4 ms·

> So what you're saying really is that the 3700X had absolutely no issues whatsoever running that game. Perhaps to specifications that would satisfy someone el

> So what you're saying really is that the 3700X had absolutely no issues whatsoever running that game. Perhaps to specifications that would satisfy someone else. My requirements are ~120fps and 4k. For those requirements, no existing i5 would cut muster. > But the CPU "limiting" you when you're comfortably above 60fps I never used the word "limiting" in my comment. Not sure what you're quoting from. That being said, the 3700X was objectively limiting my framerates. It's not a value judgment, it's just an objective fact that such CPUs are inadequate to satisfy my preferences, and those of many other PC gamers. If you have different preferences, that's fine, but it's not really relevant when I'm talking about my own.

gambiting 5y ago
Of course, and I myself play at 144Hz and would probably do the same. I think I just took an issue with the statement that most gamers are CPU limited nowadays - and while in strictly technical sense that's true, I don't think that a few years old CPU being able to run games at solid 60fps+ is a problem in any sense. Again, it's not like it physically can't run the game, it just doesn't run it "well enough" for some people.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  > I just took an issue with the statement that most gamers are CPU limited nowadays I didn't say most gamers are CPU limited, though. I said "Depends on the type of game . . . there are many cases today where a strong CPU is required for gaming." I didn't say most cases. Conversely, it would be fine to observe that many console gamers have historically been satisfied with 30fps, and therefore PC gamers ought to only "require" a strong -2 gen i5 processor. While you're at it, you could also say that console gamers game at 1080p, so PC players should be satisfied with that as well. And you'd be right, under a certain configuration of preferences, and a certain interpretation of the word "require."

gambiting 5y ago

Of course, and I myself play at 144Hz and would probably do the same. I think I just took an issue with the statement that most gamers are CPU limited nowadays - and while in strictly technical sense that's true, I don't think that a few years old CPU being able to run games at solid 60fps+ is a problem in any sense. Again, it's not like it physically can't run the game, it just doesn't run it "well enough" for some people.

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
> I just took an issue with the statement that most gamers are CPU limited nowadays I didn't say most gamers are CPU limited, though. I said "Depends on the type of game . . . there are many cases today where a strong CPU is required for gaming." I didn't say most cases. Conversely, it would be fine to observe that many console gamers have historically been satisfied with 30fps, and therefore PC gamers ought to only "require" a strong -2 gen i5 processor. While you're at it, you could also say that console gamers game at 1080p, so PC players should be satisfied with that as well. And you'd be right, under a certain configuration of preferences, and a certain interpretation of the word "require."