AMD Says Ryzen 9000 Series Won't Beat 7000X3D Series at Gaming

[Super Firm Tofu]

It's not because I don't care, but because I literally don't see the difference. I'm trying to understand why things that I can't see are so important for some. Is that a bad thing?

Of course there's nothing wrong with that. I'd personally consider it a blessing. Some people are really bothered by unstable frame rates, others can't see it at all. It's difficult to explain how something bothers you if the other person can't see it at all. Using your example of a 1%, or .1% low, you stated that hitch to you is no big deal. To some it is. It's personal preference. I get the feeling you're trying to tell people to not let it bother them because it doesn't bother you? I may find the sound of a bird chirping outside my window calming and peaceful. It might annoy you and keep you from sleeping. Neither of us would be wrong, correct?

 

[AusWolf]

Of course there's nothing wrong with that. I'd personally consider it a blessing. Some people are really bothered by unstable frame rates, others can't see it at all. It's difficult to explain how something bothers you if the other person can't see it at all. Using your example of a 1%, or .1% low, you stated that hitch to you is no big deal. To some it is. It's personal preference.

There is a difference between a single hitch, and your frame rate being unstable (for example, when you run out of VRAM). The first one doesn't bother me, but the second one does. You can have a great average frame rate and a terrible 0.1% in both situations, so these data aren't representative of the actual gaming experience. This is why I don't care about just data alone, and this is why I'd like to understand why others do.

Personally, I find a stable 60 FPS much more enjoyable than an unstable 120 with dips.

I get the feeling you're trying to tell people to not let it bother them because it doesn't bother you? I may find the sound of a bird chirping outside my window calming and peaceful. It might annoy you and keep you from sleeping. Neither of us would be wrong, correct?

Correct, but to me, this isn't a matter of being right or wrong, but a matter of peace of mind. Whether you find the chirping of the bird peaceful or annoying is all in your head. I know Star Wars quotes are a cliché, but "your focus determines your reality". If you let something bother you, then it will. This "focus" of other people is what I'm trying to understand.

 

[Super Firm Tofu]

Personally, I find a stable 60 FPS much more enjoyable than an unstable 120 with dips.

I also agree with this opinion. But for some people, a stable 120 is preferred to a stable 60. That's why the focus on 1% lows and the benefits the X3D offers over the standard CPU. There are some here who really enjoy 240 FPS or 360. Those don't matter to me, but I can see why they'd chase it and why it matters to them. I'm thankful it doesn't to me.

Correct, but to me, this isn't a matter of being right or wrong, but a matter of peace of mind. Whether you find the chirping of the bird peaceful or annoying is all in your head. I know Star Wars quotes are a cliché, but "your focus determines your reality". If you let something bother you, then it will. This "focus" of other people is what I'm trying to understand.

But what's the goal? To attempt to convince people that they shouldn't be concerned with 1% lows? To what end? That they're approaching it from the wrong perspective and to just focus on something else?

People come here to discuss and dissect all things tech. It's their passion, it's what they care about. I can completely understand how someone would think it's ridiculous (my wife does - she just thinks I'm 'playing on my computer' again). But why try to change minds? Would we go into a bread making forum and tell people they're wasting their time and it's silly - just run down to the market and pick up a loaf of Wonder* bread?

* I don't know if Wonder bread is a brand in the UK - It's plain white supermarket factory baked bread here in the States.

 

[Godrilla]

Just in case you missed it AMD might update the TDP of the 9700x to 120 watts

AMD reportedly considering higher TDP for Ryzen 7 9700X - VideoCardz.com

AMD considers higher 120W TDP for Ryzen 7 9700X Zen5 CPU Higher TDP would allow 9700X to outperform 7800X3D. According to a report from Wccftech, AMD is now considering changes to the Ryzen 9000 SKU specifications. The company is informing its board partners that the 8-core Ryzen 9 9700X may...

videocardz.com

Also MSI has new bios for am5 for Ryzen 5 cpu support.

MSI releases AGESA 1.2.0.0 BIOS for AMD X670/B650/A620: improvements for Ryzen 9000 CPUs and GeForce RTX 40 GPUs - VideoCardz.com

MSI has a new BIOS for the upcoming Ryzen 9000 CPUs The rumor has it, AMD 800-series motherboards are not expected to launch alongside the Ryzen 9000 series “Granite Ridge,” AMD’s new Zen5-based desktop CPUs. The exact launch date for these CPUs is not yet confirmed, but it appears that...

videocardz.com

Why is everyone so obsessed with minimum frame rates? Like 1% and 0.1% lows. If my 0.1% is crap, that means the game runs beautifully 99.9% of the time, right? If I get one small hitch in every half hour while the game puts some new part of the map into my RAM, I couldn't care less.

How I use the 0.1% data is for example from the 7800X3D techpower review at 4k the minimum frame rate is slightly above 120fps even though the frame rates can peak at 170 fps in their average game run of the 7800X3D is a stable 4k 120fps experience. At 1080p the minimum frame rate was 190 fps meaning even with a 5090 the 7800X3D will probably not be a solid 4k 240fps experience in most titles ( outside of some outliers.) It's definitely on the subjective side. My recommendation for gamers is to find your own personal threshold of tolerance. Mine is 120fps specifically on an oled display. Capping performance at 4k 120 fps allows me to prevent throttling and to run at maximum efficiency. With the rise of 4k 240hz oleds efficiency and stability will probably go out the window until the hardware catches up again. My previous build with 3090 hybrid and 9900ks/7700x cpu the frame rate was un unstable 110 fps in my go to game, the performance would throttle and I would use more than 500 watts of total system powerto achieve that. Vs now I am using 300 to 250 watts of power in the same game at a solid 4k 120 fps in long game sessions.
So in conclusion the minimum or 0.1% and 1% lows can be the target threshold for maximum efficiency gaming with the benefit of smoothness and no throttling.

 

[AusWolf]

I also agree with this opinion. But for some people, a stable 120 is preferred to a stable 60. That's why the focus on 1% lows and the benefits the X3D offers over the standard CPU. There are some here who really enjoy 240 FPS or 360. Those don't matter to me, but I can see why they'd chase it and why it matters to them. I'm thankful it doesn't to me.

Not long ago, I built a PC for a colleague who wanted stable 360 FPS in CS. His point of view was that if he's got a 360 Hz monitor, then he should see no dips below 360 FPS. I understood what he wanted, and I built the PC, I just didn't and still don't understand why he wanted it. What does one see at 360 FPS that isn't there at let's say, 120? If the game dips down to 300 or 250 FPS at some point due to asset loading, I don't even notice it, so what do others notice that I don't? These are the things I'm trying to understand.

But what's the goal? To attempt to convince people that they shouldn't be concerned with 1% lows? To what end? That they're approaching it from the wrong perspective and to just focus on something else?

People come here to discuss and dissect all things tech. It's their passion, it's what they care about. I can completely understand how someone would think it's ridiculous (my wife does - she just thinks I'm 'playing on my computer' again). But why try to change minds? Would we go into a bread making forum and tell people they're wasting their time and it's silly - just run down to the market and pick up a loaf of Wonder* bread?

* I don't know if Wonder bread is a brand in the UK - It's plain white supermarket factory baked bread here in the States.

I don't want to convince anyone of anything. I just want to have an understanding of what I'm missing, even if I don't find it necessary or desirable in my own life.

I don't make my own bread, but I can clearly see why it's fun, and why other people enjoy it.
My missus is also a non-gamer. She likes watching horror films and drama on TV, which is fine. I understand that it's a different kind of hobby, and if she's happy, I'm happy.

Similarly, I'm not interested in having 120+ FPS all the time, with no 0.1% lows dipping below it, but in this case, I also don't understand why others want it, as I don't see anything different at those high frame rates. It seems like complete placebo to me, or something you only see on your frametime graph (which is useless, unless you're diagnosing a system fault). Perhaps my focus isn't attuned to see what they see.

Basically, I'm being told that other people want a million FPS with no 0.1% dips, which is fine, each to their own, but no one tells me why. This is what I'd like to know.

 

[JustBenching]

Not long ago, I built a PC for a colleague who wanted stable 360 FPS in CS. His point of view was that if he's got a 360 Hz monitor, then he should see no dips below 360 FPS. I understood what he wanted, and I built the PC, I just didn't and still don't understand why he wanted it. What does one see at 360 FPS that isn't there at let's say, 120? If the game dips down to 300 or 250 FPS at some point due to asset loading, I don't even notice it, so what do others notice that I don't? These are the things I'm trying to understand.


I don't want to convince anyone of anything. I just want to have an understanding of what I'm missing, even if I don't find it necessary or desirable in my own life.

I don't make my own bread, but I can clearly see why it's fun, and why other people enjoy it.
My missus is also a non-gamer. She likes watching horror films and drama on TV, which is fine. I understand that it's a different kind of hobby, and if she's happy, I'm happy.

Similarly, I'm not interested in having 120+ FPS all the time, with no 0.1% lows dipping below it, but in this case, I also don't understand why others want it, as I don't see anything different at those high frame rates. It seems like complete placebo to me, or something you only see on your frametime graph (which is useless, unless you're diagnosing a system fault). Perhaps my focus isn't attuned to see what they see.

Basically, I'm being told that other people want a million FPS with no 0.1% dips, which is fine, each to their own, but no one tells me why. This is what I'd like to know.

Are you asking why higher fps is better than lower fps? Motion clarity (less blurriness, although oled does away with that kinda), much faster response times (the moment you click the button to the moment it shows on your monitor) and in general it's just a smoother experience. After all video is just a series of pictures, the more the rate of pictures the better. You can tell it's better by doing the opposite, lowering the rate of pictures. If 60 fps is better than the 30 fps, and 30 fps is better than 15 fps, then it stands to pure reason that 120 is better than 60 and 240 is better than 120. Of course diminishing returns kick in, but when it kicks in is different for each person.

Also sitting to a 120 and a 240hz doesn't tell you the whole story. Use a 240 hz playing at 240 fps for a month and then go back to a 120 monitor, your mind will be blown about how slow the 120 feels.

 

[AusWolf]

Are you asking why higher fps is better than lower fps? Motion clarity (less blurriness, although oled does away with that kinda), much faster response times (the moment you click the button to the moment it shows on your monitor) and in general it's just a smoother experience. After all video is just a series of pictures, the more the rate of pictures the better. You can tell it's better by doing the opposite, lowering the rate of pictures. If 60 fps is better than the 30 fps, and 30 fps is better than 15 fps, then it stands to pure reason that 120 is better than 60 and 240 is better than 120. Of course diminishing returns kick in, but when it kicks in is different for each person.

Also sitting to a 120 and a 240hz doesn't tell you the whole story. Use a 240 hz playing at 240 fps for a month and then go back to a 120 monitor, your mind will be blown about how slow the 120 feels.

Now that I've abandoned 60 Hz, and have been on 144 for about 8 months, I'm getting to the point where 30 FPS doesn't feel smooth anymore. I want at least 48, which is the low range of my monitor's VRR, but preferably 60. Before I bought this monitor, I was happy with a rock stable 30 FPS as long as it was really rock stable, but I'm not anymore, I want 60. But I still can't see a difference whether my game runs at 144, 120, or even 80 FPS. The only place where the difference is quite noticeable even to me is web page scrolling.

Common opinion might differ, but a high-range variable refresh rate is a much bigger improvement on my gaming experience than a high FPS.

Maybe I just have to accept that I don't have the eyes and reflexes for high-FPS gaming, and it's something I'll probably never understand.

 

[JustBenching]

Now that I've abandoned 60 Hz, and have been on 144 for about 8 months, I'm getting to the point where 30 FPS doesn't feel smooth anymore. I want at least 48, which is the low range of my monitor's VRR, but preferably 60. Before I bought this monitor, I was happy with a rock stable 30 FPS as long as it was really rock stable, but I'm not anymore, I want 60. But I still can't see a difference whether my game runs at 144, 120, or even 80 FPS. The only place where the difference is quite noticeable even to me is web page scrolling.

Common opinion might differ, but a high-range variable refresh rate is a much bigger improvement on my gaming experience than a high FPS.

Maybe I just have to accept that I don't have the eyes and reflexes for high-FPS gaming, and it's something I'll probably never understand.

Are you using a controller? A controller hides lower fps because the game itself smooths out the camera. On a mouse that you move more erratically the difference between 60 and 120 is rather obvious.

 

[AusWolf]

Are you using a controller? A controller hides lower fps because the game itself smooths out the camera. On a mouse that you move more erratically the difference between 60 and 120 is rather obvious.

Nope - I hate the controller in general. I can only use it for arcade racing and Mortal Kombat / Tekken. For anything else, the trusted keyboard + mouse combo is the only thing I'd ever touch.

Oh, and with Nier: Automata (what I'm playing now), it's fine. But that's really it.

 

[JustBenching]

Nope - I hate the controller in general. I can only use it for arcade racing and Mortal Kombat / Tekken. For anything else, the trusted keyboard + mouse combo is the only thing I'd ever touch.

Oh, and with Nier: Automata (what I'm playing now), it's fine. But that's really it.

Then I don't know, have you tried locking a game to 120 for an hour and then going back to 60? I think your head will explode.

 

[AusWolf]

Then I don't know, have you tried locking a game to 120 for an hour and then going back to 60? I think your head will explode.

No, I just have a 144 FPS cap in the driver. Seriously, when my FPS dips, I hardly ever notice it. But I'll try and see what happens (after my upcoming holiday).

 

[JustBenching]

No, I just have a 144 FPS cap in the driver. Seriously, when my FPS dips, I hardly ever notice it. But I'll try and see what happens.

Just try a locked 144, drop settings so you can achieve it, play for an hour, then go back. Please share the results, I'm really interested.

 

[AusWolf]

Just try a locked 144, drop settings so you can achieve it, play for an hour, then go back. Please share the results, I'm really interested.

Dang, I just got into Nier: Automata to try, but I forgot that the game works with a 60 FPS engine cap.

I'l have to find something else... but really after my holiday (I'm flying away today). Currently, I've got nothing installed that would require that high of an FPS.

 

[JustBenching]

Dang, I just got into Nier: Automata to try, but I forgot that the game works with a 60 FPS engine cap.

I'l have to find something else... but really after my holiday (I'm flying away today).

Cancel it. For science

Have a good time.

 

[AusWolf]

Cancel it. For science

Have a good time.

Don't worry, I'll get back to it... for science. I don't know how to override the engine cap, but I'll find another game to try with.

Cheers!

 

[Lew Zealand]

Similarly, I'm not interested in having 120+ FPS all the time, with no 0.1% lows dipping below it, but in this case, I also don't understand why others want it, as I don't see anything different at those high frame rates. It seems like complete placebo to me, or something you only see on your frametime graph (which is useless, unless you're diagnosing a system fault). Perhaps my focus isn't attuned to see what they see.

Basically, I'm being told that other people want a million FPS with no 0.1% dips, which is fine, each to their own, but no one tells me why. This is what I'd like to know.

I play Rocket League and have been since I first saw it on a YT video. I knew that was my game but I'm not competitive as I play for fun and geometry. It's relaxing for me... ok until it isn't lol. I bought a 144Hz monitor to play it better.

But I have a lot of computers and only 1 input that goes to 144 so I play it at 100Hz and 60 Hz a bunch. My observations:

• I can play and have fun at 60Hz though it's not as responsive as I'd like. But you get used to it as the monkey can be retrained.
• The difference from 60 to 100 Hz is very big but if the card can only barely squeak 100Hz, then the occasional frame dips to 90s or 80s are noticeable (Radeon 780 iGPU @1440p Low for example). But only on some maps, it's 100 Hz with unnoticeable dips to ~95 on easier maps
• The difference from 100 to 144Hz is subtle, BUT as I'm usually playing with a GPU that's overkill for this, the smoothness of close to zero dips below 144 (maybe the occasional dropped frame or two) with ~zero GPU latency is appreciable. If there are frame drops, I do not notice them and it doesn't break gameplay/concentration at all.

When playing competitive online FPS shooters where precise headshots are a real advantage in a game, I could see where 200+ fps could be a noticeable if subtle advantage but the real problem would getting a few dropped frames at a key point where you'll end up dead instead of the other guy because of the precision-based gameplay. Avoiding those makes a big difference to some people. I play those types of games on occasion and enjoy them for a short time but lol my 2 best games of Fortnite were played on a Dell Latitude 7490 with Intel UHD 630. 1080p 60Hz very Low with frame drops. I dunno, I just have fun playing games with the equipment I have.

 

[Kyan]

I play Rocket League and have been since I first saw it on a YT video. I knew that was my game but I'm not competitive as I play for fun and geometry. It's relaxing for me... ok until it isn't lol. I bought a 144Hz monitor to play it better.

But I have a lot of computers and only 1 input that goes to 144 so I play it at 100Hz and 60 Hz a bunch. My observations:

• I can play and have fun at 60Hz though it's not as responsive as I'd like. But you get used to it as the monkey can be retrained.
• The difference from 60 to 100 Hz is very big but if the card can only barely squeak 100Hz, then the occasional frame dips to 90s or 80s are noticeable (Radeon 780 iGPU @1440p Low for example). But only on some maps, it's 100 Hz with unnoticeable dips to ~95 on easier maps
• The difference from 100 to 144Hz is subtle, BUT as I'm usually playing with a GPU that's overkill for this, the smoothness of close to zero dips below 144 (maybe the occasional dropped frame or two) with ~zero GPU latency is appreciable. If there are frame drops, I do not notice them and it doesn't break gameplay/concentration at all.

When playing competitive online FPS shooters where precise headshots are a real advantage in a game, I could see where 200+ fps could be a noticeable if subtle advantage but the real problem would getting a few dropped frames at a key point where you'll end up dead instead of the other guy because of the precision-based gameplay. Avoiding those makes a big difference to some people. I play those types of games on occasion and enjoy them for a short time but lol my 2 best games of Fortnite were played on a Dell Latitude 7490 with Intel UHD 630. 1080p 60Hz very Low with frame drops. I dunno, I just have fun playing games with the equipment I have.

I was gonna talk about rocket league too. I play it competitively. I have a 165Hz monitor and I lock the game to 240fps because the physics engine run at 120Hz and I can clearly see when there is a drop from 220-240 to 170fps, It's like really annoying and distracting. The worst is that it's probably from other program, maybe changing proc (x3D)/gc will maybe make it run really smoothly. Just for this game I will be very happy to have 1%-0.1% low fps as high as possible.
Edit: btw I play almost, if not all, my other games at 70-120 fps lock withtout any problem, it's just that the fps drop is making what you see "slower"/less responsive for a short period of time. Same for Eurotruck Simulator 2 in VR, it's a lot more visible and distracting going from 70-80fps to 50-60fps