With the new Ryzen CPUs around the corner, which gaming FPS benchmark specs are most important to you?

[cucker tarlson]

This is really what I advocate with CPU testing as well, test games actually in-game, and not canned benchmark, and test them in the worst-case scenarios - that data is far more valuable than the 'average' run, really. Even better is when the average run or canned benchmark and the worst-case one are benched side by side. Thát is providing some real insights.

As it stands, you really need to be reading several different review sites AND you have to know where to look.

the thing about cpu benchmarks is that they require the user to actually know how to interpret them.
the tests that tpu does are representative of the majority of your gameplay experience but not of fps dips and high cpu usage scenarios.those that purepc do are not the majority of your gameplay,but represent places and scenarios where fps dips due to cpu,therefore they're the actual cpu performance tests.
who's right? the one who reads and takes into account both of them.
which cpu is the one to choose ? it doesn't have top all performance charts,but it always belongs among the fastest no matter the scanario.e.g. gaming wise a locked 8700 is a much more consistent performer than 9600K OC.Yes it'll lose in some,but it'll will always be among that top 5 whereas 9600K might see scenarios where it'll not perform at that level.I'll take a cpu that delivers constant 100 fps over one that does 120 fps in most but at the same time 70 fps in some.
8600k/9600k are faster on average than 7700k,but after reading reviews from ppc,pcgh and computerbase I was quite surprised that intel's 4c/8t is much more consistent than 8600k.While 6c/6t beasts 4c/8t on averages,the 7700K pulls away on minimums.Look at this test.On avg. they go head to head,but on minumums 7700K wins 5 out of 6, and 10-15% is not insignificant.And that's on ddr 2400 vs 2666.

Core i9-9900K, i7-9700K & i5-9600K im Test: Intels Coffee-Lake-S-Refresh gibt sich die Ehre [Update]

Die Leistung von Intels Core i9-9900K, Core i7-9700K und Core i5-9600K in PC-Spielen. PC Games Hardware hat seinen CPU-Parcours durchgebencht und indexiert die Ergebnisse. Mit dabei: Vergleiche zur ersten Coffee-Lake-S-Generation mit dem Core i7-8700K sowie AMDs Ryzen-CPUs wie dem Ryzen 7 2700X...

www.pcgameshardware.de

 

[xtreemchaos]

120fps is my fav, anything more is just overkill + in VR anything above can cause jitters .

 

[Vayra86]

the thing about cpu benchmarks is that they require the user to actually know how to interpret them.
the tests that tpu does are representative of the majority of your gameplay experience but not of fps dips and high cpu usage scenarios.those that purepc do are not the majority of your gameplay,but represent places and scenarios where fps dips due to cpu,therefore they're the actual cpu performance tests.
who's right? the one who reads and takes into account both of them.
which cpu is the one to choose ? it doesn't have top all performance charts,but it always belongs among the fastest no matter the scanario.e.g. gaming wise a locked 8700 is a much more consistent performer than 9600K OC.Yes it'll lose in some,but it'll will always be among that top 5 whereas 9600K might see scenarios where it'll not perform at that level.I'll take a cpu that delivers constant 100 fps over one that does 120 fps in most but at the same time 70 fps in some.
8600k/9600k are faster on average than 7700k,but after reading reviews from ppc,pcgh and computerbase I was quite surprised that intel's 4c/8t is much more consistent than 8600k.While 6c/6t beasts 4c/8t on averages,the 7700K pulls away on minimums.Look at this test.On avg. they go head to head,but on minumums 7700K wins 5 out of 6, and 10-15% is not insignificant.And that's on ddr 2400 vs 2666.

Core i9-9900K, i7-9700K & i5-9600K im Test: Intels Coffee-Lake-S-Refresh gibt sich die Ehre [Update]

Die Leistung von Intels Core i9-9900K, Core i7-9700K und Core i5-9600K in PC-Spielen. PC Games Hardware hat seinen CPU-Parcours durchgebencht und indexiert die Ergebnisse. Mit dabei: Vergleiche zur ersten Coffee-Lake-S-Generation mit dem Core i7-8700K sowie AMDs Ryzen-CPUs wie dem Ryzen 7 2700X...

www.pcgameshardware.de

Exactly this. Since we shifted to 6~8 cores the multithreading in games is finally kicking off, higher core counts are mainstream so you will see optimization around that, which is why SMT/HT is being utilized. Its worth doing nowadays for a large part of the market/owned CPUs.

Its a real shift in how one should approach a CPU review. I remember searching for the right conclusions myself as well. I took my sweet time waiting and analyzing before I jumped on my current CPU. In hindsight and even with the current Ryzen being so good, I still have no regrets over my choice for 8700K. Its a hot bastard, but performance is stellar exactly where and when I want it.

The old rules of thumb wrt usage of cores and threads in gaming no longer flies. Yes, physical cores are still better, but a lack of HT/SMT also is a versatility limitation that will cause its own issues nowadays. It is sort of 'expected' that your CPU has those additional threads, and software will use them to maintain consistency on the heavier tasks. This development took a sweet while, but we've been looking at 8 thread CPUs for quite some time now, we asked for it for a decade And now that its here, people apparently forgot about it and jump on 6c/6t

 

[cucker tarlson]

Exactly this. Since we shifted to 6~8 cores the multithreading in games is finally kicking off, higher core counts are mainstream so you will see optimization around that, which is why SMT/HT is being utilized. Its worth doing nowadays for a large part of the market/owned CPUs.

Its a real shift in how one should approach a CPU review. I remember searching for the right conclusions myself as well. I took my sweet time waiting and analyzing before I jumped on my current CPU. In hindsight and even with the current Ryzen being so good, I still have no regrets over my choice for 8700K. Its a hot bastard, but performance is stellar exactly where and when I want it.

The old rules of thumb wrt usage of cores and threads in gaming no longer flies. Yes, physical cores are still better, but a lack of HT/SMT also is a versatility limitation that will cause its own issues nowadays. It is sort of 'expected' that your CPU has those additional threads, and software will use them to maintain consistency on the heavier tasks. This development took a sweet while, but we've been looking at 8 thread CPUs for quite some time now, we asked for it for a decade And now that its here, people apparently forgot about it and jump on 6c/6t

8700k is actually better than 9700k despite losing on averages too.
It just seems like despite how fast an 8c/8t cpu is,6c/12t with HT is still delivering more consistent performance.It's not just the min. fps,but cpu load as well.It's definitely a thing to look out for,I witnessed it myself with 4790K.5775c can handle +90% loads like a champ cause of l4 cache,but with a cpu with no edram to fall back on you really wanna keep the usage down.

Here's what I would recommend for a high refresh rate gaming rig:
1.9900K,the mother of all cpus,really no weak points
2.8700K
3.9700K
4.8700
5.8600K/9600K

(....) the rest is in random order,2600X/2700X and 8400/9400 will go back and forth.2700X and fast ram will be the best option but at the same time it's far from budget option considering you need to go b-die for +3400 speeds.For intel you just buy the cheapest 3600 16 kit and you're set.

 

[MrGRiMv25]

Yep, choosing the right testing spot is crucial ! Also how you gather and transalte the data is important.

I couldnt agree more on what you've said but the thing is, when CPU testing almost all reviewers just load up the in-game benchmark and calls it a day. If a game doesnt have it, they probably will use something from the start of the game. Thats why, in a lot of games we see little to no difference, even between CPUs in totally different classes. And I dont think the situation will change with Zen 2. Even if all the problems and ''achilles heel'' of Ryzen are fixed and the CPUs are more than competitive. That is at least from the usual review outlets.

For Example, the Far Cry 5 results from PurePC are pretty much inline with Techpowerup's. Im not sure, but I think FaCry 5s benchark is not good for CPU testing, it looks like pre rendered tour, without much interraction/AI, but the game is so single-threaded that it doesnt really matter. And in contrast The Witcher 3 results are way off. PurePC use Novigrad as a test run, which is infamously heavy on the CPU. Wonder what section of the game TPU have for their benchmark.

I usually read PurePC's reviews, and Ive always been curious about the second metric they use. Im pretty sure its not 1% low's (let alone 0.1%), because its super consistent with the main, and not too far off. Im also curious what tools they use.

I also like Gamers Nexus, but they use in-game benchmarks, and have heavy, unnecessary scientific approach that hurts their work (back to the thing you've said about playing the game). And the irony is their name is ''Gamers Nexus'' . I Dont wanna bash on them of course, I guess this is how it works out when you have to work with such a small team + their work is quite intensive to publish. If they change their ways, they will be one of the best, If not the best, especially since TechReport is no more.




Given your expectations you should've chose the varous percentiles, not the FPS low ?

I didn't notice you could choose more than one option by the time I had voted haha, serves me right for posting too quickly.