3 ms·
While I agree with the sentiment here... this has been the argument Intel has been using as a "last excuse to buy Intel over AMD" - if you buy a fast enough vid
by neogodless 6y ago
While I agree with the sentiment here... this has been the argument Intel has been using as a "last excuse to buy Intel over AMD" - if you buy a fast enough video card, but play your games at 1080p on a really high refresh rate monitor... the gaming performance was better on Intel.
So AMD focuses on it here to say "look, your very last excuse for choosing Intel over AMD is no longer invalid."
Of course I do more "non-gaming" than gaming, so it wasn't very important to me in the first place, and I don't spend enough on a graphics card for this to matter. But I want a lot of cores for fast compilation and great multi-tasking with containers and virtual machines.
- overcast 6y agoYes of course, non gaming, dev and media work, these will be beast. I was just confused on why they were so focused on 1080p gaming performance benefits. Buying a whole new setup if you're running any relatively modern CPU would be a waste of money for gaming. At 1080 you're probably already killing it in framerate, and at 2k+ the benefits just aren't there.
- read_if_gay_ 6y agoBecause at 1080p you can actually compare the performance maybe?
- pepoluan 6y agoAt 1080p, with a 2080 Ti (AMD's Testing Rig), the GPU is not a bottleneck so any performance difference = CPU performance difference. Going higher than 1080p, GPU starts to become a bottleneck so you're no longer comparing CPU-to-CPU, but (CPU+GPU)-to-(CPU+GPU). Testing game performance at 1080p is a well-known and well-accepted way to compare CPU performance.
- intricatedetail 6y agoThe AMD software to control CPU doesn't work with virtualisation enabled. They have been ignoring requests to fix it for years.
- effie 6y agoWhat does it control on the CPU? Overclocking? I never needed to control CPU via a software...