Bad performance with new AMD Ryzen 9 3900x - Page 2 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Bad performance with new AMD Ryzen 9 3900x

2>

Comments

  • Amaranthe.3578Amaranthe.3578 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @XenoSpyro.1780 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:
    Don't buy amd.

    This is your brain on 2011. Don't do drugs, cubs.

    You're always gonna have issues with AMD with how low their market share is. Buying AMD CPU's/GPUs is a mistake if you're a gamer.

  • Lucentfir.7430Lucentfir.7430 Member ✭✭✭

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @XenoSpyro.1780 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:
    Don't buy amd.

    This is your brain on 2011. Don't do drugs, cubs.

    You're always gonna have issues with AMD with how low their market share is. Buying AMD CPU's/GPUs is a mistake if you're a gamer.

    With comments like this you can really tell how good Intel was at brainwashing people for their products. I have a all AMD system right now and i'm not having any issues at all in performance.

  • Amaranthe.3578Amaranthe.3578 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 4, 2019

    @Lucentfir.7430 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @XenoSpyro.1780 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:
    Don't buy amd.

    This is your brain on 2011. Don't do drugs, cubs.

    You're always gonna have issues with AMD with how low their market share is. Buying AMD CPU's/GPUs is a mistake if you're a gamer.

    With comments like this you can really tell how good Intel was at brainwashing people for their products. I have a all AMD system right now and i'm not having any issues at all in performance.

    It's not about intel doing anything. It's threads like this one and talk about other gamers that can't play their favourite game because they bought AMD to save a few pennies. It's awesome that AMD exists because it keeps the greedy lazy bastards at intel honest but as things currently stand they aren't worth it for gamers since so many games just don't work well with AMD. That's without even mentioning their garbage GPUs.

  • Lucentfir.7430Lucentfir.7430 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 4, 2019

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @Lucentfir.7430 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @XenoSpyro.1780 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:
    Don't buy amd.

    This is your brain on 2011. Don't do drugs, cubs.

    You're always gonna have issues with AMD with how low their market share is. Buying AMD CPU's/GPUs is a mistake if you're a gamer.

    With comments like this you can really tell how good Intel was at brainwashing people for their products. I have a all AMD system right now and i'm not having any issues at all in performance.

    It's not about intel doing anything. It's threads like this one and talk about other gamers that can't play their favourite game because they bought AMD to save a few pennies. It's awesome that AMD exists because it keeps the greedy lazy bastards at intel honest but as things currently stand they aren't worth it for gamers since so many games just don't work well with AMD. That's without even mentioning their garbage GPUs.

    With a response such as "Don't buy AMD." just feels like you're just repeating the same information that's stuck for the past 7 years, because even if AMD(current) is on par or the better modern choice these days, All that ever comes up in regards on the GW2 side is old regurgitated information. "Oh Gw2 is bad on AMD, intel is the best for Gw2." "You have low FPS because you're on AMD." "This game is single core focus so Intel is the better choice." it's funny to assume it isn't worth it for gamers (most gamers play more than one game) despite AMD's products being up on the top seller list. Outside the Gw2 pocket your post reeks of brand bias, or maybe you haven't been keeping up with the times?

  • Amaranthe.3578Amaranthe.3578 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 4, 2019

    @Lucentfir.7430 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @Lucentfir.7430 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @XenoSpyro.1780 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:
    Don't buy amd.

    This is your brain on 2011. Don't do drugs, cubs.

    You're always gonna have issues with AMD with how low their market share is. Buying AMD CPU's/GPUs is a mistake if you're a gamer.

    With comments like this you can really tell how good Intel was at brainwashing people for their products. I have a all AMD system right now and i'm not having any issues at all in performance.

    It's not about intel doing anything. It's threads like this one and talk about other gamers that can't play their favourite game because they bought AMD to save a few pennies. It's awesome that AMD exists because it keeps the greedy lazy bastards at intel honest but as things currently stand they aren't worth it for gamers since so many games just don't work well with AMD. That's without even mentioning their garbage GPUs.

    With a response such as "Don't buy AMD." just feels like you're just repeating the same information that's stuck for the past 7 years, because even if AMD(current) is on par or the better modern choice these days, All that ever comes up in regards on the GW2 side is old regurgitated information. "Oh Gw2 is bad on AMD, intel is the best for Gw2." "You have low FPS because you're on AMD." "This game is single core focus so Intel is the better choice." it's funny to assume it isn't worth it for gamers (most gamers play more than one game) despite AMD's products being up on the top seller list. Outside the Gw2 pocket your post reeks of brand bias, or maybe you haven't been keeping up with the times?

    Heres why AMD is useless for gamers:
    The vast majority of games use up to 4 cores max. For a workstation AMD eats Intel for breakfast but the large number of weaker threads in AMD products just doesn't help when your games use only 4 cores. Since single core performance on Intel beats AMD and since both of them have more than 4 cores intel is better for gamers. Since AMD has a much smaller market share most games tend to be optimised better for intel.
    On the GPU front nvidia is just c0ckslapping them since forever with superior hardware that doesnt heat loke a volcano and consume power at normal levels. Since AMD is an ant compared to nvidia most games are optimised better for better nvidia gpus.
    I understand it feels bad for you but thats just the reality of things.

  • Lucentfir.7430Lucentfir.7430 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 4, 2019

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @Lucentfir.7430 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @Lucentfir.7430 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @XenoSpyro.1780 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:
    Don't buy amd.

    This is your brain on 2011. Don't do drugs, cubs.

    You're always gonna have issues with AMD with how low their market share is. Buying AMD CPU's/GPUs is a mistake if you're a gamer.

    With comments like this you can really tell how good Intel was at brainwashing people for their products. I have a all AMD system right now and i'm not having any issues at all in performance.

    It's not about intel doing anything. It's threads like this one and talk about other gamers that can't play their favourite game because they bought AMD to save a few pennies. It's awesome that AMD exists because it keeps the greedy lazy bastards at intel honest but as things currently stand they aren't worth it for gamers since so many games just don't work well with AMD. That's without even mentioning their garbage GPUs.

    With a response such as "Don't buy AMD." just feels like you're just repeating the same information that's stuck for the past 7 years, because even if AMD(current) is on par or the better modern choice these days, All that ever comes up in regards on the GW2 side is old regurgitated information. "Oh Gw2 is bad on AMD, intel is the best for Gw2." "You have low FPS because you're on AMD." "This game is single core focus so Intel is the better choice." it's funny to assume it isn't worth it for gamers (most gamers play more than one game) despite AMD's products being up on the top seller list. Outside the Gw2 pocket your post reeks of brand bias, or maybe you haven't been keeping up with the times?

    Heres why AMD is useless for gamers:
    The vast majority of games use up to 4 cores max. For a workstation AMD eats Intel for breakfast but the large number of weaker threads in AMD products just doesn't help when your games use only 4 cores. Since single core performance on Intel beats AMD and since both of them have more than 4 cores intel is better for gamers. Since AMD has a much smaller market share most games tend to be optimised better for intel.
    On the GPU front nvidia is just c0ckslapping them since forever with superior hardware that doesnt heat loke a volcano and consume power at normal levels. Since AMD is an ant compared to nvidia most games are optimised better for better nvidia gpus.
    I understand it feels bad for you but thats just the reality of things.

    Your explanation isn't very convincing, looks like you're deep seeded with that mind set that intel is the only gamer option, taking away from your other statement "You're always going to have problems with AMD with how low their market share is" Don't know why you're bothering bringing up market share, You do know most of Intel's market share doesn't come from the desktop side, but rather the server and mobile market right? Lets not forget how most of intel's processors got downgraded by the vulnerability fix of zombie load. The only way i can see myself agreeing with your statement is if we're talking old FX series AMD. That processor series was a disaster, and yeah intel was 100% the better buy.

    GPU front Nvidia has the mindshare, regardless if AMD can release the better GPU and people will say Nvidia is still better. The only thing AMD has failed to compete with in the GPU space is the RTX 2080 ti. So unless you're only talking about the really high end in the domain of the RTX 2080 ti aka 1200 dollar range, yeah Nvidia owns that market. Heat and voltage, for people really concerned about that they tend to take the route to configure/undervolt their cards, from what i've seen, Mind showing me a source to back up your claim or where you got that idea where most games are optimized for NVidia GPUs? Considering AMD and Nvidia are the ones that release optimizations with their driver updates for games which are normally listed in the patch notes for those drivers?

    Funny thing is it doesn't feel bad, I've had a really great experience with a all AMD system when it comes to games. Your post comes off as regurgitated information to misguide from what might be the actual issues someone is having. Like reasons why people are having X issue is because of hardware brand and some off topic garbage like marketshare.

  • AMD has really come a long way since the FX series and now against the ryzen 3xxx series, intel is only better by a few fps, the gap is smaller than ever and the cpus trade blows.

    In 2017 I went from an i5 to a Ryzen 1700X and I couldn't be happier with the gains. The 4 cores on the i5 were great for gaming but not much else.

    Performance in GW2 didn't improve much but I'm able to multitask without affecting game performance.

    @Amaranthe.3578 Care to give some details what are these problems are? Can only speak for myself here and I haven't had any with any game.

  • @Braile.3894 said:
    Hello, I switched today from my 3 year old intel core I7 6700k to a brand new AMD Ryzen 9 3900x.
    My problem is, performance dropped a lot.
    In other applications i got performance gains or atleast the performance wasn’t noticeable worse.

    Is there any workaround or is there a optimization patch planned?
    I tried to assign the cores separately to gw2 but that didn’t help.

    Is it a fresh installation of Windows? Check your power settings to make sure it is on 'balanced' and not 'power saving' mode. Choose slider to 'best performance'.

  • Braile.3894Braile.3894 Member ✭✭

    @The Quad.8625 said:

    @Braile.3894 said:
    Hello, I switched today from my 3 year old intel core I7 6700k to a brand new AMD Ryzen 9 3900x.
    My problem is, performance dropped a lot.
    In other applications i got performance gains or atleast the performance wasn’t noticeable worse.

    Is there any workaround or is there a optimization patch planned?
    I tried to assign the cores separately to gw2 but that didn’t help.

    Is it a fresh installation of Windows? Check your power settings to make sure it is on 'balanced' and not 'power saving' mode. Choose slider to 'best performance'.

    Yes ofc, as I stated every other game got performance gains.
    Iam using the dx12 patch atm and the game runs like a modern game now 🙃

  • @Braile.3894 said:

    @The Quad.8625 said:

    @Braile.3894 said:
    Hello, I switched today from my 3 year old intel core I7 6700k to a brand new AMD Ryzen 9 3900x.
    My problem is, performance dropped a lot.
    In other applications i got performance gains or atleast the performance wasn’t noticeable worse.

    Is there any workaround or is there a optimization patch planned?
    I tried to assign the cores separately to gw2 but that didn’t help.

    Is it a fresh installation of Windows? Check your power settings to make sure it is on 'balanced' and not 'power saving' mode. Choose slider to 'best performance'.

    Yes ofc, as I stated every other game got performance gains.
    Iam using the dx12 patch atm and the game runs like a modern game now 🙃

    Hey, I'm considering the new Intel 9900KS or AMD 3950x. Could you please show your FPS after you use DX12 patch with 3900X? Does the programme help CPU utilize all of its cores?
    I'm currently using Intel 8086k [email protected] all cores but I still want the best...

  • @BobbyHoang.8253 said:

    @Braile.3894 said:

    @The Quad.8625 said:

    @Braile.3894 said:
    Hello, I switched today from my 3 year old intel core I7 6700k to a brand new AMD Ryzen 9 3900x.
    My problem is, performance dropped a lot.
    In other applications i got performance gains or atleast the performance wasn’t noticeable worse.

    Is there any workaround or is there a optimization patch planned?
    I tried to assign the cores separately to gw2 but that didn’t help.

    Is it a fresh installation of Windows? Check your power settings to make sure it is on 'balanced' and not 'power saving' mode. Choose slider to 'best performance'.

    Yes ofc, as I stated every other game got performance gains.
    Iam using the dx12 patch atm and the game runs like a modern game now 🙃

    Hey, I'm considering the new Intel 9900KS or AMD 3950x. Could you please show your FPS after you use DX12 patch with 3900X? Does the programme help CPU utilize all of its cores?
    I'm currently using Intel 8086k [email protected] all cores but I still want the best...

    If you only play gw2 stick with your 8086k
    If you do any productive work and want get the best of the best switch, tell me where I should share my fps? What settings and which area.

  • godofcows.2451godofcows.2451 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 2, 2019

    Posted something and i just realized this thread was a hard core necro.

    Disregard post. Delete pl0x.

  • @Braile.3894 said:

    @BobbyHoang.8253 said:

    @Braile.3894 said:

    @The Quad.8625 said:

    @Braile.3894 said:
    Hello, I switched today from my 3 year old intel core I7 6700k to a brand new AMD Ryzen 9 3900x.
    My problem is, performance dropped a lot.
    In other applications i got performance gains or atleast the performance wasn’t noticeable worse.

    Is there any workaround or is there a optimization patch planned?
    I tried to assign the cores separately to gw2 but that didn’t help.

    Is it a fresh installation of Windows? Check your power settings to make sure it is on 'balanced' and not 'power saving' mode. Choose slider to 'best performance'.

    Yes ofc, as I stated every other game got performance gains.
    Iam using the dx12 patch atm and the game runs like a modern game now 🙃

    Hey, I'm considering the new Intel 9900KS or AMD 3950x. Could you please show your FPS after you use DX12 patch with 3900X? Does the programme help CPU utilize all of its cores?
    I'm currently using Intel 8086k [email protected] all cores but I still want the best...

    If you only play gw2 stick with your 8086k
    If you do any productive work and want get the best of the best switch, tell me where I should share my fps? What settings and which area.

    How many FPS do you get in Mislock, and during WvW fight with everything max (except for Effect LOD: pls leave it checked). I'm trying with Dx12 app and I get 60-70 Fps in Mislock and 30-40 during heavy blob fights in WVW. I'm wondering how much you get with AMD 3900X

  • Imagine buying amd thinking you'll get better performance in gaming lewl.

  • Aza.2105Aza.2105 Member ✭✭✭

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @Lucentfir.7430 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @XenoSpyro.1780 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:
    Don't buy amd.

    This is your brain on 2011. Don't do drugs, cubs.

    You're always gonna have issues with AMD with how low their market share is. Buying AMD CPU's/GPUs is a mistake if you're a gamer.

    With comments like this you can really tell how good Intel was at brainwashing people for their products. I have a all AMD system right now and i'm not having any issues at all in performance.

    It's not about intel doing anything. It's threads like this one and talk about other gamers that can't play their favourite game because they bought AMD to save a few pennies. It's awesome that AMD exists because it keeps the greedy lazy bastards at intel honest but as things currently stand they aren't worth it for gamers since so many games just don't work well with AMD. That's without even mentioning their garbage GPUs.

    Intels best gaming cpu is 5% faster than Ryzen on average in gaming while being much slower at everything else besides gaming. You are out of touch with reality, every hardware review site has agreed upon one thing: Intel has no answer to the Ryzen cpus at this time. It could be years until they create a cpu that can compete with it. And by that time AMD could possibly further ahead.

  • KrHome.1920KrHome.1920 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 20, 2020

    @Aza.2105 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @Lucentfir.7430 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @XenoSpyro.1780 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:
    Don't buy amd.

    This is your brain on 2011. Don't do drugs, cubs.

    You're always gonna have issues with AMD with how low their market share is. Buying AMD CPU's/GPUs is a mistake if you're a gamer.

    With comments like this you can really tell how good Intel was at brainwashing people for their products. I have a all AMD system right now and i'm not having any issues at all in performance.

    It's not about intel doing anything. It's threads like this one and talk about other gamers that can't play their favourite game because they bought AMD to save a few pennies. It's awesome that AMD exists because it keeps the greedy lazy bastards at intel honest but as things currently stand they aren't worth it for gamers since so many games just don't work well with AMD. That's without even mentioning their garbage GPUs.

    Intels best gaming cpu is 5% faster than Ryzen on average in gaming while being much slower at everything else besides gaming. You are out of touch with reality, every hardware review site has agreed upon one thing: Intel has no answer to the Ryzen cpus at this time. It could be years until they create a cpu that can compete with it. And by that time AMD could possibly further ahead.

    That's bull-kitten. GW2 uses and old engine that can't handle multithreading very well and on top of that has been updated in terms of graphics to an extent which the engine can't handle anymore with decent performance. The engine is not efficient when rendering up-to-date visuals.

    Intel has quite a big advantage in single threaded performance for three reasons:

    1) The IPC of their skylake (coffee lake) architecture is still 10% better than AMDs zen2 architacture.
    2) Their CPUs run at higher clock speeds (up to 5 GHz without overclocking) than AMDs CPUs (up to 4.5 GHz without overclocking). That's another 10% of better single threaded performance.
    3) Intel CPUs improve their performance the higher the RAM clocks. They even benefit from DDR4 clocks above 4 GHz. Zen2 benefits until 3,6 GHz and then gets slower the higher the Ram clocks because the CPU gets synchronizing problems.

    Since GW2 does not benefit from more than 6 cores (real cores, not threads!) an i5 9600K @ 5 GHz with DDR4 4000 will outperform any AMD CPU (even the 3950X!) for 30% and more.

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @XenoSpyro.1780 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:
    Don't buy amd.

    This is your brain on 2011. Don't do drugs, cubs.

    You're always gonna have issues with AMD with how low their market share is. Buying AMD CPU's/GPUs is a mistake if you're a gamer.

    That's bull-kitten too. AMDs Radeon Software is great in terms of functionality and the drivers are stable and updated regularely. Older GCN GPUs perform great in any DX12 or Vulkan game (better than Nvidias GPUs from that time) and the newer Navi GPUs added an efficiency that matches Nvidias recent Turing GPUs.

    And if you play something else than GW2, their CPUs do well too, because single threaded performance is not that critical in newer games. Usually you get a better price/performance ratio with an AMD CPU.

  • Moradorin.6217Moradorin.6217 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 20, 2020

    Im getting fine frames even in EB during big fights in 1440p ultra settings, but Im using gen 9 I7 (9700k) liquid cooled w fast memory, drive, and high end GPU (2070 super). I run Gsync so my FPS is capped at refresh (120 hz) tho obviously it drops under that in zergs, still tho its always over 30 without tweaking settings and I use vanilla software.

    CPU is 4.7 Ghz though (per core)

  • Aza.2105Aza.2105 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 20, 2020

    @KrHome.1920 said:

    @Aza.2105 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @Lucentfir.7430 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @XenoSpyro.1780 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:
    Don't buy amd.

    This is your brain on 2011. Don't do drugs, cubs.

    You're always gonna have issues with AMD with how low their market share is. Buying AMD CPU's/GPUs is a mistake if you're a gamer.

    With comments like this you can really tell how good Intel was at brainwashing people for their products. I have a all AMD system right now and i'm not having any issues at all in performance.

    It's not about intel doing anything. It's threads like this one and talk about other gamers that can't play their favourite game because they bought AMD to save a few pennies. It's awesome that AMD exists because it keeps the greedy lazy bastards at intel honest but as things currently stand they aren't worth it for gamers since so many games just don't work well with AMD. That's without even mentioning their garbage GPUs.

    Intels best gaming cpu is 5% faster than Ryzen on average in gaming while being much slower at everything else besides gaming. You are out of touch with reality, every hardware review site has agreed upon one thing: Intel has no answer to the Ryzen cpus at this time. It could be years until they create a cpu that can compete with it. And by that time AMD could possibly further ahead.

    That's bull-kitten. GW2 uses and old engine that can't handle multithreading very well and on top of that has been updated in terms of graphics to an extent which the engine can't handle anymore with decent performance. The engine is not efficient when rendering up-to-date visuals.

    Intel has quite a big advantage in single threaded performance for three reasons:

    1) The IPC of their skylake (coffee lake) architecture is still 10% better than AMDs zen2 architacture.
    2) Their CPUs run at higher clock speeds (up to 5 GHz without overclocking) than AMDs CPUs (up to 4.5 GHz without overclocking). That's another 10% of better single threaded performance.
    3) Intel CPUs improve their performance the higher the RAM clocks. They even benefit from DDR4 clocks above 4 GHz. Zen2 benefits until 3,6 GHz and then gets slower the higher the Ram clocks because the CPU gets synchronizing problems.

    Since GW2 does not benefit from more than 6 cores (real cores, not threads!) an i5 9600K @ 5 GHz with DDR4 4000 will outperform any AMD CPU (even the 3950X!) for 30% and more.

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @XenoSpyro.1780 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:
    Don't buy amd.

    This is your brain on 2011. Don't do drugs, cubs.

    You're always gonna have issues with AMD with how low their market share is. Buying AMD CPU's/GPUs is a mistake if you're a gamer.

    That's bull-kitten too. AMDs Radeon Software is great in terms of functionality and the drivers are stable and updated regularely. Older GCN GPUs perform great in any DX12 or Vulkan game (better than Nvidias GPUs from that time) and the newer Navi GPUs added an efficiency that matches Nvidias recent Turing GPUs.

    And if you play something else than GW2, their CPUs do well too, because single threaded performance is not that critical in newer games. Usually you get a better price/performance ratio with an AMD CPU.

    No homie, I speak facts. I'm not talking about guild wars 2 only, I'm talking about all games. The 9900k is on average 5% -10% faster than the Ryzen 3xxx series. And thats at 1080p. Above that there really isn't any difference. I'm not even going to explain why, because all you and others have to do is google reviews and look at the benchmarks and what the reviewers say. Its not that difficult.

  • @Aza.2105 said:

    @KrHome.1920 said:

    @Aza.2105 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @Lucentfir.7430 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @XenoSpyro.1780 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:
    Don't buy amd.

    This is your brain on 2011. Don't do drugs, cubs.

    You're always gonna have issues with AMD with how low their market share is. Buying AMD CPU's/GPUs is a mistake if you're a gamer.

    With comments like this you can really tell how good Intel was at brainwashing people for their products. I have a all AMD system right now and i'm not having any issues at all in performance.

    It's not about intel doing anything. It's threads like this one and talk about other gamers that can't play their favourite game because they bought AMD to save a few pennies. It's awesome that AMD exists because it keeps the greedy lazy bastards at intel honest but as things currently stand they aren't worth it for gamers since so many games just don't work well with AMD. That's without even mentioning their garbage GPUs.

    Intels best gaming cpu is 5% faster than Ryzen on average in gaming while being much slower at everything else besides gaming. You are out of touch with reality, every hardware review site has agreed upon one thing: Intel has no answer to the Ryzen cpus at this time. It could be years until they create a cpu that can compete with it. And by that time AMD could possibly further ahead.

    That's bull-kitten. GW2 uses and old engine that can't handle multithreading very well and on top of that has been updated in terms of graphics to an extent which the engine can't handle anymore with decent performance. The engine is not efficient when rendering up-to-date visuals.

    Intel has quite a big advantage in single threaded performance for three reasons:

    1) The IPC of their skylake (coffee lake) architecture is still 10% better than AMDs zen2 architacture.
    2) Their CPUs run at higher clock speeds (up to 5 GHz without overclocking) than AMDs CPUs (up to 4.5 GHz without overclocking). That's another 10% of better single threaded performance.
    3) Intel CPUs improve their performance the higher the RAM clocks. They even benefit from DDR4 clocks above 4 GHz. Zen2 benefits until 3,6 GHz and then gets slower the higher the Ram clocks because the CPU gets synchronizing problems.

    Since GW2 does not benefit from more than 6 cores (real cores, not threads!) an i5 9600K @ 5 GHz with DDR4 4000 will outperform any AMD CPU (even the 3950X!) for 30% and more.

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @XenoSpyro.1780 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:
    Don't buy amd.

    This is your brain on 2011. Don't do drugs, cubs.

    You're always gonna have issues with AMD with how low their market share is. Buying AMD CPU's/GPUs is a mistake if you're a gamer.

    That's bull-kitten too. AMDs Radeon Software is great in terms of functionality and the drivers are stable and updated regularely. Older GCN GPUs perform great in any DX12 or Vulkan game (better than Nvidias GPUs from that time) and the newer Navi GPUs added an efficiency that matches Nvidias recent Turing GPUs.

    And if you play something else than GW2, their CPUs do well too, because single threaded performance is not that critical in newer games. Usually you get a better price/performance ratio with an AMD CPU.

    No homie, I speak facts. I'm not talking about guild wars 2 only, I'm talking about all games. The 9900k is on average 5% -10% faster than the Ryzen 3xxx series. And thats at 1080p. Above that there really isn't any difference. I'm not even going to explain why, because all you and others have to do is google reviews and look at the benchmarks and what the reviewers say. Its not that difficult.

    Except he is correct, and "all games" don't matter, when the OP is talking about GW2 performance on a GW2 forum.

    AMD is right now, what I would consider the better buy for multi game, multi use PCs. However, from a pure gaming and big time a pure GW2 performance stand point, Intel still wins due to much higher stock clocks, and much MUCH higher overclocks vs AMD. Most other games, big time the triple A titles that are tested in reviews are not CPU limited, they are GPU limited, as such, the delta in FPS from Intel to AMD is smaller, if not non-existent. However, GW2 is CPU limited, and not because it's CPU hungry, but rather that it's CPU limited due to how the game engine works in that the bulk of the rendering pipeline is limited to a single thread worth of CPU cycles.

    "When you power creep the game and make it so that spam gameplay is nearly as effective as deep knowledge and nuance, the quality of players will decrease." -Exedore

  • Aza.2105Aza.2105 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 21, 2020

    @TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

    @Aza.2105 said:

    @KrHome.1920 said:

    @Aza.2105 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @Lucentfir.7430 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @XenoSpyro.1780 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:
    Don't buy amd.

    This is your brain on 2011. Don't do drugs, cubs.

    You're always gonna have issues with AMD with how low their market share is. Buying AMD CPU's/GPUs is a mistake if you're a gamer.

    With comments like this you can really tell how good Intel was at brainwashing people for their products. I have a all AMD system right now and i'm not having any issues at all in performance.

    It's not about intel doing anything. It's threads like this one and talk about other gamers that can't play their favourite game because they bought AMD to save a few pennies. It's awesome that AMD exists because it keeps the greedy lazy bastards at intel honest but as things currently stand they aren't worth it for gamers since so many games just don't work well with AMD. That's without even mentioning their garbage GPUs.

    Intels best gaming cpu is 5% faster than Ryzen on average in gaming while being much slower at everything else besides gaming. You are out of touch with reality, every hardware review site has agreed upon one thing: Intel has no answer to the Ryzen cpus at this time. It could be years until they create a cpu that can compete with it. And by that time AMD could possibly further ahead.

    That's bull-kitten. GW2 uses and old engine that can't handle multithreading very well and on top of that has been updated in terms of graphics to an extent which the engine can't handle anymore with decent performance. The engine is not efficient when rendering up-to-date visuals.

    Intel has quite a big advantage in single threaded performance for three reasons:

    1) The IPC of their skylake (coffee lake) architecture is still 10% better than AMDs zen2 architacture.
    2) Their CPUs run at higher clock speeds (up to 5 GHz without overclocking) than AMDs CPUs (up to 4.5 GHz without overclocking). That's another 10% of better single threaded performance.
    3) Intel CPUs improve their performance the higher the RAM clocks. They even benefit from DDR4 clocks above 4 GHz. Zen2 benefits until 3,6 GHz and then gets slower the higher the Ram clocks because the CPU gets synchronizing problems.

    Since GW2 does not benefit from more than 6 cores (real cores, not threads!) an i5 9600K @ 5 GHz with DDR4 4000 will outperform any AMD CPU (even the 3950X!) for 30% and more.

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @XenoSpyro.1780 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:
    Don't buy amd.

    This is your brain on 2011. Don't do drugs, cubs.

    You're always gonna have issues with AMD with how low their market share is. Buying AMD CPU's/GPUs is a mistake if you're a gamer.

    That's bull-kitten too. AMDs Radeon Software is great in terms of functionality and the drivers are stable and updated regularely. Older GCN GPUs perform great in any DX12 or Vulkan game (better than Nvidias GPUs from that time) and the newer Navi GPUs added an efficiency that matches Nvidias recent Turing GPUs.

    And if you play something else than GW2, their CPUs do well too, because single threaded performance is not that critical in newer games. Usually you get a better price/performance ratio with an AMD CPU.

    No homie, I speak facts. I'm not talking about guild wars 2 only, I'm talking about all games. The 9900k is on average 5% -10% faster than the Ryzen 3xxx series. And thats at 1080p. Above that there really isn't any difference. I'm not even going to explain why, because all you and others have to do is google reviews and look at the benchmarks and what the reviewers say. Its not that difficult.

    Except he is correct, and "all games" don't matter, when the OP is talking about GW2 performance on a GW2 forum.

    AMD is right now, what I would consider the better buy for multi game, multi use PCs. However, from a pure gaming and big time a pure GW2 performance stand point, Intel still wins due to much higher stock clocks, and much MUCH higher overclocks vs AMD. Most other games, big time the triple A titles that are tested in reviews are not CPU limited, they are GPU limited, as such, the delta in FPS from Intel to AMD is smaller, if not non-existent. However, GW2 is CPU limited, and not because it's CPU hungry, but rather that it's CPU limited due to how the game engine works in that the bulk of the rendering pipeline is limited to a single thread worth of CPU cycles.

    @TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

    @Aza.2105 said:

    @KrHome.1920 said:

    @Aza.2105 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @Lucentfir.7430 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @XenoSpyro.1780 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:
    Don't buy amd.

    This is your brain on 2011. Don't do drugs, cubs.

    You're always gonna have issues with AMD with how low their market share is. Buying AMD CPU's/GPUs is a mistake if you're a gamer.

    With comments like this you can really tell how good Intel was at brainwashing people for their products. I have a all AMD system right now and i'm not having any issues at all in performance.

    It's not about intel doing anything. It's threads like this one and talk about other gamers that can't play their favourite game because they bought AMD to save a few pennies. It's awesome that AMD exists because it keeps the greedy lazy bastards at intel honest but as things currently stand they aren't worth it for gamers since so many games just don't work well with AMD. That's without even mentioning their garbage GPUs.

    Intels best gaming cpu is 5% faster than Ryzen on average in gaming while being much slower at everything else besides gaming. You are out of touch with reality, every hardware review site has agreed upon one thing: Intel has no answer to the Ryzen cpus at this time. It could be years until they create a cpu that can compete with it. And by that time AMD could possibly further ahead.

    That's bull-kitten. GW2 uses and old engine that can't handle multithreading very well and on top of that has been updated in terms of graphics to an extent which the engine can't handle anymore with decent performance. The engine is not efficient when rendering up-to-date visuals.

    Intel has quite a big advantage in single threaded performance for three reasons:

    1) The IPC of their skylake (coffee lake) architecture is still 10% better than AMDs zen2 architacture.
    2) Their CPUs run at higher clock speeds (up to 5 GHz without overclocking) than AMDs CPUs (up to 4.5 GHz without overclocking). That's another 10% of better single threaded performance.
    3) Intel CPUs improve their performance the higher the RAM clocks. They even benefit from DDR4 clocks above 4 GHz. Zen2 benefits until 3,6 GHz and then gets slower the higher the Ram clocks because the CPU gets synchronizing problems.

    Since GW2 does not benefit from more than 6 cores (real cores, not threads!) an i5 9600K @ 5 GHz with DDR4 4000 will outperform any AMD CPU (even the 3950X!) for 30% and more.

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @XenoSpyro.1780 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:
    Don't buy amd.

    This is your brain on 2011. Don't do drugs, cubs.

    You're always gonna have issues with AMD with how low their market share is. Buying AMD CPU's/GPUs is a mistake if you're a gamer.

    That's bull-kitten too. AMDs Radeon Software is great in terms of functionality and the drivers are stable and updated regularely. Older GCN GPUs perform great in any DX12 or Vulkan game (better than Nvidias GPUs from that time) and the newer Navi GPUs added an efficiency that matches Nvidias recent Turing GPUs.

    And if you play something else than GW2, their CPUs do well too, because single threaded performance is not that critical in newer games. Usually you get a better price/performance ratio with an AMD CPU.

    No homie, I speak facts. I'm not talking about guild wars 2 only, I'm talking about all games. The 9900k is on average 5% -10% faster than the Ryzen 3xxx series. And thats at 1080p. Above that there really isn't any difference. I'm not even going to explain why, because all you and others have to do is google reviews and look at the benchmarks and what the reviewers say. Its not that difficult.

    Except he is correct, and "all games" don't matter, when the OP is talking about GW2 performance on a GW2 forum.

    AMD is right now, what I would consider the better buy for multi game, multi use PCs. However, from a pure gaming and big time a pure GW2 performance stand point, Intel still wins due to much higher stock clocks, and much MUCH higher overclocks vs AMD. Most other games, big time the triple A titles that are tested in reviews are not CPU limited, they are GPU limited, as such, the delta in FPS from Intel to AMD is smaller, if not non-existent. However, GW2 is CPU limited, and not because it's CPU hungry, but rather that it's CPU limited due to how the game engine works in that the bulk of the rendering pipeline is limited to a single thread worth of CPU cycles.

    That is the problem, you guys don't read. The individual I was responding to was referring to all games, not just Guild Wars 2. I should not have to explain this to you. You should be big enough to go back and read. Yes, intel is currently winning but by how much? 5% -10%? At 1080p? Do you know why they use 1080p? I'm assuming you do. The reality is we do not have too many games that are cpu dependent in this day in age. Guild Wars 2 is different, its archaic and people have been telling others to get new cpus to improve performance since the game launched. That was 7 years ago, we are generations ahead of what we had in 2012 and the game still performs the same for the most part. No one is finally getting 60fps in wvw zergs in 2020 with the highest end intel or amd cpu.

  • Speedylord.2798Speedylord.2798 Member ✭✭
    edited January 22, 2020

    @Calistin.6210 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @Lucentfir.7430 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @XenoSpyro.1780 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:
    Don't buy amd.

    This is your brain on 2011. Don't do drugs, cubs.

    You're always gonna have issues with AMD with how low their market share is. Buying AMD CPU's/GPUs is a mistake if you're a gamer.

    With comments like this you can really tell how good Intel was at brainwashing people for their products. I have a all AMD system right now and i'm not having any issues at all in performance.

    It's not about intel doing anything. It's threads like this one and talk about other gamers that can't play their favourite game because they bought AMD to save a few pennies. It's awesome that AMD exists because it keeps the greedy lazy bastards at intel honest but as things currently stand they aren't worth it for gamers since so many games just don't work well with AMD. That's without even mentioning their garbage GPUs.

    Sorry but this here is just too funny. AMD is not any worse at gaming than intel if you buy an equivalent product. In fact right now at mid or low tier AMD is way way better than intel.

    I am sorry to burst your bubble here but 4 cores "just for gaming" isn't going to cut it much longer..6 cores will fast replace the 4 cores even just for gaming especially if games start using 4 cores efficiently. The 2 extra cores will allow you to run all the other stuff that gamers usually have running along with the game clients etc etc be it streaming, recording gamepley, companion apps etc etc.

    It's a little asinine to say, "gamers that can't play their favourite game because they bought AMD" when they are running a 3600, 3700x or 3800x as these cpu's are really fine for gaming unless you're playing some backwards game like gw2 and even then I am sure a 3600 will play it just as well as the [email protected] that I am using right now to play gw2....

    I build my PC's and for any build that is 1500$ or less you would be pretty silly to go intel cpu to then have to skimp on the gpu....lolz

    I mean sure if you need more gaming performance than what a 3700x/3800x can give you then sure splurge out on that 9900k but if you get the 9900k you better be getting a rtx2080ti/super as well.

    regarding nvidia/amd gpu's, market share does play a role here. Games tend to be optimized more for Nvidia, because most gaming systems use nvdia gpu's. Both release drivers for optimization, however Nvidia is usually quite a bit faster in releasing new (gameready) drivers. Temperatures and Power consumption can be handled but it's not to be denied nvidia does an objectively better job at it, which can be a statement to go for nvidia instead of amd. Nvidia has put out so many GPU's that most AMD GPU's actually are in quite a bad spot competitive wise, and in the midrange market nvidia is actually kinda offering more attractive GPU's than AMD at the moment. Also, but this is just personal preference, but I find Nvidia's control panel to have a bit more useful features than AMD's control center.

    CPU wise, both intel and amd are good, in modern games they perform the same and it could be argued AMD is the better buy because fps in modern games is similar, but price can be lower than intel/ more cores can be beneficial futureproofwise (although I doubt games will go beyond using more than a 6/8 core hyperthreaded CPU anytime soon, but hey CPU's can be hold onto very long). If you play just GW2, intel is objectively the better pick performance wise, because better optimization for intel (when GW2 released intel had a huge marketshare, making it more attractive to spend more time working on perfecting performnace for intel compared to amd, although this shouldn't be a problem anymore considering how AMD has catched up). The thing is, Intel goes to 5Ghz and beyond, something AMD can't reliably reach yet, and as singlethreaded performance is key in this game the 5+Ghz will be better than having double the cores:).

    (I don't prefer one platform over the other, in modern games all offerings are good, with an amd cpu being slightly better futureproof/cost wise, although in gpuland nvidia is slightly ahead over amd, but they're both viable)

    Speedylord
    (UwU OwO)

  • Ansau.7326Ansau.7326 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 25, 2020

    @Aza.2105 said:

    @KrHome.1920 said:

    @Aza.2105 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @Lucentfir.7430 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @XenoSpyro.1780 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:
    Don't buy amd.

    This is your brain on 2011. Don't do drugs, cubs.

    You're always gonna have issues with AMD with how low their market share is. Buying AMD CPU's/GPUs is a mistake if you're a gamer.

    With comments like this you can really tell how good Intel was at brainwashing people for their products. I have a all AMD system right now and i'm not having any issues at all in performance.

    It's not about intel doing anything. It's threads like this one and talk about other gamers that can't play their favourite game because they bought AMD to save a few pennies. It's awesome that AMD exists because it keeps the greedy lazy bastards at intel honest but as things currently stand they aren't worth it for gamers since so many games just don't work well with AMD. That's without even mentioning their garbage GPUs.

    Intels best gaming cpu is 5% faster than Ryzen on average in gaming while being much slower at everything else besides gaming. You are out of touch with reality, every hardware review site has agreed upon one thing: Intel has no answer to the Ryzen cpus at this time. It could be years until they create a cpu that can compete with it. And by that time AMD could possibly further ahead.

    That's bull-kitten. GW2 uses and old engine that can't handle multithreading very well and on top of that has been updated in terms of graphics to an extent which the engine can't handle anymore with decent performance. The engine is not efficient when rendering up-to-date visuals.

    Intel has quite a big advantage in single threaded performance for three reasons:

    1) The IPC of their skylake (coffee lake) architecture is still 10% better than AMDs zen2 architacture.
    2) Their CPUs run at higher clock speeds (up to 5 GHz without overclocking) than AMDs CPUs (up to 4.5 GHz without overclocking). That's another 10% of better single threaded performance.
    3) Intel CPUs improve their performance the higher the RAM clocks. They even benefit from DDR4 clocks above 4 GHz. Zen2 benefits until 3,6 GHz and then gets slower the higher the Ram clocks because the CPU gets synchronizing problems.

    Since GW2 does not benefit from more than 6 cores (real cores, not threads!) an i5 9600K @ 5 GHz with DDR4 4000 will outperform any AMD CPU (even the 3950X!) for 30% and more.

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @XenoSpyro.1780 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:
    Don't buy amd.

    This is your brain on 2011. Don't do drugs, cubs.

    You're always gonna have issues with AMD with how low their market share is. Buying AMD CPU's/GPUs is a mistake if you're a gamer.

    That's bull-kitten too. AMDs Radeon Software is great in terms of functionality and the drivers are stable and updated regularely. Older GCN GPUs perform great in any DX12 or Vulkan game (better than Nvidias GPUs from that time) and the newer Navi GPUs added an efficiency that matches Nvidias recent Turing GPUs.

    And if you play something else than GW2, their CPUs do well too, because single threaded performance is not that critical in newer games. Usually you get a better price/performance ratio with an AMD CPU.

    No homie, I speak facts. I'm not talking about guild wars 2 only, I'm talking about all games. The 9900k is on average 5% -10% faster than the Ryzen 3xxx series. And thats at 1080p. Above that there really isn't any difference. I'm not even going to explain why, because all you and others have to do is google reviews and look at the benchmarks and what the reviewers say. Its not that difficult.

    No, you don't speak facts, only a partial fact. That 5% average is exclusively based on the same bunch of latest AAA or esport games, that have huge studios behind them, able to either develop well designed game engines or do good implementations of available ones.

    Once you move away from such trendy games, another reality shows up: Ryzen cpus are still quite behind Intel cpus, mostly because of much bigger latencies and not so big core frequencies.
    Hardware Unboxed, a quite relevant source, even spoiled it, testing up to 36 games instead of the same 4-10 games you see in most mainstream places. In 7 games the 3900x (12c/24t) is over 10% behind the 9900k (8c/16t).
    gamegpu.com is also a great place showing cpu comparisons of not so trendy games. It's very easy to find a pile of games where latest Ryzen are easily beaten by Intel cpus with quite a lot less cores.

    Just because you have 100 people saying they are neck to neck in 10 games, doesn't mean in other 200 games it's the same case.

    RIP Chrono 10/2015-7/2019

  • Aza.2105Aza.2105 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 25, 2020

    @Ansau.7326 said:

    @Aza.2105 said:

    @KrHome.1920 said:

    @Aza.2105 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @Lucentfir.7430 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @XenoSpyro.1780 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:
    Don't buy amd.

    This is your brain on 2011. Don't do drugs, cubs.

    You're always gonna have issues with AMD with how low their market share is. Buying AMD CPU's/GPUs is a mistake if you're a gamer.

    With comments like this you can really tell how good Intel was at brainwashing people for their products. I have a all AMD system right now and i'm not having any issues at all in performance.

    It's not about intel doing anything. It's threads like this one and talk about other gamers that can't play their favourite game because they bought AMD to save a few pennies. It's awesome that AMD exists because it keeps the greedy lazy bastards at intel honest but as things currently stand they aren't worth it for gamers since so many games just don't work well with AMD. That's without even mentioning their garbage GPUs.

    Intels best gaming cpu is 5% faster than Ryzen on average in gaming while being much slower at everything else besides gaming. You are out of touch with reality, every hardware review site has agreed upon one thing: Intel has no answer to the Ryzen cpus at this time. It could be years until they create a cpu that can compete with it. And by that time AMD could possibly further ahead.

    That's bull-kitten. GW2 uses and old engine that can't handle multithreading very well and on top of that has been updated in terms of graphics to an extent which the engine can't handle anymore with decent performance. The engine is not efficient when rendering up-to-date visuals.

    Intel has quite a big advantage in single threaded performance for three reasons:

    1) The IPC of their skylake (coffee lake) architecture is still 10% better than AMDs zen2 architacture.
    2) Their CPUs run at higher clock speeds (up to 5 GHz without overclocking) than AMDs CPUs (up to 4.5 GHz without overclocking). That's another 10% of better single threaded performance.
    3) Intel CPUs improve their performance the higher the RAM clocks. They even benefit from DDR4 clocks above 4 GHz. Zen2 benefits until 3,6 GHz and then gets slower the higher the Ram clocks because the CPU gets synchronizing problems.

    Since GW2 does not benefit from more than 6 cores (real cores, not threads!) an i5 9600K @ 5 GHz with DDR4 4000 will outperform any AMD CPU (even the 3950X!) for 30% and more.

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @XenoSpyro.1780 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:
    Don't buy amd.

    This is your brain on 2011. Don't do drugs, cubs.

    You're always gonna have issues with AMD with how low their market share is. Buying AMD CPU's/GPUs is a mistake if you're a gamer.

    That's bull-kitten too. AMDs Radeon Software is great in terms of functionality and the drivers are stable and updated regularely. Older GCN GPUs perform great in any DX12 or Vulkan game (better than Nvidias GPUs from that time) and the newer Navi GPUs added an efficiency that matches Nvidias recent Turing GPUs.

    And if you play something else than GW2, their CPUs do well too, because single threaded performance is not that critical in newer games. Usually you get a better price/performance ratio with an AMD CPU.

    No homie, I speak facts. I'm not talking about guild wars 2 only, I'm talking about all games. The 9900k is on average 5% -10% faster than the Ryzen 3xxx series. And thats at 1080p. Above that there really isn't any difference. I'm not even going to explain why, because all you and others have to do is google reviews and look at the benchmarks and what the reviewers say. Its not that difficult.

    No, you don't speak facts, only a partial fact. That 5% average is exclusively based on the same bunch of latest AAA or esport games, that have huge studios behind them, able to either develop well designed game engines or do good implementations of available ones.

    Once you move away from such trendy games, another reality shows up: Ryzen cpus are still quite behind Intel cpus, mostly because of much bigger latencies and not so big core frequencies.
    Hardware Unboxed, a quite relevant source, even spoiled it, testing up to 36 games instead of the same 4-10 games you see in most mainstream places. In 7 games the 3900x (12c/24t) is over 10% behind the 9900k (8c/16t).
    gamegpu.com is also a great place showing cpu comparisons of not so trendy games. It's very easy to find a pile of games where latest Ryzen are easily beaten by Intel cpus with quite a lot less cores.

    Just because you have 100 people saying they are neck to neck in 10 games, doesn't mean in other 200 games it's the same case.

    Oh you mean this hardware unboxed Ryzen 3900x vs i9 9900k?

    The 9900k is a average of 6% faster AT 1080p! Who is going to buy expensive hardware just to game at 1080p?

  • Ansau.7326Ansau.7326 Member ✭✭✭

    @Aza.2105 said:

    @Ansau.7326 said:

    @Aza.2105 said:

    @KrHome.1920 said:

    @Aza.2105 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @Lucentfir.7430 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @XenoSpyro.1780 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:
    Don't buy amd.

    This is your brain on 2011. Don't do drugs, cubs.

    You're always gonna have issues with AMD with how low their market share is. Buying AMD CPU's/GPUs is a mistake if you're a gamer.

    With comments like this you can really tell how good Intel was at brainwashing people for their products. I have a all AMD system right now and i'm not having any issues at all in performance.

    It's not about intel doing anything. It's threads like this one and talk about other gamers that can't play their favourite game because they bought AMD to save a few pennies. It's awesome that AMD exists because it keeps the greedy lazy bastards at intel honest but as things currently stand they aren't worth it for gamers since so many games just don't work well with AMD. That's without even mentioning their garbage GPUs.

    Intels best gaming cpu is 5% faster than Ryzen on average in gaming while being much slower at everything else besides gaming. You are out of touch with reality, every hardware review site has agreed upon one thing: Intel has no answer to the Ryzen cpus at this time. It could be years until they create a cpu that can compete with it. And by that time AMD could possibly further ahead.

    That's bull-kitten. GW2 uses and old engine that can't handle multithreading very well and on top of that has been updated in terms of graphics to an extent which the engine can't handle anymore with decent performance. The engine is not efficient when rendering up-to-date visuals.

    Intel has quite a big advantage in single threaded performance for three reasons:

    1) The IPC of their skylake (coffee lake) architecture is still 10% better than AMDs zen2 architacture.
    2) Their CPUs run at higher clock speeds (up to 5 GHz without overclocking) than AMDs CPUs (up to 4.5 GHz without overclocking). That's another 10% of better single threaded performance.
    3) Intel CPUs improve their performance the higher the RAM clocks. They even benefit from DDR4 clocks above 4 GHz. Zen2 benefits until 3,6 GHz and then gets slower the higher the Ram clocks because the CPU gets synchronizing problems.

    Since GW2 does not benefit from more than 6 cores (real cores, not threads!) an i5 9600K @ 5 GHz with DDR4 4000 will outperform any AMD CPU (even the 3950X!) for 30% and more.

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @XenoSpyro.1780 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:
    Don't buy amd.

    This is your brain on 2011. Don't do drugs, cubs.

    You're always gonna have issues with AMD with how low their market share is. Buying AMD CPU's/GPUs is a mistake if you're a gamer.

    That's bull-kitten too. AMDs Radeon Software is great in terms of functionality and the drivers are stable and updated regularely. Older GCN GPUs perform great in any DX12 or Vulkan game (better than Nvidias GPUs from that time) and the newer Navi GPUs added an efficiency that matches Nvidias recent Turing GPUs.

    And if you play something else than GW2, their CPUs do well too, because single threaded performance is not that critical in newer games. Usually you get a better price/performance ratio with an AMD CPU.

    No homie, I speak facts. I'm not talking about guild wars 2 only, I'm talking about all games. The 9900k is on average 5% -10% faster than the Ryzen 3xxx series. And thats at 1080p. Above that there really isn't any difference. I'm not even going to explain why, because all you and others have to do is google reviews and look at the benchmarks and what the reviewers say. Its not that difficult.

    No, you don't speak facts, only a partial fact. That 5% average is exclusively based on the same bunch of latest AAA or esport games, that have huge studios behind them, able to either develop well designed game engines or do good implementations of available ones.

    Once you move away from such trendy games, another reality shows up: Ryzen cpus are still quite behind Intel cpus, mostly because of much bigger latencies and not so big core frequencies.
    Hardware Unboxed, a quite relevant source, even spoiled it, testing up to 36 games instead of the same 4-10 games you see in most mainstream places. In 7 games the 3900x (12c/24t) is over 10% behind the 9900k (8c/16t).
    gamegpu.com is also a great place showing cpu comparisons of not so trendy games. It's very easy to find a pile of games where latest Ryzen are easily beaten by Intel cpus with quite a lot less cores.

    Just because you have 100 people saying they are neck to neck in 10 games, doesn't mean in other 200 games it's the same case.

    Oh you mean this hardware unboxed Ryzen 3900x vs i9 9900k?

    The 9900k is a average of 6% faster AT 1080p! Who is going to buy expensive hardware just to game at 1080p?

    Of course when you have games where a 9900k beats a 3900x by over 15%, then the 3900x becomes an expensive hardware, because in such games a simple 4c/8t from Intel can match it.

    And then well, the majority of people are playing at 1080p and a lot throw 2070 or better gpus at it. So who is spending money on high end hardware? More people than what you think.

    Anyway, what people do with their money doesn't change that fact that even ryzen 3000 are easily beaten by intel CPUs in a wide range of games.

    RIP Chrono 10/2015-7/2019

  • Hannelore.8153Hannelore.8153 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 26, 2020

    If you like Intel, enjoy losing more and more performance over time as they keep having to fix exploits, even their latest chips have exploits. Some of their older chips have lost more than 30% performance and they keep making the same mistakes, more or less.

    Though if you aren't in comp sci I don't expect you to know how bad it really is..

    Intel is good at brainwashing to keep their market share even though in reality they've been losing it rapidly for years.

    Hannah | Daisuki[SUKI] Founder, Ehmry Bay (formerly Jade Quarry) | Mains Mariyuuna/Tempest & Terakura/Spellbreaker | ♀♥♀

  • Aza.2105Aza.2105 Member ✭✭✭

    @Ansau.7326 said:

    @Aza.2105 said:

    @Ansau.7326 said:

    @Aza.2105 said:

    @KrHome.1920 said:

    @Aza.2105 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @Lucentfir.7430 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @XenoSpyro.1780 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:
    Don't buy amd.

    This is your brain on 2011. Don't do drugs, cubs.

    You're always gonna have issues with AMD with how low their market share is. Buying AMD CPU's/GPUs is a mistake if you're a gamer.

    With comments like this you can really tell how good Intel was at brainwashing people for their products. I have a all AMD system right now and i'm not having any issues at all in performance.

    It's not about intel doing anything. It's threads like this one and talk about other gamers that can't play their favourite game because they bought AMD to save a few pennies. It's awesome that AMD exists because it keeps the greedy lazy bastards at intel honest but as things currently stand they aren't worth it for gamers since so many games just don't work well with AMD. That's without even mentioning their garbage GPUs.

    Intels best gaming cpu is 5% faster than Ryzen on average in gaming while being much slower at everything else besides gaming. You are out of touch with reality, every hardware review site has agreed upon one thing: Intel has no answer to the Ryzen cpus at this time. It could be years until they create a cpu that can compete with it. And by that time AMD could possibly further ahead.

    That's bull-kitten. GW2 uses and old engine that can't handle multithreading very well and on top of that has been updated in terms of graphics to an extent which the engine can't handle anymore with decent performance. The engine is not efficient when rendering up-to-date visuals.

    Intel has quite a big advantage in single threaded performance for three reasons:

    1) The IPC of their skylake (coffee lake) architecture is still 10% better than AMDs zen2 architacture.
    2) Their CPUs run at higher clock speeds (up to 5 GHz without overclocking) than AMDs CPUs (up to 4.5 GHz without overclocking). That's another 10% of better single threaded performance.
    3) Intel CPUs improve their performance the higher the RAM clocks. They even benefit from DDR4 clocks above 4 GHz. Zen2 benefits until 3,6 GHz and then gets slower the higher the Ram clocks because the CPU gets synchronizing problems.

    Since GW2 does not benefit from more than 6 cores (real cores, not threads!) an i5 9600K @ 5 GHz with DDR4 4000 will outperform any AMD CPU (even the 3950X!) for 30% and more.

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:

    @XenoSpyro.1780 said:

    @Amaranthe.3578 said:
    Don't buy amd.

    This is your brain on 2011. Don't do drugs, cubs.

    You're always gonna have issues with AMD with how low their market share is. Buying AMD CPU's/GPUs is a mistake if you're a gamer.

    That's bull-kitten too. AMDs Radeon Software is great in terms of functionality and the drivers are stable and updated regularely. Older GCN GPUs perform great in any DX12 or Vulkan game (better than Nvidias GPUs from that time) and the newer Navi GPUs added an efficiency that matches Nvidias recent Turing GPUs.

    And if you play something else than GW2, their CPUs do well too, because single threaded performance is not that critical in newer games. Usually you get a better price/performance ratio with an AMD CPU.

    No homie, I speak facts. I'm not talking about guild wars 2 only, I'm talking about all games. The 9900k is on average 5% -10% faster than the Ryzen 3xxx series. And thats at 1080p. Above that there really isn't any difference. I'm not even going to explain why, because all you and others have to do is google reviews and look at the benchmarks and what the reviewers say. Its not that difficult.

    No, you don't speak facts, only a partial fact. That 5% average is exclusively based on the same bunch of latest AAA or esport games, that have huge studios behind them, able to either develop well designed game engines or do good implementations of available ones.

    Once you move away from such trendy games, another reality shows up: Ryzen cpus are still quite behind Intel cpus, mostly because of much bigger latencies and not so big core frequencies.
    Hardware Unboxed, a quite relevant source, even spoiled it, testing up to 36 games instead of the same 4-10 games you see in most mainstream places. In 7 games the 3900x (12c/24t) is over 10% behind the 9900k (8c/16t).
    gamegpu.com is also a great place showing cpu comparisons of not so trendy games. It's very easy to find a pile of games where latest Ryzen are easily beaten by Intel cpus with quite a lot less cores.

    Just because you have 100 people saying they are neck to neck in 10 games, doesn't mean in other 200 games it's the same case.

    Oh you mean this hardware unboxed Ryzen 3900x vs i9 9900k?

    The 9900k is a average of 6% faster AT 1080p! Who is going to buy expensive hardware just to game at 1080p?

    Of course when you have games where a 9900k beats a 3900x by over 15%, then the 3900x becomes an expensive hardware, because in such games a simple 4c/8t from Intel can match it.

    And then well, the majority of people are playing at 1080p and a lot throw 2070 or better gpus at it. So who is spending money on high end hardware? More people than what you think.

    Anyway, what people do with their money doesn't change that fact that even ryzen 3000 are easily beaten by intel CPUs in a wide range of games.

    None of that matters, my point was that on average the 9900k is 5%-10% faster than the 3900x. You and other people here act like you can't read or just don't want to agree. I'm not saying Amd is faster that Intel in GW2, I'm not even saying that there aren't a few games that Intel beats Amd by over 10%. What I'm am saying is that when you factor in all of those games its around 5%-10%. That's nothing. Above 1080p you won't see much of a difference. Heck you won't see a difference now, its not like the majority of those games were running at sub 30fps. More than likely they were well over 90fps. So that means Amd runs at 90fps and Intel runs at 100fps.

  • Infusion.7149Infusion.7149 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 27, 2020

    Is the above argument with dxvk ? Ryzen seems to benefit much more from dxvk (which now integrates d9vk). I see so much conjecture here, but unless the Ryzen 3rd gen CPUs are running below the adaptive sync/Freesync/Gsync range most people would opt for a Ryzen 5 3600 or Ryzen 5 3600x over an Intel i5 9600k or even i7 9700k. 6 physical cores is the optimal for low threaded apps due to Amdahl's law.
    In addition, in other use cases the additional savings on cooling requirements and motherboards can be put towards GPU , higher bin memory (3600 cl15/3200 Cl14/3600 cl16 B-die), or NVMe drives. The idea that you can overclock the i9-9900k to 5GHz all core with a budget motherboard is foolish because you will likely thermal throttle under 100% CPU load ; even out of the box it needs around 160W just to boost properly because when limited to 95W power limit it will only sustain around 4.1GHz all core. Per techpowerup's review of i9-9900KS at 5GHz , the sustained power draw is around 200W for what is essentially a highly binned i9-9900k. What this means for i9-9900k buyers is that you are likely going to need even more power if the CPU is indeed pegged at 100%.
    Ryzen CPUs will continue to see software improvements as the market expands , especially in gaming due to adoption by consoles. Intel CPUs have been getting security patches that severely cut some IO bound workloads, since they've been faster due to speculative execution and memory addressing that is conducive to side channel attacks when hyperthreading is on.