CPU - Limbo

Not much difference there. But still Intel games better. Theres no use trying to figure it out. Its a known fact. 15% increase is an increase.

It just depends on if you want to spend the moneys now or later. Again back to wanting.

Im guessing here.... Your not running raid 0 on your gaming rig. Maybe give that a shot for a low cost improvement. Not in fps but in over all gaming load times and OS Seek times.

- - - Updated - - -

Wait nvm. I see you have raid 0 on the OS already....

GatorChamp said:

One thing I noticed is that once you go to 1440 the difference in the CPUs really starts to dissipate.

Click to expand...

That's why I said earlier you'll see more benfit from a GPU now and upgrade the CPU etc.. later. Then you'll know if you're missing out on ZEN or should've just went Intel...

The 980 is still a powerful card. Have you overclocked it? Mine were happily running@1550+ boost.

With a 20% overclock, you should be happy enough to wait for zen/1080ti/vega...

Be sure to keep in mind some of the games being released now are FPS capped meaning you won't get an FPS increase regardless of what you run. Also with capped games striving for a given FPS above that is useless, in this case consistent FPS is the thing.
Intel will probrably give a more consistent FPS but nothing more if playing a game that's been capped.

For games that haven't been capped, obviously at present an Intel will rule BUT AMD is still good in itself and Zen promises to be much better at it than previous gens of AMD chips. If wanting to build a setup thats AMD based I'd hold out until Zen becomes available, if you can't wait then maybe an Intel based setup is the ticket.

The thing here is simple - Whatever your build will be based on becomes the foundation of the system as a whole, once you determine what it all will be based on then you can decide if and what kind of GPU you really want to run. I say this because of possible issues like bottlenecking as an example.

Just my 2 cents.......... Or whatever it's worth.

Im with you after the first paragraph mccoy!

That said, how many titles are capped? How many titles are capped low enough where that situation happens?

Dr. McCoy said:

Be sure to keep in mind some of the games being released now are FPS capped meaning you won't get an FPS increase regardless of what you run. Also with capped games striving for a given FPS above that is useless, in this case consistent FPS is the thing.
Intel will probrably give a more consistent FPS but nothing more if playing a game that's been capped.

For games that haven't been capped, obviously at present an Intel will rule BUT AMD is still good in itself and Zen promises to be much better at it than previous gens of AMD chips. If wanting to build a setup thats AMD based I'd hold out until Zen becomes available, if you can't wait then maybe an Intel based setup is the ticket.

The thing here is simple - Whatever your build will be based on becomes the foundation of the system as a whole, once you determine what it all will be based on then you can decide if and what kind of GPU you really want to run. I say this because of possible issues like bottlenecking as an example.

Just my 2 cents.......... Or whatever it's worth.

Click to expand...

Have not heard about this. Seems like something that would be used if the game was a bad port. I think PC players would rage if developers were putting caps on their game, especially if its under 120 or 144 fps.

Johan45 said:

That's why I said earlier you'll see more benefit from a GPU now and upgrade the CPU etc.. later. Then you'll know if you're missing out on ZEN or should've just went Intel...

Click to expand...

Yeah after talking through this - I'm thinking so.

Tír na nÓg said:

The 980 is still a powerful card. Have you overclocked it? Mine were happily running@1550+ boost.

With a 20% overclock, you should be happy enough to wait for zen/1080ti/vega...

Click to expand...

I have overclocked my card but it's not the best. I start running into issues around 1485-1490.

Some games really are crappy ports and that's just an issue for the developer to deal with - Nothing we do is gonna fix that.

Some games are intentionally capped like Skyrim and Fallout 4 due to issues with buggy behaviour if exceeding a 60 FPS cap - That's understandable.
Be sure to read what others posted right below the main article.

It may not be as big of a deal as I was thinking before but still.....

Dr. McCoy said:

Some games really are crappy ports and that's just an issue for the developer to deal with - Nothing we do is gonna fix that.

Some games are intentionally capped like Skyrim and Fallout 4 due to issues with buggy behaviour if exceeding a 60 FPS cap - That's understandable.
Be sure to read what others posted right below the main article.

https://www.reddit.com/r/fo4/comments/3s5cdn

It may not be as big of a deal as I was thinking before but still.....

Click to expand...

As I think I alluded too earlier, I believe a situation like this is laziness and poor optimization on the part of the developer. The community is not okay with situations like this, especially on AAA titles. I can really only think of a few 1 - 2 titles I've played, where there was some type of frame cap.

If memory serves it was said some of the capping was due to certain card releases based on architecure weren't doing as expected so the maker prodded the developers to cap things so their new pieces woudn't look so bad if at all.
I know - It's like I stated earlier, if the game is poorly coded then there's nothing any of us can do to resolve it.

Here's an example I know of personally:
If you recall there were a few games for the PSX console that were simply beyond "Not Optimized" when they were released.
I got my hands on one of these titles from the Wing Commander series and let me tell you, if there was ever an example of poorly written code this is it.
The game is so BAD that at times it appears the game has locked up yet it's still going although there are times it does lockup so you have to just leave it alone and see what it does to really know. If it's still going eventually you'll see a new video frame appear, normally waaaaaay later in the action like perhaps a full minute or two before it appears!
This issue was confirmed to me when after I got myself a PS2. I tried it with that console, thinking it may have been a little much for the older PSX to handle.

Nope.

Just as bad with the PS2 as it ever was with the PSX.

ShrimpBrime said:

16 threads on a mainstream processor with 40% IPC increase.....

If anything, you'd upgrade that 780 to at least a 1070. Maybe that could hold you off.

Click to expand...

16 threads are useless for gaming - you will only be able to use 8 for the foreseeable future. A GPU upgrade to an nVidia 1070 or AMD Vega when it comes out would certainly be a good idea.

16 threads are useless right now, but not so much in the future. Graphical APIs are becoming more and more advanced with each generation. There is so much potential alone in Vulkan and DX12, that we will probably see these be the last major updates for quite some time. DX12 has enablers to handle per core, per gpu instructions. This does depend on the game developer to come up with the code to utilize the API as such, but I don't believe it will take to long for companies to start utilizing this hardware. Consoles could certainly benefit from it, and this is the current drive for most game developers.

Dolk said:

This does depend on the game developer to come up with the code to utilize the API as such, but I don't believe it will take to long for companies to start utilizing this hardware.

Click to expand...

Bingo! That is why the extra cores/threads will be useless for longer than you think. It is extra work and they have no need to do it.

I'm not sure about that DaveB, games are becoming more and more hardware demanding. Its just that we are in a hardware dominance era. During the P4 days it was software dominance. Hardware has been playing catchup since than. Now with the combined strength of a matured PC architecture (DDR3/4, PCIE 2/3, Ethernet/WIFI, SSDs/M.2, Intel's int-PCIe, and AMD's HT Bus) software is ran at such a pace that the CPU now has a hard time knowing what to do. It bases most of its logic off of predictions.

You're right about this all being dependent on the software developers. They need to catchup and start utilizing all this hardware. The low end is now counsels that actually can grow once cores are utilized correctly. The high end can now par most graphical developer computers. We are soon to reach the singularity point where hardware and software will no longer need a mesh between, but simply be able to utilize each other in an organic environment.