We sit down with Game Director Jeff Kaplan and Lead Designer Geoff Goodman to discuss story versus PvP, sound design, Push, and the game’s interesting launch plans.
Overwatch 2 – The Big Interview
We've run Red Dead Redemption 2 through its PC paces as the series finally lands on the Desktop platform!
Red Dead Redemption 2 is Finally on PC - How Does it Fare?
We've taken to Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order like a Womprat to sand. But how does it hold up?
Light or Dark? Our In-Depth Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order Review
Post by KostaAndreadis @ 03:15pm 03/03/17 | 10 Comments
For quite a few people, there was a sliver of hope that the new AMD line of Ryzen processors would re-ignite a rivalry with Intel. Mainly because the Core i7 line of processors haven't really changed all that much over recent years. GPUs, or Graphics Cards, on the other hand continue to grow from strength to strength. With a recent look at the new Ryzen 7 1800X processor from AMD, Ars Technica, has concluded that it's a good choice for a high-performance workstation. But not so much for gaming.

In terms of pricing the Zen processor currently retails locally (as a pre-order) for $699, with the Intel Core i7-7700K going for $478. In terms of gaming performance the difference isn't drastic, as both CPU's seem to provide the same sort of performance.

There's a chance that Ryzen's gaming performance will improve over time thanks to driver updates and AMD's promised closer relationship with game developers. Or that the upcoming quad-core Ryzen chips can make up the performance via clock speed. And, if you're running at 4K or 1440p resolutions where you're resource limited on the GPU, not the CPU, the differences are less pronounced. But right here, right now, when over 90 percent of gamers run at 1080p or lower resolutions—as much as it pains me to say it—if I had to pick the best CPU purely for no-compromises gaming, I would pick an Intel Kaby Lake i7-7700K. Ryzen's gaming performance simply isn't up to snuff.


Be sure to check out the full review and breakdown of the CPU here.




amdars technicaryzencpu





Latest Comments
deadlyf
Posted 04:56pm 03/3/17
From what I've seen of reviews it does a lot better in synthetic tests which usually means that there are optimization issues with software not so much the CPU itself which isn't really a surprise considering no one has had a reason to optimize for amd for 5 or more years.

The R7 line-up is pretty awesome really as a workstation CPU since it just blows intel out of the water on a price to performance ration and even comes in more efficient but the poor performance for games is a worry for the lower tier lines that they haven't released yet that will compete directly against the Skylake/kaby lake chips that gamers care more about.

It's funny that there is now more choice in high-end CPU's than there is in GPU's as your only choice for a high-end graphics card is nvidia.
jabroni
Posted 08:56pm 03/3/17
over 90 percent of gamers run at 1080p or lower?

WTF
trog
Posted 09:15pm 03/3/17
over 90 percent of gamers run at 1080p or lower?

WTF
seems easy to believe given how many cheap monitors there are out there that seem to be 1080p though, yeh?
notgreazy
Posted 09:17pm 03/3/17
over 90 percent of gamers run at 1080p or lower?

WTF

WTF is WTF about it?
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey?platform=pc

What's really interesting from the above is that nearly 50% are running at 1920 x 1080 and growing! Thats really surprising to me.
WirlWind
Posted 08:54am 04/3/17
I'm still on 1080p, despite having had the option of going to 1440.

I have seen both and didn't think the increase in fidelity was worth it. On top of that, the price difference was such that I still saved money when I 'upgraded' to 144hz. (Note - this was a year ago, prices have changed and will continue to).

In my mind, it was simple:

Pay $200 less and even get 144hz smoothness

or

Get 1440p at 60fps


At this point, I can't go back to 60.... *Starts shaking*
Raven
Posted 09:21am 04/3/17
I recently bought a 144Hz G-Sync monitor, and only went for a 1080p display as I didn't want the cost of needing to also buy a 1080GTX or something at that level - I run a 1070 now.

My second monitor, which is more for dev, is at 1440p.

If I had to do it again I probably wouldn't pay the extra for G-Sync.
BladeRunner
Posted 10:15am 04/3/17
I am still rocking 1080p Asus monitor and I am happy with that for now. If I do get a new monitor, it would be a g-sync or freesync one.
FSCB
Posted 12:31am 05/3/17
Yeah seriously why wouldn't the majority of ppl be gaming at 1080 as the standard? 1080 has been the "standard" for a few years now, 4k is still too far off in price/value for most people at the moment and 2k is just a wank version of 1080.
So no surprise most folks are gaming at 1080.
nings
Posted 03:26pm 05/3/17
Um dsr on a 1080p monitor anyway.
jabroni
Posted 12:20am 06/3/17
well valve survey for Feb says 44% use 1080p so this sounds more like what i expected

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/?platform=pc
Commenting has been locked for this item.
10 Comments
Show