Most 4K TVs are optimized for upscaling from 1080p to 4K. A "cheap" way to have your cake without going through DLSS/FSR.
Most 4K TVs are optimized for upscaling from 1080p to 4K. A "cheap" way to have your cake without going through DLSS/FSR.1080p is also increasingly quite reasonable, as the input resolution for various upscalers are in that area.
4060 8GB and RX 7600 since those would "force" the gamers to stick to 1080p.So how do you suggest the reviewers do it then? What GPU should they all use?
Then the results would be flat as you would run in GPU bottleneck so weaker CPUs would have relatively more time to do their work, and faster ones would sit there idling waiting for gpu to finish?4060 8GB and RX 7600 since those would "force" the gamers to stick to 1080p.
Then the results would be flat as you would run in GPU bottleneck so weaker CPUs would have relatively more time to do their work, and faster ones would sit there idling waiting for gpu to finish?
Might be reviewers could do separate "Benchmark this PC config" to show realistic HW pairings, or remove gaming workloads from CPU reviewes all together. But using GPU bottlenecked runs for CPU comparisons doesn't seem very informative.
Also higher settings can cause heavier cpu load. 1080p low settings doesn't really make sense to me. At that point high end cards are barely doing anything so results can be unpredictable.I'd like to know the relevance of game results using a $1000 graphics card at 1080p low.
I'm not dismissing the results, but they have very little value being completely unrealistic configuration. Maybe proving that this improvement in lows happens on an actual configuration someone in real life would use would have more value.
Also higher settings can cause heavier cpu load. 1080p low settings doesn't really make sense to me. At that point high end cards are barely doing anything so results can be unpredictable.
I don't think we're arguing that 1080p is a pointless resolution to benchmark. Only that benchmarking 1080P low on a $1000 graphics card is unrealistic and has little value.
Ideally they'd use graphics settings an end user is likely to use for the hardware they are testing. It's not about which graphics card they've chosen to use as much as it is using settings no one with that CPU + GPU would be using.So how do you suggest the reviewers do it then? What GPU should they all use?
Gaming performance is all about GPU and Monitor size.Also higher settings can cause heavier cpu load. 1080p low settings doesn't really make sense to me. At that point high end cards are barely doing anything so results can be unpredictable.
And that's exactly why they do it the way they do. They pick a configuration and stick with it so you can see the difference in CPU performance. If you choose lower settings and a lower tier GPU for a 9600X, then based on this I should choose higher settings and a higher tier GPU for the 7800x3d. But then I can't compare the two.Ideally they'd use graphics settings an end user is likely to use for the hardware they are testing. It's not about which graphics card they've chosen to use as much as it is using settings no one with that CPU + GPU would be using.
Just like me with my gaming rig, the 9700X can't come soon enough!The system is ready, waiting on a 9950x
heatsink on the left. video cards is asus 4090
No, Igor.4060 8GB and RX 7600 since those would "force" the gamers to stick to 1080p.
1080p is where most gamers are. Did you forget that the 3rd world citizens are the majority of gamers? Why Geforce 3060/4060 is the most owned videocard by gamers?
I do plan on testing with the 5500XT 8GB, 480 8GB, and 480 4GB; I had a 1660Ti but I gave that to my brother as a Christmas gift last yearQhd high refresh rate is only possible with the 7900xt($800) price and 7900 xtx($1400) can do. Minimal pay in my country: $300.
You're stress testing a CPU? What are you doing? People don't do that anymore.Ok, here we go, first stress test run with the traditional prime 95, latest version blend test. A good way for gaming stability to be established imo & test my cpu mounting efforts.
All auto bios settings except PBO enabled, FLCK - 2000 & EXPO profile enabled for my ram.
Kind of surprised at the average power draw cause' AVX512 disabled (useless for gaming atm) 118w average as opposed to the publicised 88w max TDP. Perhaps Asrock have implemented agesa 1.2.0.0 in a custom way for Zen 5?
CPU mounted with Thermal Grizzlies thermal guard & Kryonaut extreme TIM, system enclosed in Antec P8 case.
View attachment 105355
Typically they blame Radeon drivers. Even if they are using an Nvidia GPU.You're stress testing a CPU? What are you doing? People don't do that anymore.
They generally put in overclock settings they saw in a YouTube video or some website and never test. When they get reboots, blue screens, or application crashes they blame either Windows or drivers.
I hope you find the one that does 50,000 CB R23 at stockKeeping the best, selling the rest
Oh, how terrible of me, I'm such a bad guy....You're stress testing a CPU? What are you doing? People don't do that anymore.
They generally put in overclock settings they saw in a YouTube video or some website and never test. When they get reboots, blue screens, or application crashes they blame either Windows or drivers.
Ok, here we go, first stress test run with the traditional prime 95, latest version blend test. A good way for gaming stability to be established imo & test my cpu mounting efforts.
All auto bios settings except PBO enabled, FLCK - 2000 & EXPO profile enabled for my ram.
Kind of surprised at the average power draw cause' AVX512 disabled (useless for gaming atm) 118w average as opposed to the publicised 88w max TDP. Perhaps Asrock have implemented agesa 1.2.0.0 in a custom way for Zen 5?
CPU mounted with Thermal Grizzlies thermal guard & Kryonaut extreme TIM, system enclosed in Antec P8 case.
View attachment 105355