When the fuck are there going to be CPU's that are actually

>>61118436
When game developers learn to make decent games. It's really no wonder not a single modern game is properly optimised to take advantage of threading when almost all of them are made by 'developers' with shitty joke degrees in vg development.

>>61118447
That's not even the problem. There's a million old and shittily optimised games out there that you can't run well no matter what hardware you have. Clock for clock gaming performance is near identical across all Intel processors since Sandy Bridge, and that shit came out in 2011.

It basically means if you were CPU bottlenecked in a game in 2011, you probably are now too.

>>61118436
video games are for children so no one cares

>>61118461
I really don't understand why /g/ gets so worked up in Intel VS AMD shitposting competitions when they have no real use for their fucking products anyway.

What they hell are you all doing with your processors? You don't need a 5960X for medium shitposting loads, an i5 would work fine.

>>61118436
When they manage to lower core to core latency.
The 7700k is King at gaming because it has the highest clocks and LOWEST core to core latency

>>61118762
retard alert

>>61118436
>>>/v/

>>61118779
Provide information to support your baseless claim.

File: pp.jpg (18KB, 248x189px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 248x189px

>>61118436
>It's another incorrectly benched CPU thread where AMD shills pretend to oblivious to hide their's CPU shitty single threaded performance.

Rerun those benchmarks in 4K 3 years from now on with whatever modern 1080 Ti we will have then and see those Ryzen CPUs suddenly being 30 frames behind in 4K.

>>61118867
Literally no one has even shilled AMD once in here, what the fuck are you talking about?

>>61118867
It is a bit funny to hear those "100fps is fine" arguments.
In a few years it will be a larger bottleneck.
However, the raw power it offers is undeniable. I'll be picking up a 1700 for video rendering and keeping a de-lid 7700k for Muh gamin.

>>61118878
>Literally no one has even shilled AMD once in here, what the fuck are you talking about?

Have you been living under a rock?

>>61118867
But anon-chan, the more multi-threaded games get, the more power the rise of the zen gets compared to the maxxxed out 7700k


So in a few years itll fare better

nace baito tho

>>61118481
They don't even need graphics cards either. These stupid niggers can go back.

>>>/v/

File: 1446967916092.jpg (175KB, 1240x786px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 1240x786px

>>61118436
>for gaming

File: he fell for the i5 meme.png (87KB, 806x681px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 806x681px

>>61118436
Nice cherrypicking of a GPU-limited game, retard.

>>61118993
Not him but a few issues with that.
1. Like 2 games actually effectively use 4+ cores.
2. We've been hearing this "multi core" shit for like 6 years.

File: 1498630549306.png (27KB, 181x220px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 181x220px

>>61118867
Just like Bulldozer got worse over the years, right?
Oh wait, it actually got better compared to Sandy Bridge :^)

>>61119063
>1. Like 2 games actually effectively use 4+ cores.

Utter horse shit. Every "AAA" release from the past few years uses at least four threads. Many won't even launch on CPUs with less. You're living in a fucking fantasy world where reality bends to your assumptions, but the real world has moved on. Late 2014 was when games first started appearing that wouldn't even launch on 2c2t chips. It's memorable due to how badly G3258 owners got cucked. In 2017 there are fucking tons of games that run better even on an i7 than an i5, due to the extra threads. Even a 2600K generally provides a smoother gaming experience than a 7600K.

>>61118436
it's actually better though, avg fps is false metric for cpu gaming performance

quality of life question more than raw performance

>>61119063
yeah but intel lolol is doing it too now, so it will happen this time

because intel is doing it game devs are gonna

>>61119063
Until recently there was no reason for game devs to use more than 4 cores. Nobody used 6+ cores because they were basically unaffordable.
Now with Ryzen and Intel bringing in 6+ cores at more affordable prices, there is an actual incentive to optimize for more than 4 cores.

>>61119063
>Like 2 games actually effectively use 4+ cores.
like 90% of games starting from 2013, and about 60% of games starting 2008

>>61119107
>>61119063

There are literally almost no games using more than 4 cores. Period. It's the same reason why a meme CPU like 7700k is still better for vidya than $1000 Intel CPUs.

>>61119115
are you mentally fucktarded?

Intel is releasing high core count shit now too, which means game devs WILL make it multi threaded

b t f o
t t
f f
o o

>>61119139
>Using meme typing
Ask me how do I know you're a /tv/ alien.

>>61119156
>mad because he got btfo

maximum damage control

>>61119115
gta4-5
civ4-5-6
warhammer
MD
rotr
witcher
numerous car games i don't care about
MEA
dragon age origins, not that it needs it but it does
DAI
Bettlefield 4-1
overwatch of all things
Alien Isolation
prey(duh)
dishonored 2
cities skyline

top of my head, I can find more if I bother

>>61119167
oh right ALL of ubisoft games, yes all of them.

>>61119103
So is i5 or i7 going to be 6cores?

>>61118481
We calculate π digits with y-cruncher

>>61119167
Literally 80% of these are wrong. Placebo effect with 1% difference even if you remove the GPU bottleneck.

>>61118762
The 7700k is just the highest clocked one, latencies between cores are a meme

>>61119066
Get out of here pedo

>>61119167
>>61119195
Literally all of those are wrong.

Go look up benchmarks in those games of i5/i7 vs X99 CPU's, there's no fucking difference.

>>61118436
You realize high end CPUs are aimed at video editing and servers

>>61119240
Why can't they fucking aim them at people who play games?

People are more than happy to dump $1000 into a 1080Ti, why not a CPU? All it needs is stronger cores.

>>61118447
This.

The CPU's ARE faster, it's just that these lazy ass devs never try to use it's full potential because of money and time.

File: Screenshot_2017-06-28-03-14-44-1.png (358KB, 1017x827px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 1017x827px

>>61119098
>>61119107
>>61119167
The 7700k is still faster in 90% of these "multi threaded" games compared to 6 and 8 cores.
Rendering your argument wrong.

>>61119197
>latencies between cores are a meme
Explain why lowering core to core latency in ryzen makes a huge difference then?

>>61119258
Because we are at the end of 'stronger cores' you fucking retard.

Multithreading is the only way to go forward.

>>61119275
Fuck you faggot, I want stronger cores.

Get Intel on the phone.

>>61119272
>a huge difference
Show me please.

>>61119228
>>61119195
>>61119272
feels like a samefag, but whatever

they have at least 20-30% more in min. frames
all that matters.

File: Screenshot_2017-06-28-03-20-45-1.png (101KB, 1008x457px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1008x457px

>>61119299
>they have at least 20-30% more in min. frames
>all that matters.
That's a HUGE difference

Also, MOOT confirmed Summer Fags where a myth.

>>61119299
>they have at least 20-30% more in min. frames
Stopped reading.

This entire thread is based on a misunderstanding. CPUs don't seem to make a huge difference because games just don't require relatively many calculations to be carried out on a CPU compared to a GPU.

If you wanted CPU to matter more, look not for more powerful processors, look for more demanding games. Message game devs, not proc manufacturers.

>>61118436
CPU's are already too powerful for most games, GPU is the bottleneck in every current high-end system. Get 2 1080ti's in SLI and see your 'better' frames.


>Has a 60Hz monitor, games at 200fps and talks about how 'smooth' it looks.

File: ryzen csgo.jpg (158KB, 1401x749px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1401x749px

>>61119374

>>61119410
That's clearly a cherry picked example although that is a specific instance where CPU does matter I guess. Do you know what GPU is being used here?

>>61119410

I know this is b8 but no monitor can display that anyway

>testing CPUs in a GPU limited scenario
Where does this shit come from so I block the website in my hostfile?

>>61119438

Its Linus Tech Tips m8

File: 1497286548573.png (107KB, 2250x2324px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 2250x2324px

>>61118436
>When the fuck are there going to be CPU's that are better for gaming

This happen over a decade ago. It's called a GPU and generally isn't limited by CPU.

Are you fucking retarded, OP? Or just stupid? Or both?

>>61119443
Aren't they supposed to be somewhat serious?

>>61119434
How is it b8? CSGO on that 8350 would be literally unplayable for any serious player. You've got to remember those are averages, more than likely the 8350 would be dropping down into the low 100's, Ryzen may even drop close to 200 too. In CSGO you need a stable 200FPS, minimum.

>>61119446
>Are you fucking retarded, OP? Or just stupid? Or both?

Interesting question.

>replace GPU with one 2x as powerful
>framerates are still garbage
>check CPU usage
>100% on one core

Who's the retard now?

File: 1494399038844.gif (2MB, 350x272px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 350x272px

>>61119468
Still you for bringing up an issue based on poor programming for multicore/multithread CPU's and not an issue with design of CPU's.

>>61119461
>>61119410
>Game engine that came out in 2005

>>61119468
So what, the API is shit, how is it related to CPUs? Shouldn't they bench on more recent game that take advantage of CPUs ?
What's the point of this retarded benchmark, linus?

>>61119461

The difference between the 7700k and 1800x dumbass, no monitor can display more than 240 hz

>>61119493
So you're saying I have no reason to be asshurt that someone can drop two grand on SLI 1080Ti's and still get drops to 30FPS because Intel are too lazy to make better CPU's in 7 years?

>>61119528
It's not about displaying it it's about maintaining as high a minimum as possible. Even on a 100Hz panel you can still feel the difference between 150FPS and 300FPS, and Source engine is fucked up and will mess up your mouse sensitivity as the framerate changes, so it's important that FPS stays as consistent as possible.

Fucking retards.

>>61119483
So a faster cores wouldn't solve the problem? Why don't you kill yourself?

>>61119549
You should be butthurt devs don't take advantage of CPU processing power. Multicore/threads CPU are the norm now and APIs have advanced since 2011.

Tell Tomb Raider devs to patch their game so it takes advantage of your CPU.

File: 1494292551029.gif (2MB, 460x259px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 460x259px

>>61119559

>>61119468
If you have more than one core and the game isn't utilizing it. Blame the dev's of the game. Dumbfag.

>>61119618
Yeah but.

>go to BIOS
>underclock CPU
>framerate goes down
>vise-versa

Saying 'blame the devs' doesn't help anything, the only solution is better hardware.

>>61119559
Haha, normally the dumbfags are all about 'team red is better, no team blue is better' but you are on a whole other level of dumbfaggery.

>>61119637
Imagine you have 6 ovens and need to bake 6 cakes on a deadline. Do you act like a retard and try to get everything done on a single oven, or use all 6 you already have?


Irony partially intended.

>>61118867
>30 frames behind
They're not even 30 frames behind now at 1080p 144hz, retarded frogposter.

>>61119669
Not all computations can be performed in parallel, it's not fair to put all the blame on developers.

>>61119669
But if I'm the worker, and my faggot boss is telling me I can only use two ovens, I have no choice but to use two ovens. Thus, getting two bigger ovens would be better than throwing more useless ovens into the equation that I can't use.

>>61119690
Not only that, but retard frogposter assumes newer games won't take advantage of the extra power of new GPUs, which is fucking stupid.

>>61118447
Couldn't agree more, as an electrical engineer it's actually quite sad to see newer, more powerful hardware, always get paired with shittier software that is most likely written by idiots who never did computer science. The fact that any idiot can pick up coding and learn it at home as long as he has a computer is exactly what made it so shitty.

And yes, the degree is important. It's about the mentality, the math maturity, the way you'll solve your problems. Any monkey can code, it isn't something hard. But actually knowing what you're doing and making sure you're extracting the most performance isn't so trivial.

>>61119669
>>61119707
>Ovens
I like where this analogy is going.

>>61118447
>It's really no wonder not a single modern game is properly optimised to take advantage of threading when almost all of them are made by 'developers' with shitty joke degrees in vg development.
Pretty much.

>>61118964
>I'll be picking up a 1700 for video rendering and keeping a de-lid 7700k for Muh gamin.
This is what most people do.

File: 1496969106757.png (6KB, 350x314px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 350x314px

>>61118867
JUST

WAIT

Wintel forever gayyyymd poorfags btfo

Pajeet CPU is for pajeet

>>61119703
Every core is it's own CPU, any load on a single core, can be shared with multiple cores as long as the software is programmed to take advantage of it. There are no computations that can't be shared across multiple cores/threads, optimization for it is difficult, but considering the fact that we now have 8 core consumer grade processors, it is unacceptable.

Big game development studious should hire more devs specialized in multicore optimization. Instead they chose to cherry pick multicultural developers for fill some sort of 'racial rainbow quota' and the best contributions those racefags have are "I think the game should have a black female protagonist, the story and gameplay are irrelevant "

>>61119262
CPUs aren't faster
They have more cores
Video games are not very compatible with parallel processing

>>61119848
you have no idea what you're talking about

>>61119098
>Many won't even launch on CPUs with less
Literally Farcry 4 and Primal, and there's a special .dll to bypass that since a long, long time.

>>61119258
>Why can't HEDT CPUs aim at gaming?
Because videogames and multithreading past 4 Cores doesn't play well together 90% of the time, and that only counts for those games that do have multithreading.

Intel's reached the pinnacle of single core performance so they're following AMD's trend, now we just need GameDevs to step their game up and make games with proper multithreading.

>>61119848
>There are no computations that can't be shared across multiple cores/threads
there are computations that become slower when shared across multiple cores, so that statement isn't really true

>>61119468
>CPU Manufacturers are at fault for my shitty game not being able to properly use my CPU, even though they didn't worked on the game at all
That was your statement. Read it, process it, and once you understood/embraced your own retardness, remember to say goodbye to your loved ones before fucking killing yourself, thank you very much.

>tfw still have an i5 2500K and GTX670
:3c

>>61120020
>Intel's reached the pinnacle of single core performance

So you're saying 2500K is going to be fine in 2030?

>>61120183
That totally depends on Intel's next architecture, they were gonna launch it on 2021 or 2022 iirc.

>>61118447
Some 4X games have multi-threaded AI, so in a handful of cases you can see benefits today

>>61118436
>only one amd cpu makes it onto the list
like pottery

>>61120601
>Only one brain cell made it into this guy's head

>>61118436
Stop playing shit games that don't use your hardware properly.

I'm pretty sure the main problem is DirectX being a piece of shit, I swear every game with performance issues and inconsistent framerates runs on DX11.

>>61119669
More like splitting 1 big cake into 6 in order to fit then in the ovens

>>61119859
>Video games are not very compatible with parallel processing
And yet sony and microsoft went with octa cores for their systems instead of highly clocked dual or quad cores

>>61119491
This is still relavant today. Many shit PC ports still use only 1 or 2 cores to their "fullest" potential and ignore the rest for the most part just like an engine from 2005

>>61120706
And yet you still see babbies whining that Vulkan/DX12 sucks (because it doesn't work as well with NVidya's lack of hardware scheduler)
>>61120743
Last time I remember this happening (Batman Arkham Knight) there were mass protests and refunds.

>>61120769
>And yet you still see babbies whining that Vulkan/DX12 sucks (because it doesn't work as well with NVidya's lack of hardware scheduler)
AMD doesn't see big improvements either. Look at Return of the Tomb Raider. DX12 actualyl runs slightly better on NVIDIA if I recall correctly (but both worse than DX11)

>>61120769
Vulkan is actually good, I have zero faith in DX12.

File: 1498274040960.jpg (72KB, 556x706px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 556x706px

>>61118436
We don't need better CPU's for gaming.
We need better games for CPU's.

>>61120787
>Return of the Tomb Raider
Rise*

It was patched recently so maybe it's changed.

> Intel OC
> Intel OC
> Intel Stock
> Intel Stock
> AMD Stock

What a disingenuous way to display that data

>>61120813
But all it shows is that OCing Intel barely does anything.

>>61119528
Not that guy, but avid high refresh rate proponent and CSGO player. While a monitor is limited to 144/165/240hz or whatever, there's still a not unnoticeable difference in smoothness/responsiveness between say, 200fps and 300fps or 300fps and 400fps (less so obviously). For CS if you want your game to feel not shit, 300+ is a lot nicer to play with than 200 on my 144hz display. Try it for yourself if you don't believe me.

>>61120887
Now how do I get the mouse to not feel shit? It just doesn't feel the same as in other games whether I turn raw input on or off.

>>61120887
That's mostly because Source is ancient crap single threaded engine where higher FPS gives you smoother input.

>>61120919
Raw input on, fps_max 999, that's about it.
And just for the record since I didn't mention it in my last post, I'm not trying to argue for either brand, I've got a 1700X on the way :^)
>>61120941
Having something like 3 frames per refresh also cuts down on input lag a lot when the latest frame is drawn 2/3 of a refresh cycle in rather than at the start of the cycle. Probably tears a ton, but I don't notice it. You could fix that with nvidia's fast sync (frame buffer renaming) but it seems to add a bit of latency.

>>61118436
>>>/v/

>>61118447
>>61118459
Do not forget, they have no reason to optimize it more for it to run better on newer CPUs 90% of their market IS shitty $300 CPUs customers.

>>61120941
>higher FPS gives you smoother input.
Overwatch works like this too. The mouse actually feels like vsync is on if you're under 60fps

>>61118436
Who the fuck cares? Who actually needs to game at 300fps in 4k at ultra settings? Are you that autistic? I'm gaming with an i7 2600K.

>>61121164
I thought Overwatch had a hard FPS cap, though.

>>61121339
FPS cap? I think you can set it to unlimited. I do know there's a 300fps cap but I don't think that's important

File: 1483587203666.png (17KB, 328x215px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 328x215px

>>61121373
>FPS cap isn't a mulitple of 72

>>61121477
It's a slider. You can cap it from 30 (i think) up to 300fps.

>>61119848
Ok you fucking faggot.
How would you paraLEL the next stuff.
Input the value of F.
A=3+5
B=A+D
D=A+1
C=B+D
E=2+2
F=C+E
Assign the threads and lets assume that one clock solves the #+#and outputs the result wherever you need it.

>>61118436
When vulkan becomes standard

>>61118436
prob soon since amd is a option and 8 core cpus are now $300, the more people have these cpus th more likely it is that devs will optimize for them, they didnt before because there is no point in optimization for a $1000 intel cpu that no one will buy