

7700k is barely better than sandy bridge now

[YouTube] Intel Skylake Core i7 6700K vs 4790K/3770K/2600K 4.4GHz Overclock Gaming Benchmarks (embed)

same fps, but sandy and ivy drop frames
and kaby compared to ryzen drops frames

my argument about ryzen longevity comes from historical 8 year old xeons evidence that are good for gaming now, and can't bottleneck GPU even if you really really try because for all driver problems they are programmed good

not to mention less power draw, am4 until 2020, virtually same performance as 7700K in realistic(not 20 years in there future) scenario of 1440p, already 17-22% performance increase just by BIOS update
If you do not try to dig deeper, basic reviews do not tell you shit

I'll repost this, I need someone to tell me why i'm wrong in my reasoning. I'm this close to buying 1700 to replace ageing 2600(not K).

>>59229819
>I'll repost this
Please don't, this shit is getting old.

File: 1413879752314.jpg (265KB, 625x800px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 625x800px

>>59229819
>I'm this close to buying 1700
At the very least, get the 1600x/1500

>>59229877
can't wait long enough, currency rates changing, it might become more expensive to get 1600x in 4 months than 1700x now.
so I need a CPU for 4 years before I get enough saved up for another refurbish.

File: 1413879870303.jpg (52KB, 636x900px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 636x900px

>>59229925
>so I need a CPU for 4 years
If money and longevity is a concern
Get the 1700.
You'll regret going with Intel if you want things to last. blah blah blah socket change.

File: 71gAv7K-jsL._SL1500_.jpg (144KB, 1500x1500px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1500x1500px

>>59225739
>one of the better 1200p monitors
Is it pic related?

>>59229957
tftcentral is your friend.

>>59229962
What do you mean?
I wasn't planning on buying the pic I posted, just asking because it's probably the best 1200p monitor. IPS panel, nice bezel, etc.

>>59229973
and i'm telling you read tftcentral reviews, dells are usually good all rounders but they have bad apples time to time

I wish I never threw away my 1.33 Tbird...

File: intelonsuicidewatch.png (408KB, 882x1418px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 882x1418px

>>59229925
Get the 1700 if you can't wait for Ryzen 5.

File: wakemeup.jpg (8KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 480x360px

>>59225854

>>59224609
>oleds
Doesn't that shit have some retarded small lifespan and fast wear and tear?
I remember something about oled being a meme to
force retards to have to constantly replace tech.
Looks good in the start, and then everything goes to shit.

File: 2017-03-04_102555.png (2MB, 1290x749px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1290x749px

>>59229675
HOLY SHIT IS THAT THE BOSTON BOMBER ON THE LEFT?

>>59231236
the blue leds in the beginning had a smaller lifespan, somewhere around 5~ years before they started to shit themselves, but they have gotten quite a bit better.

then once production moves over to oled, the process gets cheaper and cheaper, so even if lets say they died at 5 years, replacing a 100% adobe rgb 10 bit+ 1:250000 static contrast display is a nominal fee.

Oleds are simply so much better that whatever downside they come with is worth it.

Oh not to mention no backlight bleeding and actual blacks.

really the in between lcd and oled should have been sed, but manufactures thought that a plasma like tv that has all the benefits of an oled all the good aspects of an lcd, would not have sold at all because the initial price would be twice what a lcd was, as in this lcd costs 300$ this sed that is worlds better is 600$

Having seen oleds in real life on massive tvs, fuck me, nothing compares, that is truly worth the wait.

>>59229635

Fucking third world countries

>>59221806

>Gaming in 2017 is truly the worst
>8% lower average

Few things describe "first world problems" as much as this

I have been asked to build a PC for business use. No gaymen..

It must have an i7, everything else is open to recommendation..

However, i can convince them to go with an 8 core Ryzen.

What do?

>>59232593
look up benchmarks actually representative for the intended use and prepare a total cost overview.
a 1700 is likely to be an attractive option.

>>59232609
Thanks will do.

Also i can google this but im just going to ask, do the Ryzens have onboard graphics like Intel or not?

>>59232593
>It must have an i7
Why?
Why?
Why?
Why?
Is this just an emotional decision?

If you're poor you should have a cheaper hobby than gaming.

If not, you buy an Intel HEDT CPU.

>>59232631
I dont know, and i dont care.

It just has to have an i7, or now, also a Ryzen.

I dont ask these questions, i just get what they want and i get paid

>>59232619
If you're using onboard graphics, that means you're using only one monitor? A desktop driving fewer than two monitors is not worth the inconvenience of it being a desktop. Get a nice laptop for maximum productivity since you also don't need anything that uses CUDA.

>>59232654
1 monitor is correct. But it still needs to be a desktop.

Probably 1920*1080 but maybe as high as 2560*1080.

It will not be moved.

>>59232619
as of yet ryzen is CPU only, no onboard graphics. the APU with onboard graphics is to be released "later this years", whatever that means. you'd have to factor in a graphics card (really cheap ones match intel onboard in performance) if you can't wait.

>>59232651
so if needs to be i7 or Ryzen, present them with 6900x and 1800x and make them do monetary decision.

>>59232712
When you are rich money doesnt matter..

But i would like to get them the best value for money they can. Even if the cost doesnt bother them, i care.

>>59232699
Good point. If they have no onboard graphics then intel would certaintly be the easier option.

File: intelsucks.png (262KB, 1281x699px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 1281x699px

>>59221806

why not the 1700. stutter free and comptes.

>tfw still i5 2500k

Guess I'll wait till next year.

>>59232772

The 1700 is a monster on a price vs performance perspective when taking a general view at what it does. Even more so when you consider its 65w envelope. Hell even per The Stilt's testing scaling zen down leads to some insane performance at 30w which means basically for everything that isn't 100% gaming focused (that could change as motherboard BIOS mature) the current zen chips are kings of the heill.

Sure they won't best everything but AMD are aiming for 80% TAM.

File: 1488624783036[1].png (104KB, 582x1048px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 582x1048px

>>59221806
Ho ho! Ha ha!

>>59222020
THIS.

File: 1470442104158.gif (544KB, 303x357px) Image search: [Google]

544KB, 303x357px

>>59232882

>pclab.pl

>>59232593

Are you by any chance?

>>59232611
>>59232686

Because holy fuck your customer is retarded

>>59221806
>WAAAAAH I HAVE TO PLAY A GAME AT 5 FPS LOWER EVEN THOUGH THE ACTUAL FRAMERATE IS STILL WELL OVER 60FPS WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH
Jesus christ, just fucking kill yourself already. Gaymer children are fucking cancer.

>>59233080
I am.

And they are. But they want what they want.

All i can do is either ryzen or i7. Im tired of trying to convince them an i3/5 or whatever is suitable.

They want an i7, but i can sway them to the Ryzen.

>>59232593
Don't forget to factor in the X99 motherboard price versus a B350 or X370.

File: 1488420066835.jpg (42KB, 898x886px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 898x886px

>>59222020
top shitpost

>>59221958
>Same performance like i5 in gaming for 2x the price
>Using GPU based Cuda or OpenCl encoding literally 5 times faster than on CPU's
>But i need 16 threads for Browsing facebook
>Good AMD Goy

>>59222189
good shill yes buy 500$ cpu, that performance worse than 350$ and in 3years maybe games will handle all the 16 threads, so the performance will finally MATCH the 350$ CPU
>Good GOY

>>59222215
guys should i go for the i7-6850K or will there be an kaby lake equivalent of the 6850K soon.

As a compute fag that sometimes plays games I'm considering the 1800X.

File: 1438351387666.jpg (99KB, 807x605px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 807x605px

>>59232882
That's kind of interesting.

File: Intel_inside.jpg (250KB, 1032x774px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 1032x774px

Intel, lmao.

>>59234166

Power consumption doesn't matter anymore now that Intel isn't ahead.

>>59222020
With the way development cycles work, if 8c becomes mainstream today we still have around 3 years or more until we see games benefiting from it