300 fps seems so silly. What's the point?

epeen++

higher fps is lower input lag

i just tested on a server
max fps capped at 200 in csgo is averaging 5.8ms or so input lag
300fps is averaging 3.6ish

use cl_showfps 2 in console to see

FPS affects a lot of things. In Overwatch having a higher FPS (to a point) also improves a few other things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nilBzupE4Cc

I just got 767.269FPS. There was a loud bang. My ping went negative and my machine knew what I was going to do before I did. So - I walked away and let it play for me while I had a sammich.

k

Originally Posted by def

no vsync here

cs runs at 250-300fps, monitor is running at 120hz

no tearing, no input lag

Guarantee there's some tearing going on, but you won't see it because it's either happening between screen refreshes or it's gone so fast you don't perceive it @ 120Hz. You're talking about an artifact that's on the screen for 0.0083 seconds and might represent a shift of 1 whole pixel at 1920x1080.

Unless you play an ass load of cs go there aren't enough games that need [email protected] for an upgrade to be worth

The quality of triple A games, traditionally the titles that make upgrades worthwhile, has taken such a nose dive. Factor in the economics behind designing everything for consoles and ports (since game development costs have gone thru the roof) and you end up with titles like dishonored or deus ex - games that traditionally would shine on a powerhouse cpu and for one reason or another don't

In today's market upgrading and tweaking is just for enthusiastic and hobbyists like what Odio posted in the op. See what kinda stats you can push out of your rig, then compare with friends or the world. Kinda similar to car mod enthusiasts. The recent disconnect between gaming and pc performance is really unfortunate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TId-OrXWuOE

my new computer is p good

Originally Posted by Bughead

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TId-OrXWuOE

But who is building a new PC so they can play @ 1080P?

lemon going to troll me sum more, but i am getting xeon E5450 and GTX960 so I can make this computer last another 4-6 months while motherboard dudes figure out their bios issues with Ryzen and software dudes optimize their codes.

i have an 6900K and RX 480, shadow of mordor and witcher 3 get like 90 fps average at high/ultra settings.

so yeah go me

Keep buying AMD. I can't wait to see what my shares are worth by the end of the year.

Originally Posted by Odio

But who is building a new PC so they can play @ 1080P?

The '1080P' thing is so that they can deliberately bottleneck the CPU, not GPU. Yes, most people are gaming at higher resolutions these days, but the point is - if your CPU is the limiting factor in your system, then it would appear that at this point at least that Ryzen doesn't handle things as well as it should.

If your CPU is not the limiting factor, then you don't need a shiny new super-powered one - which realistically is the case for pretty much anyone not running thousands of dollars worth of graphics cards.

Originally Posted by Odio

But who is building a new PC so they can play @ 1080P?

lemon going to troll me sum more, but i am getting xeon E5450 and GTX960 so I can make this computer last another 4-6 months while motherboard dudes figure out their bios issues with Ryzen and software dudes optimize their codes.

PassMark - CPU Performance Comparison



 bsod with this oc 

Originally Posted by MC Hamster

The '1080P' thing is so that they can deliberately bottleneck the CPU, not GPU. Yes, most people are gaming at higher resolutions these days, but the point is - if your CPU is the limiting factor in your system, then it would appear that at this point at least that Ryzen doesn't handle things as well as it should.

If your CPU is not the limiting factor, then you don't need a shiny new super-powered one - which realistically is the case for pretty much anyone not running thousands of dollars worth of graphics cards.

There is no real difference at the higher resolutions and the Ryzen CPUs are faster in everything else desktop related.


sounds like a software problem 2 me.

I love competition, so go-go AMD.

Originally Posted by Odio

There is no real difference at the higher resolutions and the Ryzen CPUs are faster in everything else desktop related.


sounds like a software problem 2 me.

Sure, I don't doubt it's something that can be resolved. The question is: will it? Look, I'm quite optimistic about this thing.. but that's some wonky results that do suggest there's something wrong there - just that your "who uses 1080P?" misses the point.

gg

This also seems to be happening: AMD Ryzen CPU with 12 cores and 24 threads spotted

Why is the 1700x 1080p benchmarks better than the 1800x?

Also, as far as 1080p goes - people still use and prefer it over 1440p. I'd rather have a very noticeable increase in frames (thus taking advantage of a high refresh rate) over a slightly sharper picture. Of course, if you're running a $800+ gpu and hit 144+ fps in current/next gen games anyway, then yeah 1440p is a no brainer. Me - I typically buy a gtx 1070 tier card every/every other generation.