fevgatosYeah, i lost around 1.3% :roll:

AusWolfMy sweet spot is DLSS/FSR turned off. Like I said, mileage may vary at higher resolutions, but for me at 1080p with no plans to upgrade, it's not gonna be a thing. Spending hundreds on a new monitor only to be forced to spend hundreds more on a graphics card and/or use some upscaling trickery for playable framerates sounds counter-intuitive to me. That's why I think it's a gimmick.

fevgatos1080p dunno, might be terrible, but it's not needed for 1080p anyways.. At 4k you really can't tell the difference. Actually, the magical part is, in lots of games it actually increases image quality. Plenty of games with poor implementation of TAA look like crap at native. So not only do you get a noticeable performance increase, not only is your GPU drawing much less power with it active, in some games you also get better graphics.

ratirtYour card can pull 1440p no problem.

ratirtFor me playing at 4k, it would be hard to go 1080p since it is a blurry mess for me at this point just like DLSS is for you.

AusWolfIt sure can now, but what about 2-4 years later? Besides, I'm happy with 1080p, I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything at all. :)

AusWolfThat's another reason why I don't want to upgrade. Higher res may sound like a nice thing to have until you look at games like Hogwarts Legacy that run like crap with everything turned on at 4k even on a 4090. I don't want to fall into the trap of getting used to it, and then not being able to go back, or having to spend more on a GPU upgrade when something new that I want to play doesn't run well.

AusWolfI believe you that it's probably less bad at higher resolutions as it has a better quality sample to work with.

I'm not sure about improving quality, though. Upscaling is a technology designed to slightly worsen your image quality for more performance, so improving is a contradiction. I'll believe it when I see it, I guess. :)

ratirtSomeone else will lose more. As you see I can't rely on your data and your experience alone but I can rely on NV adverstisement. On the other hand, it is very hard to believe that NV would go with so much trouble to advertise a card with so much power consumption just to realize after, they have made a mistake and 1.3% less performance, would have manged to cut the power consumption by a third.

fevgatosHow much power do you think the 4090 consumes? You realise in the vast majority of games it hovers around 350 watts right?

Doesnt the same thing apply to zen 4 cpus? Don't they cut the power in half while losing a tiny amount of performance? You seem more eager to believe it when amd is involved don't you?

ratirt1440p screens support 1080p.

ratirtSame thing happened to me when I bought 4k screen 60Hz. When it came and I set it up, I said to myself why i did it? 1080p is more than enough. Then I started playing and well. I bought 4k 144hz with 6900XT so go figure.

fevgatosI can post you some pictures for example from codbo later, the native TAA looks like a huge downgrade compared to dlss Q. Lots of reviewers have actually reported the same thing, even steve from hwunboxed, that dlss improves iq in lots of situations. It's a complete gamechanger.

fevgatosOf course maximum power draw is absolutely useless. Card A has 400w max power draw and 200w average, card B has 280w max and 250w average. Card A is clearly absolutely unarguably better at power draw. You can't even argue that.

So you proved me wrong by agreeing with me that the XT draws a lot more power. Great, and yes that's usually the case, you prove me wrong every single time by admitting that everything I said is absolutely the case. Gj, keep it up


Yeah, that 6c12t that amd launched in 2023 for 350 gives you great longevity over the 14c Intel offers. LOL

lasEfficiency cores are useless for gaming. Intel has 8 performance cores tops. If you believe their marketing, then you need to educate yourself.

i9-13900K has 8 performance cores and 16 useless e cores, then marketed as a 24 core chip, LMAO.

AusWolfSure, but lower resolution images on higher resolution screens always look worse than they would on a lower native resolution screen. Doing stuff on my parents' old 900p monitor feels normal, but if I set the desktop resolution to 900p on my 1080p monitor, it'll look horrible.

AusWolfSure, but lower resolution images on higher resolution screens always look worse than they would on a lower native resolution screen. Doing stuff on my parents' old 900p monitor feels normal, but if I set the desktop resolution to 900p on my 1080p monitor, it'll look horrible.


I'd probably be the same, and that's what I want to avoid. ;)


Sure, why not. I have my doubts of it helping in all cases, but I won't say no to taking a look.

There are quite a few bad AA implementations, though. The one that's in the Nvidia driver (I'm not sure what it's called) gave me some terrible shimmering around UI elements in Skyrim back in the days. I remember because it took me a while to figure out what the problem was.

fevgatosFirst of all, not only is that irrelevant, it's also wrong. The 16ecores are exactly as useless as the 2nd ccd the 7950x has. No more, no less. Both are useful mainly only on heavy threaded workloads.

Now with that said, with ecores off on for example cyberpunk, performance drops. Dramatically in fact. Tom's dinner area goes from around 100-120 fps to 80-95. So yeah..

ratirtNot true.
TPU test.
www.techpowerup.com/review/rtx-4090-53-games-core-i9-13900k-e-cores-enabled-vs-disabled/2.html

fevgatosFirst of all, not only is that irrelevant, it's also wrong. The 16ecores are exactly as useless as the 2nd ccd the 7950x has. No more, no less. Both are useful mainly only on heavy threaded workloads.

Now with that said, with ecores off on for example cyberpunk, performance drops. Dramatically in fact. Tom's dinner area goes from around 100-120 fps to 80-95. So yeah..

fevgatosYou are telling me what is and isn't true about a cpu I have in a game I play. Seems legit. Did he test Tom's dinner or some other heavy area of the game? Cause obviously, in a non heavy area you don't need a gazillion cores, that's true for every game.

ratirtYou are telling everyone that @W1zzard with all his assortment of CPUs and GPUs performing benchmarks an being here testing stuff for us and literally showing the ecore dependency in games is incorrect or what are you saying?
I don't care what you have to be fair. Or is it like with your 4090 card claim? Considering how you showcase your 4090 as a legitimately low power consumption card proclaiming it applies to all 4090's, I see a flaw in your conclusions which deem you untrustworthy.
Another miracle uncovered by you. Some games or applications use more cores some don't. So you focus on whatever suits you. What is it you are trying to prove again here? That the CPU you have is exceptional? great lucky you.

fevgatosNever said the 4090 is a low power card. I said it's incredibly efficient. Which it is.

Never said the 13900k is exceptional. Actually I swapped back to my 12900k cause I prefer it. Had I said is that ecores are not useless in gaming, since there are games that benefit a lot from them. Try to actually argue with what people are saying instead of constant strawmaning

OneMoarin short we lack the talent to compete so we aren't even going to try
why does this sound so familar

O wait this is exactly the same bullshit they said with bulldozer

I swear idiots run this company

futher more AI is becomming the hottest thing since the sun and AMD is like mmmm no thanks we are going to keep doing what we are doing
which is being a mediocur second fiddle to everybody else
because that as worked so well before
Arrrrrrrrrrg this level of stupid short sighted quitter talk drives me batty

lasAnd in other games, like Far Cry 5, Metro Exodus, GreedFall performance is 10% lower with crappy e-cores enabled. So yeah... It's probably has better performance in some games because 8 performance cores are maxed out, however AMD has 12-16 cores on their high-end chips. As in true performance cores.

7950X 2nd CCD has performance cores + SMT only. Zero garbage cores.

Efficiency cores makes pretty much zero sense for desktop usage. And you are stuck with Windows 11 only, because without Thread Director, you will get wonky performance (software uses the wrong cores = crap performance)

The only reason why Intel does it, is to up the multithreaded performance, especially in synthetic tests like Cinebench and marked the chips as higher core count chips, but it's mostly just a marketing gimmick lie, because Intel has struggled for years with core count. They COULD have put 12 performance cores on 13900K, but watt usage would explode, however performance would have been much better than it is. Sadly Intel needs 5.5-6 GHz clockspeeds to match AMD and Upcoming Ryzen 7000 3D will beat Intel in gaming, again. 7800X3D at 399 dollars will probably smack even i9-13900KS which will be a 799 dollar chip. Sad but true.

And 7900XTX gets closer and closer to 4090, while beating 4080 more and more; www.techpowerup.com/review/asrock-radeon-rx-7900-xtx-taichi/31.html

Nvidia answer will be; 4080 Ti and 4090 Ti. Gimpy gimpy time. The leatherjacket soon pulls them out of the oven.

ratirtI said your CPU is exceptional not the 13900K. The 13900K is to showcase the ecores in gaming.
Not a lower power card. OK. Efficient? If you talk about efficiency you need to say against what? AMD CPUs since you have brought those up with your 4090? You need to have a metric. This is how much power this device use and this is how much power my device use for the same performance for instance or any other metric you have there when you talk about efficiency.
Yes you did say the ecores are not useless for games and I told you they are or if there is a difference, it is so mediocre it's pointless to mention it. Arguing that you have a CPU with ecores and I dont which somehow gives you the right to falsely claim things is not OK? If you want please refer to @W1zzard test of ecores and explain why it is wrong since your "exceptional CPU" performs different and W1zards finding are false.

fevgatosThe heck are you talking about. Ecores are EXACTLY as useful as the 2nd ccd. The 2nd ccd is also useful for cine bench and synthetics. There is no application that the 2nd ccd boosts performance but the ecores don't. So your opinion has to be based on pure bias and nothing more.


Well in most games more than 8 cores are useless, so of course the ecores are as well. That has nothing to do with ecores themselves, it had to do with the games not requiring that many cores. The same thing applies to the 7950x with it's 2nd ccd being useless in most games except a minority of games that scale in more than 8 cores

Vya DomusThe e cores on Intel's CPUs are most certainly not useless, sometimes you can lose almost 10% performance with them enabled, so they definitely do something that's for sure. :roll:

fevgatosWell in most games more than 8 cores are useless, so of course the ecores are as well. That has nothing to do with ecores themselves, it had to do with the games not requiring that many cores. The same thing applies to the 7950x with it's 2nd ccd being useless in most games except a minority of games that scale in more than 8 cores

ratirtCan you point a game that uses ecores with pcores?

lasWhat are YOU talking about, both CCDs have a CCX with 8C/16T with performance cores only. 2nd CCD runs slighly lower clockspeeds BUT USING SAME MICROARCHITECTURE and they are still FAST, with no risk of E cores complicating software compatibility. 7950X = 16 performance cores, 13900K = 8 performance cores.

Intels E cores are using dated and MUCH LOWER CLOCKED microarchitecture. The cores are NOT FAST at all. Their primary goal is to fool consumers into thinking the chip has more cores than it has.
i5-13600K is a "14 core chip" but only has 6 performance cores :roll: Intel STILL only has 6-8 performance cores across the board on mainstream chips in the upper segment. Rest is useless e cores.

Ryzen 7000 chips with 3D cache will beat Intel in gaming anyway. Hell even the 7800X3D 400 dollar chip will beat 13900KS with 6 GHz boost and twice if not triple the peak watt usage + 800 dollar price tag and Intel will abandon the platform after 2 years as usual. Meaning 14th gen will require new socket, new board. Milky milky time. Intels architechture is inferior which is why they need to run with high clockspeeds to be able to compete, SADLY for Intel this means high watt usage.

However i9-12900K/KS and i9-13900K/KS are pointless chips gamers, since i7 delivers the same gaming performance anyway, without the HUGE watt usage. Hell even i5's are within a few percent.

fevgatosYeah, plenty. Cyberpunk, spiderman remastered, spiderman miles morales

ratirtCan you show me any proof that ecores are being used simultaneously by the games you have pointed out?