Seriously, it isn't like we're talking unplayable, it is still ridiculous gaming levels. It is almost guaranteed to be a scheduler problem in Windows judging by the performance deficit compared to other applications. If it isn't, it is still running very, very well.
Hell, I can play practically anything I can think of on my FX 6300, I don't really *need* a better CPU right now, I'm just really, really tempted and looking for excuses (I can't encode at the same speed in software as my Nvidia encoder, damn, I need to upgrade...)
Do you think anyone building a computer with a $500 US chip is going to just be spending $120 on a 1080p monitor? More likely they will be building it for higher resolutions
Or somebody was just happy with their existing screen?
I can actually point to two friends with 1080 screens, both lovely water cooled rigs, one is determined to keep his high-freq 1080 screen, and the other one just doesn't care. So facts is facts son.
Statistical data suggests that people don't actually often get a new display when they change a GPU and quite often that same display will be moved to a new rig too.
Average upgrade times for components are:
CPU: ~4.5 years GPU: ~2.5 years Display: ~7 years
These days you can also use any unused GPU resources for downsampling even if your CPU can't push any more frames. Both GPU vendors have build in support for it (VSR/DSR).
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
574 Comments
View All Comments
ABR - Sunday, March 5, 2017 - link
Are there any examples of games at 1080p where this actually matters? (I.e., not a drop from 132 to 108 fps, but from 65 to 53 or 42 to 34?)ABR - Monday, March 6, 2017 - link
I mean at 1080p. (Edit, edit...)0ldman79 - Monday, March 6, 2017 - link
That's my thought as well.Seriously, it isn't like we're talking unplayable, it is still ridiculous gaming levels. It is almost guaranteed to be a scheduler problem in Windows judging by the performance deficit compared to other applications. If it isn't, it is still running very, very well.
Hell, I can play practically anything I can think of on my FX 6300, I don't really *need* a better CPU right now, I'm just really, really tempted and looking for excuses (I can't encode at the same speed in software as my Nvidia encoder, damn, I need to upgrade...)
Outlander_04 - Monday, March 6, 2017 - link
Do you think anyone building a computer with a $500 US chip is going to just be spending $120 on a 1080p monitor?More likely they will be building it for higher resolutions
Notmyusualid - Tuesday, March 7, 2017 - link
I've seen it happen...mdriftmeyer - Tuesday, March 7, 2017 - link
Who gives a crap if you've seen it happen. Your experience is an anomaly relative to the totality of statistical data.Notmyusualid - Wednesday, March 8, 2017 - link
Or somebody was just happy with their existing screen?I can actually point to two friends with 1080 screens, both lovely water cooled rigs, one is determined to keep his high-freq 1080 screen, and the other one just doesn't care. So facts is facts son.
I guess it is YOU that gives that crap afterall.
Zaggulor - Thursday, March 9, 2017 - link
Statistical data suggests that people don't actually often get a new display when they change a GPU and quite often that same display will be moved to a new rig too.Average upgrade times for components are:
CPU: ~4.5 years
GPU: ~2.5 years
Display: ~7 years
These days you can also use any unused GPU resources for downsampling even if your CPU can't push any more frames. Both GPU vendors have build in support for it (VSR/DSR).
hyno111 - Wednesday, March 8, 2017 - link
Or a $200 1080p/144Hz/Freesync monitor.Marburg U - Sunday, March 5, 2017 - link
I guess it's time to retire my Core 2 Quad.