Things like the 1600AF faded as technology advanced. Modern alternatives offer similar performance and features.
Things like the 1600AF faded as technology advanced. Modern alternatives offer similar performance and features.
Are you sure about the 1080p low settings? What happens with higher resolutions? I’m not interested in comparing my setup to yours since it’s just a matter of trying different options. I’d rather run the game smoothly at 4K ultra without any hiccups. Based on benchmarks, I expect around 500 FPS at that resolution. For higher settings, I’m worried it could cause more issues than it solves. The numbers I saw surprised me—especially with the Ryzen 9 5950X versus the Intel 19 10900K. It’s wild to think such a performance gap could exist. Let’s focus on the facts instead of making assumptions.
Discussing tiny FPS variations is a fun topic. 2021 was a great year for this kind of debate.
Agreed - If a single digit difference in FPS was my biggest concern I'd be set. Also once you start getting above 150 FPS the human eye can't tell the difference anyway, FPS just becomes a number and that's about it.
do you really think a 16-core processor outperforms a 10-core one? you seem unaware that core count affects performance. more cores mean less pressure on a single core, allowing it to manage more tasks—so it makes sense that a 16-core beats a 10-core, especially with benchmarks from CPUs that have integrated graphics versus those without.
Interesting shift in opinions. Until the Ryzen 5000 launched, most people thought Intel was slightly better for gaming while AMD excelled in workloads and multitasking. After its release, Intel struggled significantly. It feels like a surprising change in perspective.