AMD Ryzen 3 1200 3.1 GHz

[notb]

No this is not, and if you read the post you will see that this isnt the case when you see the watch dogs 2 FPS that it clearly changes which is completely different from what he states.

I was referring to benchmark resulting in similar FPS at different resolutions (like Fallout 4).
Watch Dogs 2 is exactly the opposite situation. FPS differ between resolutions, but not with different CPUs. That's a GPU bottleneck. Only when you lower the resolution, you'll see a difference between CPUs (look at 1920x1080). This is why TPU tests 720p as well. It's all very understandable and logical if you take a moment to contemplate...

 

[hat]

Looks like it doesn't do so well in CPU heavy games... but it would have been interesting to see a quick 1080p test run of one of the games it fell behind in (like CIV 6, Hitman, Fallout 4) when overclocked.

Remember, back in the day, one major aspect of overclocking used to be buying cheaper, lower and hardware and cranking it up to run at the same level of the more expensive hardware. There is significant value in that.

 

[Melvis]

I was referring to benchmark resulting in similar FPS at different resolutions (like Fallout 4).
Watch Dogs 2 is exactly the opposite situation. FPS differ between resolutions, but not with different CPUs. That's a GPU bottleneck. Only when you lower the resolution, you'll see a difference between CPUs (look at 1920x1080). This is why TPU tests 720p as well. It's all very understandable and logical if you take a moment to contemplate...

Ok I think I get what your saying here, and if this is the case then the FPS on the Ryzen 1200 would there for be the same on any other CPU tested, but it isnt, its the exact same 51FPS with the Ryzen 1200.

Also why is it then that weaker CPU's (with the same GTX 1080) get better or different FPS then this Ryzen 1200? This just doesnt add up in my eyes.

 

[Russell Harris]

I think people for get that your eyes can't see past 30fps anyway and high frame rates in a game without a monitor that supports it does you no good either. You latterly can't out do you physical limitations as a human, but hey you free to was your money. The intergraded graphics is really a mute point for this processor we all know they are releasing a line of APU's so that will be the real test for zen and since AMD generally has better low-end CPU's with graphics I think they'll win this round especially with AMD Dual Graphics.

 

[Durvelle27]

I think people for get that your eyes can't see past 30fps anyway and high frame rates in a game without a monitor that supports it does you no good either. You latterly can't out do you physical limitations as a human, but hey you free to was your money. The intergraded graphics is really a mute point for this processor we all know they are releasing a line of APU's so that will be the real test for zen and since AMD generally has better low-end CPU's with graphics I think they'll win this round especially with AMD Dual Graphics.

The human eye can see as much as your brain can handle

 

[notb]

Also why is it then that weaker CPU's (with the same GTX 1080) get better or different FPS then this Ryzen 1200? This just doesnt add up in my eyes.

"Why weaker CPUs get better FPS than Ryzen 1200?"
Do you see the issue in this question?

 

[Melvis]

"Why weaker CPUs get better FPS than Ryzen 1200?"
Do you see the issue in this question?

Nope!

So why is it then?

 

[Russell Harris]

it's because of how the program is written, single and up to four threads intel has an advantage in gaming and some other tasks. where Ryzen shines in moving large amounts of data quickly which is why it performs better in higher resolution applications. what would of helped the Ryzen 3 is to have left the cores on a single CCX the cross talk slows things down they are still great cpu's.

 

[Russell Harris]

The human eye can see as much as your brain can handle

Sorry your wrong there is a reason film is shot at 30fps and it's because the human eye only sees at a little over 29fps.

 

[GoldenX]

Sorry your wrong there is a reason film is shot at 30fps and it's because the human eye only sees at a little over 29fps.

It can see only 30fps when the consecutive frames are smoothed, check frames on any movie, now check screenshots of your games. On still frames like on games, the brain can process much more information. 24 and 30 frames per second was used to save on resources, film was expensive back then. Why do you think monitors use 60Hz as standard? Try using your monitor at 30 or 40 Hz with a custom resolution, tell me what happens.

 

[Deleted member 163934]

I think people for get that your eyes can't see past 30fps anyway and high frame rates in a game without a monitor that supports it does you no good either.

Please point to a couple of scientific researches that clearly prove that the human eyes just can't send the informations needed for the brain to process more than 30 fps.

As far as I know human eyes + brain can handle hundreds of fps.

This 30 fps myth show up constantly but I never ever saw a scientific research to back it up.

 

[notb]

Please point to a couple of scientific researches that clearly prove that the human eyes just can't send the informations needed for the brain to process more than 30 fps.

As far as I know human eyes + brain can handle hundreds of fps.

This 30 fps myth show up constantly but I never ever saw a scientific research to back it up.

But can you show a paper about how human "eyes + brain can handle hundreds of fps"? Because it's not true, you know...

A typical research suggesting that people see hundreds of fps are very simple: you're being flashed by very short impulses and asked whether you've seen anything or not.
One only needs a tiny bit of physics knowledge (or general understanding of digital photography), to get why we can see flashes that take much less than 0,01s.

On the other hand, in a different experiment - observing a flickering diode with controlled frequency - most people state that they don't see the flickering above 40-50Hz. At that point the brain is already simplifying the image. And it's just a diode - not a very complicated thing to interpret.

 

[EarthDog]

It can see only 30fps when the consecutive frames are smoothed, check frames on any movie, now check screenshots of your games. On still frames like on games, the brain can process much more information. 24 and 30 frames per second was used to save on resources, film was expensive back then. Why do you think monitors use 60Hz as standard? Try using your monitor at 30 or 40 Hz with a custom resolution, tell me what happens.

Exactly.. PC gaming doesn't have a natural motion blur, like real life, hence why 24 FPS isn't choppy to humans in film.

 

[notb]

Exactly.. PC gaming doesn't have a natural motion blur, like real life, hence why 24 FPS isn't choppy to humans in film.

I think we can all agree that switch from 24-30 fps to 60fps is visible and welcome.
But 144fps or even above... I'm sure almost all people with 144Hz LCDs play with fps information visible on the screen - the only way for them to feel that spending $2000 on a gaming PC was a good idea...

 

[GoldenX]

I think we can all agree that switch from 24-30 fps to 60fps is visible and welcome.
But 144fps or even above... I'm sure almost all people with 144Hz LCDs play with fps information visible on the screen - the only way for them to feel that spending $2000 on a gaming PC was a good idea...

I went from 60 to 94Hz after overclocking the display and the jump is noticeable even without a fps counter.