_Aramchek_

Members
  • Content Count

    704
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

144 Excellent

About _Aramchek_

  • Rank
    Junior Rocket Scientist

Recent Profile Visitors

836 profile views
  1. Respectfully, you seem more interested in finding ways to confirm your bias than looking at most of these benchmark numbers, most reviews show exactly the same thing, the new Ryzen's run warm, they don't win for gaming...at 5.1ghz my 9600k will beat a 3900 even when the 3900x is overclocked too..and in fact the 3900x will lose to a 3600x sometimes, they don't overclock well and that appears to be directly tied to thermal constraints, but they're great for most productivity applications. It's a good chip, but, for gaming, Intel remains the clear choice, and that would apply to KSP too. "Since even the 9400F is reaching 65°C in Prime95" I did say I hit mid to high 60c's in heavy benchmarking. I'm not sure what your point was there? I will say my chip is a very good overclocker and only needs 1.265v to run at 5.1. But again, it doesn't get very hot and rarely goes over mid 50's. Most honest sites would also tell you, watercooling and air cooling are mostly equivalent when it comes to max temperatures, sometimes air cooling even works better. That chart shows the 3700x using 114-120 watts under load, 90 watts seems unrealistically low for a 8 core/16 thread part and isn't in line with what any other reviews have seen.
  2. They run very, very warm, he was getting 94c before delidding, and 88 after. For a comparison, my 9600k@ 5.1ghz rarely ever goes over mid 50's during actual usage, and hits mid-high 60's in heavy benchmarks.
  3. Lol, the 9600k is the direct competitor, why do you think amd called their chip a 3600? And the 9600k beats it pretty solidly. Look at the benches again, especially when you start overclocking, the 9600k beasts the 3600 in gaming. In productivity stuff, the new Ryzens win, as was expected. If you game, stick with Intel, especially if you overclock, if your main use is editing video's go AMD. Nah, it's good, they almost caught up in gaming, and they blew past Intel in many other areas. I'm a gamer, who overclocks though, so that makes Ryzen 5 less appealing to me. Although, I've heard that leaked 10th gen Intel info shows that their next generation of chips will also have a double digit increase in IPC over their current gen.
  4. Nope, in gaming Intel still wins, and overclocking with the new Ryzen chips was even worse than expected, barely being able to do 4.3ghz@1.41v. Like I said, good luck fining any 8th/9th gen Intel chips that won't hit 5ghz or higher. It's pretty much exactly what I said, in gaming, Intel is still ahead, in productivity, Ryzen wins...most of the time. Intel does even better in games that are cpu limited, Ryzen can catch up in very heavily multithreaded game, but those are still relatively rare tbh.
  5. If further releases ever become Epic games exclusives, I won't be buying them, Private division is NOT a trustworthy company.
  6. Based on your own assumptions, and nothing else, anyone can just make numbers up. Also, I just ran this on my pc.
  7. In AMD's own gaming benchmarks, every single one of their cpu's was around 5-10 fps slower than it's Intel counterpart, in MOST, not all, but MOST scenario's. The 3600x trailed the 9600k, the 3700x trailed the 9700k, etc., in AMD's very own benchmarks which were undoubtedly set up to show AMD in the best possible light. You cherry picking a single scenario, in a synthetic benchmark doesn't prove anything. I'll say it again, a 15% ipc increase, which is exactly what AMD claims they have done, can't possibly make up for a 20-25% difference in gaming.
  8. There's a difference between "working" and working well. I wouldn't expect that the mid-higher end chips will work well, and I wouldn't really expect any of the older chipsets to be good for overclocking any of the new chips on, due to power draw. There's a reason why the newer chipsets require much more robust-to active cooling and themselves also use around double the last generation mb's power. Intel isn't stupid either, they just announced price drops, which I think will be the main benefit for all stemming from the new Ryzen's, I think people were, and in some cases still are, expecting way too much from AMD. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that they've gotten much closer, but in gaming they were already 20-25% behind Intel, a 15% ipc increase can't fix that, and didn't, they needed these chips to reliably clock higher than they do.
  9. I mean, yeah, but you'd be hard pressed to find any 8th/9th gen Intel cpu that won't do at least 5ghz on all cores. Mine's sitting at 5.1 @1.27v, and it could go higher. In gaming, that's still a nice advantage as most games value clock speed and ipc, over more cores/threads, and it would seem Intel still has a slight edge in ipc, and a definite advantage in clock speed, at least from what we've seen so far. I look forward to seeing them out "in the wild", but I would guess, based on what we know, that not much has actually changed.
  10. In gaming benchmarks that leaked, it performs slightly under it's Intel counterparts in gaming, the 3600x trails the 9600k, etc., where it WILL do well, will be in heavily threaded workloads. Price will be more or less equivalent, with the 3600x costing about $20 less than a 9600k, this holds true going up through model numbers, aside from the 3900x which costs exactly the same as a 9900k, but AMD's new mb chipsets are more expensive, which kind of negates that slight cpu price advantage. Since you mention overclocking....well, that doesn't appear to be something that the new Ryzen chips will actually be good at, you might hit 5ghz for a single core boost, maybe, it's not a given, and if you want a decent all core overclock.....well, it's reported that they needed 1.35v to hit 4.5ghz all core, none of this paints the cpu in a great light as far as overclocking goes.
  11. In my tinkering, I've also found that counter rotating prop's reduce overall thrust and that 4 bladed props work best.
  12. It's pretty useless if they must be placed on static objects, as those are hard to find through the solar system, if your mod requires other mods that ad such things to actually work correctly then why even bother? Well, I'd prefer they actually did a good job however, this "bug" has existed the entire life of the mod, years and years worth of just letting it remain essentially broken. Criticism can be very constructive if one does not take it as a personal slight on themselves.
  13. Every single time I get near any landed vessel they explode, which makes this mod useless unfortunately. It would be nice if you'd actually try and fix that.
  14. You seem to be the one raging, why you so mad I want the game fixed? Seems a bit odd for you to be so defensive of the broken state of the game.