Help me decide what to upgrade

[Vya Domus]

in fact why did you even start.

Can't help but point out when something doesn't make sense.

 

[Vayra86]

Can't help but point out when something doesn't make sense.

Again, READ THE FREAKING TOPIC before you knee-jerk about someone saying something of Ryzen performance. Both you and Freedom Eclipse seem to have a hard time grasping that there isn;'t a one size fits all CPU.

 

[Vya Domus]

Both you and Freedom Eclipse seem to have a hard time grasping that there isn;'t a one size fits all CPU.

Never once argued about that. I simply pointed out an issue with your logic in general which you may or not want to acknowledge.

 

[Vayra86]

Never once argued about that. I simply pointed out an issue with your logic in general which you may or not want to acknowledge.

The logic is sound, because a large amount of game benchmarks rely mostly on the GPU and not the CPU. This is also why I support low-resolution testing for CPUs, because that highlights running a game at lower settings to achieve higher, stable FPS, and it highlights the absolute performance of a CPU, not a bottlenecked one.

In the end, CPU is a prerequisite for the rest of the pipeline to be able stretch its legs. While an average summary % is of course one truth about performance, the outliers matter just as much, if not far more because you only notice CPU performance when its lacking, not when it is sufficient.

Another important factor is that every test is a snapshot of today's situation, not the one a few years down the line, when CPU requirements will have increased but you may still be using the same monitor/resolution to game on, and likely have a faster GPU. Most people buy a CPU/platform for several GPU upgrades. And not doing so is a typical case of 'penny wise, pound foolish'.

 

[Vya Domus]

The logic is sound

That's your opinion and I can't agree with it. As you said there are more than one metrics about performance, focusing exclusively on one of them while ignoring the rest doesn't paint the whole picture.

 

[Vayra86]

That's your opinion and I can't agree with it. As you said there are more than one metrics about performance, focusing exclusively on one of them while ignoring the rest doesn't paint the whole picture.

That is fine, but a disagreement is not flawed logic, its just a disagreement, and that is because of a different perspective.

My perspective is that of high refresh rate gaming, and how it relates to people recommending Ryzen for that purpose. It simply doesn't make sense because its not the best tool for the job.

 

[msamelis]

Hey lads, thank you all for your help yet again. I was waiting to see what the 2070 would be like but the fact that and is priced like a 1080 rather than a 1070 and perhaps more importantly, there is no SLI, it forces me to skip this generation entirely. I'll just hold out until next year and upgrade the full system then, unless I get a good deal with a 1080ti - black Friday is around the corner and so is Christmas after all.

Again, thank you everyone, all your help and suggestions are highly appreciated!

 

[phill]

I'm gone from a 1070 to 1080 Ti and it's been brilliant, my only problem was that because I'm stuck with 1080P (be it triple screens) I'm not really gaining much of a boost in a way because of it even with a 5960X clocked to 4.2Ghz, but I've noticed the difference for minimum rates.. But seeing as you have a 144Hz and a 1440P panel, the 1080 Ti will give you a big boost.

I would have also said that because of that fact, a Ryzen setup would be a great option as well. Very much looking forward to building the two I have here for my girl friend and daughter

I look forward to seeing what you do and what hardware you purchase

 

[Komshija]

I wouldn't upgrade anything. The performance difference between GTX 980 Ti and RTX2080 is rather small. Upgrading from i7 3770K to i7 8700K would be a dumb idea because you will not gain much. Since you are primarily gaming, 16 GB RAM is more than enough while 32 GB is ridiculous.

There's no way that a human eye could notice the difference between eg. 100 FPS vs 115 FPS or 200 FPS vs 230 FPS, despite I know that there are folks who claim that they can clearly distinguish 85 vs 90 FPS. As long as you are above 50 FPS, you're golden.

 

[Vayra86]

There's no way that a human eye could notice the difference between eg. 100 FPS vs 115 FPS or 200 FPS vs 230 FPS, despite I know that there are folks who claim that they can clearly distinguish 85 vs 90 FPS. As long as you are above 50 FPS, you're golden.

Its not about the human eye but about human reflexes. Perception is more than vision And yes, I can easily notice 100 versus 115, and even 115 versus 120 locked. The only truth about high FPS is that it suffers from diminishing returns. The higher you go, the harder it gets to sense the difference.

 

[Komshija]

Its not about the human eye but about human reflexes. Perception is more than vision And yes, I can easily notice 100 versus 115, and even 115 versus 120 locked. The only truth about high FPS is that it suffers from diminishing returns. The higher you go, the harder it gets to sense the difference.

Sure, buddy. Sure. I can fly quite well too, but haven't yet perfected landing skills.
Most folks have trouble distinguishing between 60 Hz and 120 Hz (even Linus made one video as an example), let alone 100 vs 115 FPS. Even if someone could hypothetically notice that, humans cannot react nowhere near as fast to make any potential gains, because the average reaction time is anywhere between 0,2-0,5 seconds and it isn't consistent. You cannot react faster than seeing something on the monitor, so your reaction will depend on your perception and response time.

 

[Vya Domus]

I can easily notice 100 versus 115, and even 115 versus 120 locked.

Serious doubt but whatever.

 

[95Viper]

Since, OP has made a decision in post #32.
More bickering discussion is useless at the moment.
Thread Closed.
If OP wishes it open later... notify a Moderator/Staff.