6 ms·

According to Linus techtips the 3xxx ryzen series is already neck/neck with Intel at CSGO (which is known to normally heavily favor Intel - as a csgo player th

According to Linus techtips the 3xxx ryzen series is already neck/neck with Intel at CSGO (which is known to normally heavily favor Intel - as a csgo player this is really impressive), and appears to otherwise be competitive in other games. Intel should be very scared. Not to mention the way Intel has crippled different models of their line up just to try to push people to use a more expensive CPU - and seems to have otherwise stalled out in general CPU performance.

unwind 7y ago
To save non-PC-gamers a Googling: "CSGO" here refers to "Counter Strike: Global Offensive", a popular multi-player first-person shooter. It's part of the Counter-Strike series, which traces its roots back to the year 2000.
- hyperbovine 7y ago
  Counter-Strike came out in 1999. Source: I wasted most of 1999 playing Counter-Strike.
  - qplex 7y ago
    Counter-Strike was super fun during the time it took form (the beta versions from 0.5 to 5.2 ish). They tried a lot or different things, like dual wielding machine guns. The community was awesome also.
    - GhettoMaestro 7y ago
      Beta 0.1 will always have a special place in my heart playing it for hours at the LAN shop down the street from me. Bonus was being able to troll people by flying my dead-player spectator through doors and opening them. People would get really mad - it was awesome.
- imglorp 7y ago
  Why is it being used as a subjective benchmark 19 years later? Haven't gamers moved on a dozen times since then?
  - IlGrigiore 7y ago
    CS:GO is still played internationally and there are also professional tournaments. So I would say that it is still a relevant benchmark.
    - cwyers 7y ago
      I agree that people still play it. But looking at the system requirements: https://store.steampowered.com/app/730/CounterStrike_Global_Offensive/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/730/CounterStrike_Global_... I am hard-pressed to say that it looks like a suitable benchmark. It's hard to find a desktop CPU released in the past five years that can't provide good performance for a game like that.
      - hamaluik 7y ago
        That’s not the only game LTT uses to benchmark with, but they include it because of its popularity and I suspect because it normally runs at such insane frame rates that differences show up more readily—much easier to tell 220 FPS vs 240 FPS than 59.5 vs 60.
      - simion314 7y ago
        Some CS Go players believe (and maybe is true) that having high FPSes live around 300 give them an advantage so they will try to make the FPS number as large as possible. Such a gamer will probably pay a ton more money to get from 2500 FPS to 300 FPS. They would also have monitor and mouse+ keyboards with low latency. So from my reading this "elite/full time" gamers will still buy an expensive CPU if they get 10 extra frames (but forget that in real life your PC has more programs running in background so reality may not match the benchmarks)
        7y ago
morganvachon 7y ago
Thanks to the price drop on Zen+ due to the Zen 2 release, I recently built a Ryzen 5 2600 system as my new gaming rig. My old gaming machine had a i5-7400, and in pretty much every game the CPU bottleneck has disappeared, especially newer titles. Even older single-core-heavy games like CSGO have greatly improved with the new CPU. Basically every game in my collection can now run at 1440p60 (my monitor's native res) instead of being limited to 1080p60. Switching from a GeForce 1060 to a RX 580 allowed me to ramp up the quality at that resolution as well (in most games). Further, now that Zen+ support in Linux and OpenBSD has improved, it is a stable enough platform for those OSes. My new rig is doing double duty as my main workstation now thanks to that support along with switching to an AMD GPU. I honestly don't think Intel and Nvidia have a place in my home and office anymore. My media server is an ancient Dell PowerEdge T310 and it's still going strong, but it is limited on drive capacity and has issues transcoding more than one 1080p+ stream at a time, so I believe I'll be retiring it soon in favor of a Zen based custom build.
- gambiting 7y ago
  >>My old gaming machine had a i5-7400, and in pretty much every game the CPU bottleneck has disappeared I'm not being funny - have you ever found any kind of bottleneck with that CPU? I'm still rocking an i7-4970K + 1080Ti and I have never ever seen the CPU being anywhere close to max load in any game, and I'm mostly playing in 1440p@60fps.
  - morganvachon 7y ago
    It was mostly with single-core-heavy (i.e. older) games. Newer multi-core games did very well on the i5, but better still on the six core Ryzen. I mostly play older games so my experience is likely different from most gamers. Edit: An example from memory, the very old game Crysis stuttered badly at 1440p with the i5, it was only playable at 1080p (both resolutions with all graphics settings on highest/ultra); this was with the GTX 1060. When I first built the Ryzen system I carried over my GTX 1060, and was able to play that game at 1440p60 smooth as butter. Turning off vsync I was getting close to 100fps, whereas with the i5 and vsync off I was lucky to spike above 70, with average fps somewhere around 30-35. Moving to the RX 580 actually dropped the fps cap slightly with vsync off, but still allowed me to play at 60fps locked for a smoother experience overall. In general, this was the same experience with all of my older games (Skyrim, Far Cry 2, Mirror's Edge, Rust, etc). With newer multi-core games like Doom 2016 and Far Cry 4 I never had any CPU bottleneck on the i5, and the new system marked an increase in graphic quality without sacrificing smoothness and resolution.
Thorrez 7y ago
You're talking about this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3aEv3EzMyQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3aEv3EzMyQ ? On CSGO, AMD wins on average FPS, ties on 95%, and loses on 99%. On Rainbow Six: Seige, AMD wins on average FPS, but loses on 95% and 99%. On the other 3 games (Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Metro: Exodus, and Battlefield V), Intel wins all 3 categories. So overall, Intel still wins.

unwind 7y ago

To save non-PC-gamers a Googling: "CSGO" here refers to "Counter Strike: Global Offensive", a popular multi-player first-person shooter. It's part of the Counter-Strike series, which traces its roots back to the year 2000.

hyperbovine 7y ago
Counter-Strike came out in 1999. Source: I wasted most of 1999 playing Counter-Strike.
- qplex 7y ago
  Counter-Strike was super fun during the time it took form (the beta versions from 0.5 to 5.2 ish). They tried a lot or different things, like dual wielding machine guns. The community was awesome also.
  - GhettoMaestro 7y ago
    Beta 0.1 will always have a special place in my heart playing it for hours at the LAN shop down the street from me. Bonus was being able to troll people by flying my dead-player spectator through doors and opening them. People would get really mad - it was awesome.
imglorp 7y ago
Why is it being used as a subjective benchmark 19 years later? Haven't gamers moved on a dozen times since then?
- IlGrigiore 7y ago
  CS:GO is still played internationally and there are also professional tournaments. So I would say that it is still a relevant benchmark.
  - cwyers 7y ago
    I agree that people still play it. But looking at the system requirements: https://store.steampowered.com/app/730/CounterStrike_Global_Offensive/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/730/CounterStrike_Global_... I am hard-pressed to say that it looks like a suitable benchmark. It's hard to find a desktop CPU released in the past five years that can't provide good performance for a game like that.
    - hamaluik 7y ago
      That’s not the only game LTT uses to benchmark with, but they include it because of its popularity and I suspect because it normally runs at such insane frame rates that differences show up more readily—much easier to tell 220 FPS vs 240 FPS than 59.5 vs 60.
    - simion314 7y ago
      Some CS Go players believe (and maybe is true) that having high FPSes live around 300 give them an advantage so they will try to make the FPS number as large as possible. Such a gamer will probably pay a ton more money to get from 2500 FPS to 300 FPS. They would also have monitor and mouse+ keyboards with low latency. So from my reading this "elite/full time" gamers will still buy an expensive CPU if they get 10 extra frames (but forget that in real life your PC has more programs running in background so reality may not match the benchmarks)
      - 7y ago

morganvachon 7y ago

Thanks to the price drop on Zen+ due to the Zen 2 release, I recently built a Ryzen 5 2600 system as my new gaming rig. My old gaming machine had a i5-7400, and in pretty much every game the CPU bottleneck has disappeared, especially newer titles. Even older single-core-heavy games like CSGO have greatly improved with the new CPU. Basically every game in my collection can now run at 1440p60 (my monitor's native res) instead of being limited to 1080p60. Switching from a GeForce 1060 to a RX 580 allowed me to ramp up the quality at that resolution as well (in most games). Further, now that Zen+ support in Linux and OpenBSD has improved, it is a stable enough platform for those OSes. My new rig is doing double duty as my main workstation now thanks to that support along with switching to an AMD GPU. I honestly don't think Intel and Nvidia have a place in my home and office anymore. My media server is an ancient Dell PowerEdge T310 and it's still going strong, but it is limited on drive capacity and has issues transcoding more than one 1080p+ stream at a time, so I believe I'll be retiring it soon in favor of a Zen based custom build.

gambiting 7y ago
>>My old gaming machine had a i5-7400, and in pretty much every game the CPU bottleneck has disappeared I'm not being funny - have you ever found any kind of bottleneck with that CPU? I'm still rocking an i7-4970K + 1080Ti and I have never ever seen the CPU being anywhere close to max load in any game, and I'm mostly playing in 1440p@60fps.
- morganvachon 7y ago
  It was mostly with single-core-heavy (i.e. older) games. Newer multi-core games did very well on the i5, but better still on the six core Ryzen. I mostly play older games so my experience is likely different from most gamers. Edit: An example from memory, the very old game Crysis stuttered badly at 1440p with the i5, it was only playable at 1080p (both resolutions with all graphics settings on highest/ultra); this was with the GTX 1060. When I first built the Ryzen system I carried over my GTX 1060, and was able to play that game at 1440p60 smooth as butter. Turning off vsync I was getting close to 100fps, whereas with the i5 and vsync off I was lucky to spike above 70, with average fps somewhere around 30-35. Moving to the RX 580 actually dropped the fps cap slightly with vsync off, but still allowed me to play at 60fps locked for a smoother experience overall. In general, this was the same experience with all of my older games (Skyrim, Far Cry 2, Mirror's Edge, Rust, etc). With newer multi-core games like Doom 2016 and Far Cry 4 I never had any CPU bottleneck on the i5, and the new system marked an increase in graphic quality without sacrificing smoothness and resolution.

Thorrez 7y ago

You're talking about this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3aEv3EzMyQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3aEv3EzMyQ ? On CSGO, AMD wins on average FPS, ties on 95%, and loses on 99%. On Rainbow Six: Seige, AMD wins on average FPS, but loses on 95% and 99%. On the other 3 games (Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Metro: Exodus, and Battlefield V), Intel wins all 3 categories. So overall, Intel still wins.