Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - RSS Headlines   RSS Headlines   Twitter   Twitter
View
9 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >


9. Re: Morning Tech Bits Aug 3, 2019, 00:32 CJ_Parker
 
Simon Says wrote on Aug 2, 2019, 16:38:
It's a damn shame that Nvidia is still fucking their customers in the arse like this and not enabling all GPU makers to make their cards/drivers/whatever compatible like Adaptive Sync is.

Clueless drivel. What the hell are you even talking about?

nVidia are now 100% supporting AdaptiveSync and you can switch on "G-Sync compatible" mode in conjunction with any AdaptiveSync (or FreeSync) monitor.

What in the world do you even mean with "not enabling all GPU makers to make their cards/drivers/whatever compatible"?
All nVidia cards from Pascal up are supporting G-Sync compatible mode on AdaptiveSync/FreeSync monitors. The "enabling" is achieved by simply using driver version 417.71 or later. That's it. It has nothing to do with the "GPU makers".

The only issue is the (or some) Adaptive/FreeSync monitors. Some displays produce e.g. flickering when using G-Sync compatible mode.
It only happens sporadically on some displays or only in certain games/applications.

That's why nVidia is testing Adaptive/FreeSync monitors extensively in their labs and certifying them on a case by case basis. Monitors that flicker or turn up any other oddities will not receive the official "G-Sync compatible" stamp of certification but you can absolutely turn on G-Sync compatible mode anyway, of course, and see/try for yourself. It's not nVidia's fault that many Adaptive/FreeSync monitors are plain garbage.

nVidia posted this article in May and a full list of certified displays can be found here.

They tested over 500 monitors. Only 28 received certification.

- 202 failed because of image quality or other issues
- 273 failed because of an insufficient VRR range. nVidia require a range of 2.4 to 1, e.g. 60Hz - 144Hz. Many, many Adaptive/FreeSync screens have a super-limited garbage range of 48Hz to 60Hz where FreeSync is extremely limited to the point of uselessness. Shit screens like that don't get certified and rightfully so.

Many of the displays that did not meet the 2.4 to 1 nVidia VRR reqs are generally working fine with G-Sync compatible, however, in spite of missing official certification.

One can easily find out by googling a certain model whether there are any user reported issues or not. Most screens work just fine with G-Sync compatible turned on which is awesome for nVidia owners since they now have a much larger range of screens with VRR support available for purchase than ever before.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

8. Re: Morning Tech Bits Aug 2, 2019, 16:38  Simon Says 
 
phinn wrote on Aug 2, 2019, 12:24:
3700X is an astoundingly good CPU, low power consumption, beats the 9900K in many productivity tests, and comes with a great cooler. That said, for gaming the 9700K and even the 9600K in many instances still beat it.

Only if you have a 2080ti at low res on a few titles, in any other scenario the difference is within margin of error. It doesn't matter for the vast majority of gamers. As for the 9600k, buying a 6c/6t cpu right now is pure madness, its already having trouble with 0.1 and 1% lows in quite a few titles, and it's only going to get worse. 9700k is also showing signs of this in canaries for these types of scenarios, like FC5 while the 8700k remains unaffected with its 4 more threads.

Nowadays, buying a CPU with anything less than 12 threads is asking for trouble in a few years. Ideal is 8c/16t and right now, the best bang for buck with minimal/unnoticeable in most scerarios perf sacrifice is the 3700x ( soon the even cheaper 3700 ) while the best bang for buck 6c/12t is undoubtedly the 3600 ( soon the even cheaper 3500 ).

And I wouldn't be surprised one bit if the 3900x held better in the very long run in those metrics than even the 9900k.

Short term 9900k is the best gaming cpu tho, but only in very specific circumstances and only with a 2080ti. It's a very, VERY niche product.

Wallshadows wrote on Aug 2, 2019, 16:36:
I won't get it since I invested a lot in to a G-Sync monitor but hopefully it'll be enough to make Nvidia lower the price of their 2080S.

It's a damn shame that Nvidia is still fucking their customers in the arse like this and not enabling all GPU makers to make their cards/drivers/whatever compatible like Adaptive Sync is.

This comment was edited on Aug 2, 2019, 16:50.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

7. Re: Morning Tech Bits Aug 2, 2019, 16:36  Wallshadows 
 
While my 8700k is just as good and in some cases better than it when it comes to gaming, AMD has given me an itch which I need to scratch and also provides me with a reason to put together an ITX rig which I've also been wanting to do for quite some time.

Shame the X570 boards are as expensive as they are but there are still some very sold, cheaper B450/X470 boards on the market which will be more than fine even with overclocking since I have zero need for PCIE4 SSDs.

All eyes now turn to the "high end" Navi. I won't get it since I invested a lot in to a G-Sync monitor but hopefully it'll be enough to make Nvidia lower the price of their 2080S.
 
Avatar 50040
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

6. Re: Morning Tech Bits Aug 2, 2019, 16:22  Burrito of Peace 
 
I love my 3700X. Intel has nothing anywhere near it in terms of power consumption and heat generation when loaded up with VMs, containers, AND gaming at the same time.

Glad that I waited for the 3000 series and glad that Mrs. Burrito pushed me in to buying when I did.
 
Avatar 21247
 



"No matter where you go, there you are." Buckaroo Banzai

There are two types of computer users: Masochists and Linux users.

If you would like help or further details on a technical discussion we're having, email me at bnhelp (at sign) keepusiel.net . Pl
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

5. Re: Morning Tech Bits Aug 2, 2019, 12:24 phinn
 
3700X is an astoundingly good CPU, low power consumption, beats the 9900X in many productivity tests, and comes with a great cooler. That said, for gaming the 9700K and even the 9600K in many instances still beat it.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

4. Re: Morning Tech Bits Aug 2, 2019, 12:09 CJ_Parker
 
HoSpanky wrote on Aug 2, 2019, 11:12:
That Ryzen article title is absurdly misleading. What they MEAN is that at ONE German retailer, Ryzen sold super well. Did that retailer have crazy sales on the chips/boards? Did they heavily push AMD over Intel? No info.

Some clickbait sites like WCCF et al like to quote Mindfactory numbers because they are so easily available. They are one of the very few (only?) stores who publicize sales numbers so they are an easy target.

I don't think that Mindfactory is favoring AMD per se but AMD is apparently buying lots of ad and promo space on that store's main page.
MF often times have huge banners and links to promos of AMD CPUs and graphics cards. Just as they do at the moment. The whole top section of the site is one huge AMD advertisement.
Sometimes they even have the entire page plastered with AMD promo stuff including the background, top, bottom, sides, everything... so you might as well think like you landed on www.amd.com instead of a store page.

Mindfactory numbers are definitely not "objective" by any stretch of the imagination. Which is fine with me by the way. If AMD want to promote their stuff via MF then more power to them.
MF are a huge store here in Europe. I also buy very regularly from them because they have great prices and decent support.
Given the circumstances with the ads & promos it is completely silly of some clickbait sites to draw conclusions from MF sales numbers though but I guess such is the nature of clickbait sites. Bait & bullshit.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

3. Re: Morning Tech Bits Aug 2, 2019, 11:55  Simon Says 
 
HoSpanky wrote on Aug 2, 2019, 11:12:
That Ryzen article title is absurdly misleading. What they MEAN is that at ONE German retailer, Ryzen sold super well.

Numbers look the same pretty much everywhere I look. Even userbench market share figures ( https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/ ) tell the same story. The top 4 chips are:

2600 @ 3.3%
3700x @ 2.66%
3600 @ 2.45%
2700x @ 2.43%

And that's just after less than 1 month of sales for the 3000 serie.

9900k is in tenth place @ 1.58%, been released for more than 6 months
8700k is in 6th place, released years ago
Highest intel is the portable 8750h chip @ 2.35% in 5th place

This tells me everything I need to know AFAIC. 3000 series aren't a paper launch because of a lack of supply, it's simply that the demand is very high, perhaps even higher than AMD envisioned.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

2. Re: Morning Tech Bits Aug 2, 2019, 11:47 Verno
 
Yeah I'm sure they are doing well but its a really misleading headline. The 9900k was sold out for awhile around here recently too, probably in part due to the 3900X being hard to find.  



Playing: Days Gone
Watching: Altered Carbon
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

1. Re: Morning Tech Bits Aug 2, 2019, 11:12 HoSpanky
 
That Ryzen article title is absurdly misleading. What they MEAN is that at ONE German retailer, Ryzen sold super well. Did that retailer have crazy sales on the chips/boards? Did they heavily push AMD over Intel? No info.

Not that I want AMD to fail, I hope sometime soon they can make processors that can beat Intel in single-thread performance. Games are still heavily single-thread reliant, so no matter how many cores they put on a Ryzen chip, they wonít keep up with Intel. I personally donít give a fuck about video encoding, so all those cores do fuckall. I guess if youíre a streamer, the extra cores are great. Iíd rather get the best gaming performance.
 
Avatar 15603
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
9 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >