Hey /v/, I need help solving a FPS issue.
Or a lag issue, I'm not sure what it is.
This WebM shows off what happens in game. Everything seems to take just a fraction of a second to update, so it seems like things just zip forward bit by bit.
It can make aiming feel impossible because they are always zipping out of your line of fire.
I've tried playing around with the setting, but nothing seems to do it. Any advice for me?
>>339473773
>>339473773
Looks a bit like microstutter but more pronounced?
I'm assuming your drivers are to date? It may not be a problem inside Overwatch itself, have you had a look to see if another background CPU process is chewing cycles? Is your CPU or GPU topping out at 100%? If you drop graphics to low temporarily does the problem disappear or is it still apparent?
Sometimes USB devices polling can cause this too. Try unplugging any extraneous devices (e.g. not mouse, keyboard) and seeing if the problem disappears. If it does solve things then you can plug them back in one by one until you find the one causing you the issue.
>>339473773
>>339474226
I had this problem too but I got it fixed.
>>339474538
thanks for sharing your experience with us man.
Post your specs, negro. Everything.
>>339474369
Thanks for the advice.
I've noticed this before on other games, so I'm fairly certain it's not overwatch. Though I seem to remember messing with rendering settings to get it to go away.
My CPU doesn't get maxed out when it happens, and I usually turn of everything except Discord while Overwatch is running, which doesn't help.
Changing the graphic settings has little to no effect. Whether the game looks like crap, it still stutters.
Didn't think about USB stuff. I guess I'll check that out, and make sure drivers are all up to date (Almost always are. Just switched to Windows 10 recently, so maybe there's something there)
>>339473773
Switch to Hanzo
>>339474647
Yeah. Been playing Monkey and Mercy because of this.
>>339473773
Sent you the fix ;)
>>339474636
Probably not driver settings related but it might be worth a 'clean install' for your driver that resets all the settings too.
>>339473773
Do you have a asus rpg or other asus product as a pc anon?
>>339473773
Something's chewing up your CPU cycles
>>339473773
AMD card?
I have that issue too, pretty sure it's CPU related but I'll be upgrading from my FX4100 this week
>>339474860
>pic related
>>339474761
I haven't heard of that, so I'm going to guess no, but if it shows up on Speccy I can check that.
I only know Asus for laptops/monitors
As an aside, this computer came from my bro when he built it back in highschool.
If it's time to upgrade this gives me a perfect excuse.
>>339475042
>AMD confirmed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJxCdh1Ps48
>>339475042
>HD 6800
Nigga, there's your problem right there. Your system is shit. Time to upgrade your toaster.
>>339475151
fug, this is why /v/ shittalks AMD in the build threads, huh.
Well, it's likely just that simple. I'll get a new graphics card soon.
Thanks for the advice anon.
>>339475207
Yep. It's about that time.
Still, kinda sucks that turning down all the settings doesn't even help this. You'd think that making the game look like shit would let it at least run, and not stutter like a motherfucker
>>339475207
If it was just lacking GPU performance they'd be getting a consistently bad framerate. The webm shows FPS of 40/50 in between stutters
I had this problem as well, are you using an Asus laptop by chance?
>>339475308
If you're on a laptop check the dumb thing isn't switching to integrated graphics instead of a dedicated card and that you're not on power saver.
>>339475308
Surprisingly no. My friend did just buy an Asus laptop, is there something I should test with it?
I'm using a custom built PC my brother made.
>>339475293
See, that's what I was thinking. I can play most games on this computer just fine, but the microstutter is making competitive FPS way harder than they need to be.
>>339475286
Get a used GTX 970 if you want go cheap mode, or buy a GTX 1070. With either of those you'll be able to max the fuck out of OW and still run it at 100+ FPS.
>>339475286
6870 masterrace here.
yours is probably more shit version. i am waiting polaris for upgrade
>>339475286
>You'd think that making the game look like shit would let it at least run
why would you think that? your video card is over 6 years old and you don't meet minimum requirements. you have half the video memory of the minimum requirements
>>339475491
you've got quite a hot cpu, what resolution are u playing at? the Vram could be gimping
>>339475491
I hope this elaborate bait, Anon.
>>339475517
>3.5 meme
>or 500$ nvidia meme
nah op. just wait polaris
>>339475491
>CPU at 90c
I found your problem, dude, you need a fucking heatsink
>>339474591
PM you the fix :)
>>339475491
JESUS CHRIST WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO YOUR POOR CPU
DUST THAT FUCKER AND CHECK THE FANS AND HEATSINK
>>339475491
>cpu 89c
annnnnnnd we found our culprit
>brother gave you a computer with amd cpu AND video card
he hates you, im sorry to tell you
>>339473773
bitcoin dataminer using gpu. had the exact same problem with games a while back when i installed some shit from a one of my friends whom im not friends with anymore.
>>339475491
recommended MAX temp for that CPU is ~70C
>>339474636
>discord
literally spyware
try uninstalling and watching as your issues magically vanish
>>339475696
>actually running a bitcoin miner on your gaming pc
your computer is already full of trojans
>>339475491
>window 10
Found your problem
>>339475767
not after a format it isnt lel
>>339475835
Hope you completely flattened it and zero'd the drive
>>339475546
>6 years old
Holy fuck anon, that's a long time ago. Has it really been that long?
Christ.
I mean mostly that the stuttering is crap, if it were low framerate at least I could adjust but. Still, you have a point.
>>339475595
1920 x 1080. I messed around with making it smaller and it didn't stop the stuttering.
>>339475621I wish it was.
>>339475630
>mfw my brother forgot to install one
God I hope that's not true.
>>339475675
>>339475692
>>339475732
Oh shit.
Well, keep in mind it's summer in Arizona here. My friend's CPUs are overheating as well.
That being said, I didn't realize mine was quite as bad as it is.
>>339475696
If this is legit, how do I go about getting rid of it? I've done the /v/'s guide to virus removal CONSTANTLY, and nothing is found except chrome extensions. I delete those and nothing changes.
>>339475761
/v/ seems pretty split on Discord. It's odd.
What do others in this thread think about it?
No way it's causing the problem though
>>339475810
Same dif
>>339475810
perpetuating the shit on windows 10 immediately protocol is also a meme
>>339475982
Hello Bill.
>>339475810
Windows 10 only effects games that use directx9, and even then only when the game has been modified to use way beyond its normal vram, that has nothing to do with it
>>339475950
summer in arizona means your ambient temp is 20f higher than mine. meanwhile, your processor is 60f higher than mine
i know you dont seem like a super computer building type guy, but when you see stuff like the red temperature number there. cmon guy.
I have the answer to your problem friendo, just follow these simple steps
it's the latest patch
http://us.battle.net/forums/en/overwatch/topic/20744624271?page=14
blizzard will fix it... maybe
>>339473773
Try unparking your cores.
>>339476150
https://youtu.be/r2MEAnZ3swQ
hey, aslong as u get it on there
>>339476150
can't wake up
>>339476112
Believe me, I understand the red number sucks.
But I read plenty of people who said Overwatch runs hot. Also, plenty people said along the lines of "For the record, GPU's can handle up to 100 C normally. And It will most definitely let you know if it's too hot."
That's the reason I didn't think the freak out
>>339476150
>mainboard
triggered
>>339475950
if you haven't actually downloaded a miner you're fine you don't need to scour your pc for something that isn't there.
discord is fine, it takes a little more cpu usage than smaller clients like mumble though, which may be why people don't like it.
the real problem definitely seems like your cpu's cooling system may be fucked up, ask your bro if he did actually put a heat sink in there and if he did open it up and take a look for any problems and dust it (ask your bro if you don't know how to do this)
depending on your setup the fan that's supposed to be diverting heat away from the cpu may have stopped working or something.
>>339476314
GPU's can handle that heat, but that's your CPU we're sorry for
>>339476051
hello anon, it's strawman
>>339474538
/thread closed 02/01/2003
>>339476314
CPUs are not GPUs and because something "can handle" 100c does not mean you EVER want to reach those temps. running at high temps WILL degrade and kill hardware over time.
it doesn't mean anything to say a game "runs hot". most games are expected to use 100% of all available resources, they will not run hotter than any other game
because you have a good framerate in between the stutters, your problem indicates some kind of windows issue or virus, or encroaching hardware failure.
>>339476361
>ask your bro if he did actually put a heat sink in there
no, don't ask him this, because it's a stupid question. standard desktop cpus will not continue to run without a heatsink for more than a couple minutes max without rebooting.
it's just full of dust
>>339476461
Pretty sure it's that CPU. I think I can hear it screaming from here.
>>339476361
I've actually had to rebuild my friend's computer from scratch, since he wanted to upgrade but had a pre-built piece of shit.
I also took a class on doing this kind of work, so I'm definitely not afraid to get my hands dirty.
The main thing I'm not sure about is the research regarding heatsinks. Like, how would I tell if the one I have is bad? Or if I needed a new one, how would I tell it's compatible?
I'm not expecting you to answer those, I'll find it out, but if you truly think that overheating CPU is causing this problem, then it's definitely worth my time to get in there.
Probably should anyway, but this gives me a reason I guess.
>>339476407
Yeah, I realized that right after I copied it. Don't have my glasses on. Thanks for helping me out though.
>>339476461
Thanks for the advice anon. Seemed to be tons of comments saying 'running hot' means nothing for games, but I'm more inclined to believe you then reddit fags.
So then I should get my CPU fixed so it's not running hot, and then try to find the incompatibility that's causing the stutter, right?
Could it just be an old as balls GPU like the other anon(s) have said?
>>339476598
1. take side off case
2. blow out
3. ??????
>>339476150
this is triggering me so hard
>>339476649
>Like, how would I tell if the one I have is bad?
by understanding what a heatsink is. how can a heatsink be bad?
its common for modern med-high end gpu parts to run like 80c...100c? no, thats a problem. cpu should not ever run anywhere near that hot.
>So then I should get my CPU fixed so it's not running hot
just blow the dust out nigger what the fuck youre acting like its changing a transmission out
>Could it just be an old as balls GPU like the other anon(s) have said?
no, the gpu is shit but if your gpu couldnt handle the game why would it render decent framerate between stuttering? computers do not lag behind and then play catch up
>>339476670
I do that all the time. At least once every three months.
>>339476670
I'm aware of how things work, anon. Just saying I think the problem is that melting cpu. Poor thing.
u guys sure it's the cpu? looks like software problem to me
>>339476815
I dust my PC all the time though, anon.
It's on the floor so I know how important it is to get the dust out.
>why would it render decent framerate
That's why I'm stumped. There's something else causing the game to stutter.
If it's just a bad patch like >339476184 said, then there's not much I can do. I have updated all drivers and messed with all the settings.
>>339477048
overheating classically manifests as software problems in addition to reboots
>>339475950
>mfw my brother forgot to install one
Your pc seriusly dont have a heatsink?
I find that had to believe
>>339475950
dude your computer is shit. time to upgrade.
>>339477076
>I dust my PC all the time though, anon.
then your cpu fan is not turning or the heatsink is mounted to the cpu incorrectly and is not making full contact. you can verify the first one immediately.
heatsink+fans are sold based on the socket of your motherboard. good ones are usually compatible with a bunch of different recent types
there is no reason to buy anything for this computer, even a fan. it is so hopelessly outdated i suggest moving forward
>>339477108
Nah, of course it has one.
But the thought of someone building a PC and forgetting one somehow makes me laugh.
>>339477169
Damn it dude, I just ordered a Vive. Will I have trouble using it?
>>339477206
RIP PC.
I guess I just needed to hear the cold hard truth.
He said it would be good for at least the next couple years.
And here we are, 5 years later. It has lived it's life.
>>339477309
if you have a budget i will help you i am bored
if you do it later, follow my three golden rules
1. your motherboard and power supply should be relatively expensive components, not cheap ones. paying $50 more doesnt seem like much when you're suddenly without your pc for two weeks on RMA
2. never buy more than mid range $250 type video cards. buying expensive video cards is a fools errand, a year later the midrange $250 card is as good as your previous $400 card
3. don't buy AMD products.
>>339476408
Hello bill, for someone with a high IQ you don't even know what's a straw man. Kudos!
>>339477512
Your advice is shit nigger. Just look at logicalincrements.com and build it around that.
>>339475491
What's this program called now again?
>>339477598
you can do that. my advice is more valuable than logicalincrements, in a sysadmin over thousands of people and ive been building pcs for 20 years
>>339477607
You could've just googled it.
>>339477643
kek, pretty sure that logicalincrements has been build with advice from people like that anyway.
>>339477691
ok, what do I google for then?
>>339477730
The image.
>>339477691
and they have their own opinions which leads them to do stupid shit like use asrock motherboards and not use fractal design cases.
its a good resource but having someone personally help you is always better, if they know what theyre talking about.they also recommend amd gpus above destitute level which is unforgiveable
>>339477778
>>339477785
>Their opinions are opinions and stupid
>My opinions are fact and not stupid
A combined guide of multiple people's opinions and based on benchmarks is better than a single person's "experience". I mean, you can't even type correctly.
>>339477869
I said image, not thumbnail.
>>339477896
>A combined guide of multiple people's opinions and based on benchmarks is better than a single person's "experience"
too many cooks etc.
amd graphics cards suggested etc. it's made by /v/ nerds and not professionals as you posit etc.
anyway i dunno why youre dick riding maybe just shut your mouth since you werent addressed to begin with thx :)
>hurr u cant type
i've literally been typing longer than you've been alive
>>339477896
I'm just fucking with you.
>>339477512
Well thank you anon, that's very kind of you.
I'll keep those rules in mind, wish I'd have known building that friend's crappy pre-built back up.
I don't remember having very many options with Power Supplies. I got a 'gaming' one, the only one that had enough power to work with the graphics card we got for his computer (which I don't know off hand).
$250 for a video card seems way doable. I'd have a budget of about $700 now, but I'm going to be moving soon so I'll want to wait until after I've settled down to get a new rig.
>don't buy AMD products
Noted.
Oh, with my friend, I remember accidentally purchasing a mini motherboard. I forget what it was called, but it was absolutely tiny, supposed to go in smaller PC cases. It fit everything, but just barely. Avoiding that would be ideal, yeah? Put my money into getting a good motherboard that can house extras if I need 'em?
I was also told that PCs no longer need DVD slots, or whatever they are called. That true?
>>339478016
AMD products are fine, especially Polaris which is coming up. Actually affordable and good, unlike the 1070 or 1080 of Nvidia. And you won't get shit like 3.5GB.
I fixed it guys, you can close the thread now :))
>>339475308
Im not him but im having this problem on an asus laptop too though not as pronounced usually happens when stuff pops into view like the minions from League
>>339477991
>it's made by /v/ nerds
You really have no idea what you're talking about, eh?
>>339478016
are you talking about mini itx a motherboard thats like 6 inches square? no you wouldnt use that for a gaming pc generally
you don't really need a dvd drive if you aren't going to use dvds. you can do windows with usb, network etc
Wait for GTX 1080, we already told you to not play games.
>>339477512
Oh, another question from you, when I look at CPUs, they offer something like '2.6GHz' then a turbo mode.
What's a good base number, and what's the point of turbo mode?
Do these things even matter in the long run?
>>339478016
>I remember accidentally purchasing a mini motherboard. I forget what it was called, but it was absolutely tiny, supposed to go in smaller PC cases.
Probably Mini-ITX, if you want a fullsize mobo you're looking for ATX form factor.
>>339478016
>I was also told that PCs no longer need DVD slots, or whatever they are called. That true?
Optical drive? Depends on your requirements really - do you have need for it to play DVDs/Blurays? Do you buy games digitally? Only thing you probably need to think about is how you're installing Windows (I assume Windows can do install from a USB stick nowadays).
>>339478125
stuttering when stuff comes into view in games is either slow hard drive, slow memory, not enough memory, or slow memory bandwidth. different problem
>>339478157
why would i know about logicalincrements when i just told you i've been building pcs for 20 years and work as a professional? why would i use the site? lol
>>339478213
How much is that going to cost anon.
I can't seem to find a price for it.
>>339478283
>why would i know about logicalincrements when i just told you i've been building pcs for 20 years and work as a professional? why would i use the site? lol
I assumed you did considering you were talking about how it's shit. I'm sorry that I assumed you knew what you were talking about, and assumed that you weren't a retard.
>>339478309
700$. A fucking steal mate.
>>339478254
>Do these things even matter in the long run?
No not really anymore. CPUs in particular are so overpowered now compared to the demands of most games/programs that it's ridiculous.
Buy the CPU based on the socket you want to go with, and then the model you see mentioned a lot or whichever one has a lot of reviews on newegg
you said you have $700 so lets say, youd go with a prev generation processor in order to maximize your value because the brand new stuff is a bit more expensive. so that is LGA 1150 the recently used intel socket.
So on newegg, you see on the left side i have lga 1150 checked and core i3 and core i5 (we will look at mid and high-midrange processors for this socket) then I also select newegg as the seller (important!!) and near the right side i sort by best rating.
What this allows you to do is see the commonly bought, highly rated processors in different price brackets. So you see the 3.5ghz is very highly reviewed but the 3.2ghz right under it is damn near the same thing for $50 less. That amount of processor speed will make 0 difference to over 90% of users. Down at the bottom you see you can go budget mode and get the best reviewed core i3 processor for $130. For a lot of people, this $130 processor would give them the exact same performance in the games they play as the $230 one.
This is the stuff you have to do to build a computer well. Play with your options for the money and analyze everything
>>339478821
>Analysing store reviews
>Not looking at benchmarks for games you want to run for those particular CPUs
>Neglecting the 2 core difference
>>339478283
Here are the specs of my laptop.
PU Intel BYT-M 4Core up to 2.66ghz 4GB Ram 1TB HDD OS WIN 10 Graphics card Nvidia GeForce 920M
I would post a speccy but im at work right now.
>>339478821
Damn anon, this is some really awesome information.
So they way that you came up with the socket to use is based on...?
Would it be based on the type of motherboard that I get? After that, it's picking the generation that you stated.
And I assume I could do the same type of process for GPUs, along with getting opinions from others to fit my need.
This makes me feel a lot better thinking about making a new PC for me to use.
I assume I'd mostly toss out most of the stuff I have now, yeah? Like I could keep the optical drives and the power supply should be fine, but a new motherboard, CPU, GPU, and the like would be what I'm looking for.
I guess then I'd ask what I should do with my computer here. My dumbass friend kept the pieces of his shitty pre-built, which is beyond useless, should I just had all my old crap in to a bestbuy or whatever?
I am not interested in selling it, unless it's actually worth the effort.
>>339479000
nice trips mang let's address your points
you analyze store reviews *on certain sites* because the people who put in reviews on those sites tend to be enthusiasts who buy certain hardware because that hardware is known good hardware. this is just one element of what you're looking at and how you shop intelligently. newegg reviews can quickly uncover which processors are the easily overclockable ones, etc, without having to do a lot of detective work
>benchmarks
near-useless fuckery for teens to jerk over. we're talking about building a system in the real world with a target amount of money
>2 core difference
it's irrelevant to the vast majority of shit, and you have to expect some performance concessions if you're buying a $130 processor. that processor will run everything that came out this year with 0 issues when paired with a decent vid card
no you won't be able to encode video as well, but that isn't what we're talking about, is it?
>>339479190
>because the people who put in reviews on those sites tend to be enthusiasts who buy certain hardware because that hardware is known good hardware.
That's fucking bullshit. Newegg isn't an enthusiast store, it's well known as shit.
>near-useless fuckery for teens to jerk over. we're talking about building a system in the real world with a target amount of money
You're fucking clueless. They give you direct information on how well certain components will perform for real life situations. Of course, if you don't look at simulated benchmarks, but game benchmarks.
>that processor will run everything that came out this year with 0 issues when paired with a decent vid card
You're just wrong. There are CPU heavy games that will struggle with the CPU.
In short, you're fucking stupid and nobody should follow your advice, or at the very least couple it with other advice (that's just sane with any advice anyway).
>>339479169
>So they way that you came up with the socket to use is based on...?
because i knew what it was. stuff like this is some of the hard stuff, you would just have to google something like intel processor timeline. you get this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_microprocessors
then on there you can see near the bottom the most recent architectures are haswell, broadwell, and skylake, the 2 former ones using LGA 1150 and the skylake being LGA 1151
they do this shit just to make you spend money and piss you off.
in my opinion you select the processor you want first and then you select the motherboard based on that, not the other way around, this helps you control the price better and have more control over performance/cost
>the power supply should be fine
unlikely. I'm willing to bet it is a cheap POS
wipe documents off hard drive and give computer to goodwill. maintain working windows installation if possible. getting a super cheap old computer can change a poor persons life
>>339479365
what game from 2015 or 2016 will struggle with haswell 3.4ghz dual core i3?
>>339473773
Is this a laptop?
>>339479530
Struggle was not really the correct word, sorry. I meant perform significantly worse than an i5.
>>339479365
>Newegg isn't an enthusiast store
>>339479419
Aww, that's a very kind suggestion. It's odd to find a nice person on 4chan at 5 in the morning.
I bet it absolutely would help someone. Unless of course it just gets dismantled by some mexican in the area and sold to 'Pedro's Junk Store' down the street.
But there's no reason not to hope.
Better than junking it to bestbuy.
As far as the Power supply goes, I actually fried the one that came with this PC. I cannabalized a different one, but my computer still wouldn't turn on. I ended up snagging a $100 power supply that worked. Still worth getting a new one?
>>339479556
Nah. Just a 6-year-old PC.
>>339479636
Not to the point where the reviews are curated enough to be taken at face value.
>>339479623
what game from 2015 or 2016 will perform significantly worse with haswell 3.4ghz dual core i3($130) than haswell 3.5ghz quad core i5 ($240)?
this is me slapping you in the face with a glove, in case you aren't getting the message.
>>339479738
GTAV. Overwatch.
>>339479676
Well there's you problem though it's not a huge one. Very easily fixed. Your environment is fine (w10) and your video card is fine. Obviously not a GPU issue. Do you happen to know what your CPU is? You might be able to fix this without buying anything.
>>339479676
if you paid $100 for it, it's probably pretty decent. beware number inflation on power supplies. people still put like 700w power supplies in their machines when they're drawing 390w. it's hilarious. you will never need more than like 650w unless your machine is getting very enthusiast level. by then you would know what you need.
>>339479727
that's why you analyze the reviews individually as you read. there's this cool thing where, when you read, you actually parse the data and determine whether you can glean valuable information from it
neweggs reviews and ratings are useful because they are largely driven by enthusiasts and professionals
>>339479931
There seem to be better places for that though.
>>339479886
Posted earlier in the thread, Speccy says "AMD Phenom II X4 965"
Which I'm not going to lie. I've never heard of it, sounds old as balls.
I seem to recall the beta noting my graphics card had an issue, but it ran fine then.
>>339480096
Oh hell no. Yeah this is going to be expensive.
AMD works fine for GPUs because it's technically not AMD. It's a company called ATi and high end Radeon cards are pretty based. NEVER EVER buy AMD as a CPU if you're building for performance though. Even their best chips are garbage.
Now you need a whole a new mobo in addition to an intel processor. Not cheap, nor will the cost be worth the upgrade price, but you will never run into these stupid issues again.
>>339480501
The Phenom II was pretty good at the time though, at least for what it cost. At this point in time, sure. But he'd need a new mobo for the latest AMD CPU anyway.
The new CPUs from AMD could be better again though, they're announcing them today. People are hyping them up, but that happens for every new hardware really.
>>339480501
Damn.
Seems like that was the conclusion some of the anons above came to.
That's alright, I need to upgrade anyway. I'll just start fresh.
Just wondering, why do I need a new motherboard? Is there something about AMD CPUs that require specific motherboards?
>>339479793
>Overwatch.
you...think overwatch stresses CPU? you picked the wrong guy to have this conversation with bro, seriously.
Here are some of your precious in-game benchmarks.
http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/1911-gta-v-cpu-benchmark-4790k-3570k-9590-more
So let's go to the CPU benchmarks and look for a configuration that reflects a user using a $100-200 CPU and an equivalent midrange video card, and the appropriate settings for targeting 60fps on that configuration.
Oh, look here, we found just the thing!
Hmm, our Haswell 4130 processor isn't here, but that's okay. We can estimate. Let's compare the performance to the AMD 8320, which was benchmarked. It looks like these CPU comparison sites universally agree that the 4130 is significantly faster than the 8320. But wait...Even the ancient, cheap AMD FX-8320 is getting 61 FPS in GTAV in this configuration! only 10 FPS less than the $350 core i7 processor!
SO IT LOOKS LIKE, BASED ON YOUR OWN EXAMPLE THAT YOU GAVE, A $130 DUAL CORE CPU DOES NOT PERFORM SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENTLY FROM A $350 QUAD CORE CPU IN ONE OF THE MOST CPU INTENSIVE GAMES IN RECENTLY HISTORY
FUCKING
REKT
KID
>>339480737
There's a 44 fps difference between the i5 and i3. That's what I'd call "significant".
Source: http://www.techspot.com/review/1180-overwatch-benchmarks/page5.html
The rest seems to be unrelated gibberish really.
>>339480637
I know because I used to have one from the same generation (Deneb). I had a 970 Black Edition... Everything is peachy until you hit its wall which is quite low. I also a have a laptop for work that uses a substantially weaker intel dual core and even THAT old 2.1ghz C2D was outperforming my quad core 970 which I had clocked at something like 3.6ghz at the time. Never again.
>>339480737
>Let's compare the performance to the AMD 8320, which was benchmarked
Oh wow, you're seriously implying that an 8 core is similar to a 2 core? Fuck.
>>339480685
Intel and AMD have different sockets, beyond that different generations of CPUs (even the same make) change the sockets too as architecture changes (they need more pins, etc resulting in a new socket).
>>339480737
>comparing AMD and Intel like they're the same shit
how can anybody take this dude seriously?
>>339480737
>FUCKING
>
>REKT
>
>KID
>gtfo kid
topkek
>>339480880
you're using benchmarks that are pitting two teams of bots against each other (unavailable in normal play) just to use extra cpu, and the game is still getting over 120 fps in each configuration
but the FPS doesn't matter because the two teams of AI bots have turned this into a CPU benchmark. you are using a game benchmark that doesn't represent the actual game being played?
what kind of fuckery is that? LOL. got embarrassed and try to come up with something?
or did you really not understand the insignificance of this?
>>339480956
no, i'm stating that the 2 core is significantly faster than the 8 core. are you keeping up? even the slow 8 core processor pulls 61 fps. the 2 core processor is much faster. do you understnad?
the haswell would be somewhere like 64-65 fps on that same chart. 5 fps difference for $200 in processor
>>339481030
>you're using benchmarks that are pitting two teams of bots against each other (unavailable in normal play)
>T-that doesn't count!
Well, it does happen though, so there is a difference?
There's also GTAV still.
>>339481010
>comparing instructions per second like they're the same shit
look at this guy, comparing cloth to fabric over here
please, please don't comment if you cannot understand what is being said. it's really troubling for this site. stupid people on my /v/.
>>339481112
>no, i'm stating that the 2 core is significantly faster than the 8 core. are you keeping up?
Where? Just by comparing them? Based on what?
>>339481170
>>comparing instructions per second like they're the same shit
>
>look at this guy, comparing cloth to fabric over here
They definitely aren't when you're talking about games. Otherwise AMD would be the king with their 8 core whatevers. Efficiency of those instructions is also important.
>>339481118
>There's also GTAV still.
did you miss the part where you got embarrassed off the site kid?
>Well, it does happen though, so there is a difference?
No, it doesn't happen. 2 teams of bots turns it into a CPU benchmark. the game isn't gpu limited by the video card in that configuration so the framerate is purely a function of the strength of the cpu. it doesn't reflect real gameplay and even if it does, how would it matter when the dual core processor is getting 120 fps?
do you even understand what is being discussed here? do you understand that using bots and not real gameplay makes the benchmark a function of the cpu strength and doesn't show the dual core processor being any slower in the game?
>>339480685
AMD and Intel use different chipsets. Think of it as one speaking Chinese and the other speaking English. They're not compatible on any level so they need motherboards that can translate their instructions to the rest of the hardware.
You can get surprisingly good ASRock LGA chipset (intel) motherboard for relatively cheap these days so now is a pretty good time to get in. The CPUs themselves are going to run you at least a couple hundred USD.
>>339473773
hear is the fix op
(You must log in to click on links)
>>339481170
>stupid people on my /v/.
why don't you get off then?
>>339481271
>did you miss the part where you got embarrassed off the site kid?
Apparently.
>No, it doesn't happen.
So that benchmark doesn't exist? Pretty sure I just saw it. Or are you saying people can only play the game like they want to?
There's a significant difference between the i3 and i5 in Overwatch. But like I said, that's not even the main point.
>>339481176
>Based on what?
BASED ON THE FUCKING IMAGE I POSTED STOP REPLYING IF YOU CAN'T KEEP UP WITH SHIT FROM TEN MINUTES AGO.
jesus fucking christ. please, i beg you, go look at EVERY SINGLE BENCHMARK ON THE ENTIRE INTERNET of a 4130 vs an 8320
by every imaginable fucking metric, hard and soft, the 4130 is faster. and yet you are trying to fucking argue this
because this is /v/ fanboy faggot shit and even when i present shit to you in academic manner, that literally cannot be argued against, you still try to fucking argue
because you're worthless pissants who don't fucking understand anything you talk about
>duhh you can't compare amd to intel benchmarks
????? the fucking framerate cant be compared because the brand of processor is different? that is literally what you said
>>339481415
>BASED ON THE FUCKING IMAGE I POSTED STOP REPLYING IF YOU CAN'T KEEP UP WITH SHIT FROM TEN MINUTES AGO.
That image doesn't imply the i3 is the same as the 8320 for GTAV. You're an idiot.
>>duhh you can't compare amd to intel benchmarks
>?????
Who are you quoting?
>>339481396
it's not a gameplay benchmark, end of story. you lost. bye now
>>339481316
might as well, i already helped OP and destroyed a 17 year old in historic fashion
>>339481520
>it's not a gameplay benchmark, end of story. you lost. bye now
kek. Who said it needed to be gameplay? Fucking moving goalposts.
>>339481520
>i already helped OP
I wouldn't say "helping somebody make terrible CPU decisions and misguiding them" is "helping".
>>339481280
>The CPUs themselves are going to run you at least a couple hundred USD.
this isn't true as the entire argument i had where i blew this kid out shows that even the most cpu intensive games like GTAV perform almost exactly the same on high end and $130 dual core processors, and the same processor blows away a game like overwatch where its capable of pulling 120 fps even while the cpu is also running 12 bots (no bots in actual gameplay)
stop. overspending. so many of you are focused on this culture of "i have to have the i5 because everyone on /v/ said to get the i5"
you can have a better monitor instead. a better mouse. gas in your car. food drugs whatever. you dont always need to chase a bigger number. its not an RPG
>>339481651
>>this isn't true as the entire argument i had where i blew this kid out shows that even the most cpu intensive games like GTAV perform almost exactly the same on high end and $130 dual core processors
This isn't true. Look at http://www.techspot.com/review/991-gta-5-pc-benchmarks/page6.html for example, 20% difference.
>>339481645
why is the cpu decision terrible? I've already proven my point overwhelmingly. So go ahead and find a game that *actually* performs worse on a 4130, because nobody has been able to say a single one yet
yeah go ahead and find some niche physics based game that doesnt use the video card for its physics
>>339481757
>why is the cpu decision terrible?
I wasn't talking about that only.
>I've already proven my point overwhelmingly.
Not really, considering there's proof against it.
>So go ahead and find a game that *actually* performs worse on a 4130, because nobody has been able to say a single one yet
There's been 2 mentioned already. Note, you didn't say gameplay, again.
>>339481651
I personally would never buy a significantly older CPU just to save money. Not to mention forcing yourself to stick with technology that isn't optimized for modern hardware/interfaces. It's best to get something from the current generation as it will last you much longer and take much further with less expenditure in the long run. Builders would call this "futureproofing".
>>339481915
Especially for CPUs that don't advance as fast as GPUs.
>>339481740
titan x benchmark at 4k. which is why in my post i made pains to state that we were looking at a logical configuration
why would you be running a 4130 and a $1000 video card?
the benchmark you posted represents each processor holding back the titan x to some extent, with higher end processors holding it back less.
it does not represent the 4130 performing more poorly in gameplay.
am i helping you guys? do you understand how what you're looking at is not useful in this context? I mean really?
you guys basically don't understand how to use benchmarks and it must inform a lot of bad decisions. you look at them and you look at the numbers but you don't understand how we're arriving at those numbers and the significance of different parts of the configuration. this is making my stomach hurt
i'll try to teach you guys so keep giving examples
>>339481915
>I personally would never buy a significantly older CPU just to save money
a year isn't significantly older and what you'd personally do does not matter. many, many people do this.
>Not to mention forcing yourself to stick with technology that isn't optimized for modern hardware/interfaces
not an issue. when it's an issue, yes that is a consideration, but between 1150 and 1151 it is not
>It's best to get something from the current generation as it will last you much longer
No it won't. You will probably never replace a processor in your system, so whatever configuration you buy right now on whatever budget is going to last the same amount of time-- or longer if you go back a single year on the cusp of a generation and get better performance.
>>339481970
>titan x benchmark at 4k.
To isolate the CPU effect. Otherwise you would never see how the CPU effects the performance.
>>339475293
Not sure if all HD6800 have 1GB but mine did when I had one.
Low VRAM memory can cause this because he constantly need to allocate and deallocate memory
>>339482112
>many, many people do this.
Your honestly the first and only person I've ever encountered that does. That seems really silly.
>>339482125
facepalm.
>Otherwise you would never see how the CPU effects the performance.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT?
IE NORMAL GAMEPLAY?
>>339482220
you're characterizing something as ignorant or unusual that's intelligent and not unusual whatsoever. i would wager that most people do it this way, actually. you think the majority of people instantly begin using a new socket just because it's out? then you haven't been building for long.
you can scoff all you want, it doesn't make it any less of a valid or normal idea.
>>339482225
Yes. For example, a shit CPU might not be obvious with a shit GPU, but it will limit the game in occasions with a shit GPU.
>>339482220
It is.
>>339482314
>i would wager that most people do it this way, actually.
Based on what? Fucking "experience"? Like the one where you just call people kids and move goalposts when arguments don't go your way?
>>339482350
that's part of it, and also that benchmarks of that sort are *fucking useless*
benchmarks need to reflect a configuration that at least somewhat resembles real world use
so far ive had people throw at me 2 examples that both reflect using the game as a pure cpu benchmark. not playing the fucking video game.
so there it is laid bare, all you care about is what "wins" the typical troglodyte /v/ mentality. not what actually matters in terms of intelligently building an efficient cost effective PC
just which number wins on the benchmark site, kek cuck da boi based t.
>>339482112
>there's no difference between 1150 and 1151
Ok. I think we're done here.
You can do what works best for you, your budget, or whatever logic you might be following but please don't go around giving people this "advice". People are depending on you to be helping them, not forcing them into another dead end.
>>339482420
>characterize your opponent as moving goalposts
>after you tried to dishonestly attack their argument with semantics
i honestly hope you die kid
>>339482565
Anon builds a processor today on 1150 for $700 or 1151 for $700.
Anon's computer performs better on 1150 because he gets a more cost-effective part on 1150. I doubt you will argue this.
Anon uses his computer for 3 years and then builds a new computer.
What is the dead end? Please tell me.
Was anon going to upgrade his processor? Please tell me he was going to ugprade his processor. Oh, please, please, PLEASE do tell me he was going to upgrade his processor! Because people do that so very often! :)
>>339482657
The new generation of system RAM for one. It's incompatible with 1150. As are the rest of the new bus speeds and bandwidths. You should stop giving advice altogether if you don't know this kind of stuff. Let's be honest.
>>339476235
>>339476150
:^)
>>339482994
>The new generation of system RAM for one. It's incompatible with 1150
So he has the opportunity to buy RAM that costs significantly more, but has zero impact on the performance of his $700 machine, whatsoever?
>As are the rest of the new bus speeds and bandwidths.
The what? The series of tubes?
"the bus speeds are incompatible" "the bandwidths are incompatible"
how embarrassing. and you're even acting condescending.
>>339483075
Again and for the last time, we're done here. Enjoy the rest of your day.
>>339483190
yes, we are
>anon has $700 to spend so he should buy DDR4 ram for a premium
>it'll make your games faster guys!!
here's an experiment for you to do as the screen door hits you in the butt on the way out:
go into bios and *halve* the speed of your ram. benchmark your most intensive games before and after. go do that for me, kay?
>>339482465
>that's part of it, and also that benchmarks of that sort are *fucking useless*
>Limiting the game's fps on occasions with real world GPUs are fucking useless
Okay.
>>339482571
>>characterize your opponent as moving goalposts
Not my fault that you did.
>>after you tried to dishonestly attack their argument with semantics
Where? Because I'm pretty sure that would happen after the goalpost moving.
>>339483075
>So he has the opportunity to buy RAM that costs significantly more
>DDR4
>Significantly more than DDR3
