The MSI MEG X570 Godlike Motherboard Review: Thor's Flagship

116 Comments

View All Comments

• inighthawki - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link

  If your monitor cannot display more than 75hz, then having a framerate about 75hz cannot make it any smoother. The display will scan out one image every 13.3ms, no more, no less. However, rendering above 75hz can make it feel more *responsive* because the image being scanned out can be more recent. This is due to the reduced latency. Perhaps you are confusing the two concepts? Otherwise if it appears smoother it could just be the game itself causing enough single frame stuttering (while maintaining and average greater than 75) that makes things less noticeable at higher framerates.
  
  >> but as you mentioned.. could be cause of the games i play, dont need it.. i assume, then, you play a lot of 1st person shooters ?
  
  Yes I do. Other games are not as noticeable - many I can play perfectly fine at 60fps without an issue. However fast paced games like Overwatch are very difficult for me at anything under 144. My goal is to also switch to the 240hz panels once the 1440p panels are available.

• Peter2k - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link

  Just because 1 in a million gamers would play at 720p at all, especially after forking over major cash, does not mean its a realistic scenario

• inighthawki - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link

  My point wasn't that his scenario was realistic. He's suggesting that the only time this would be an issue (i.e when the CPU would be a bottleneck) is if you bought a mediocre CPU and spent a ton on the GPU, to which I said, is not true. Many games benefit heavily from single threaded performance on even the highest end CPUs when you're trying to hit very high framerates.
  
  It's great if the people here like to play at 4K ultra settings and get 60fps but there are a lot of people who prefer framerate over quality. Hitting 144hz or 240hz on the lowest settings in many titles is quite taxing on the CPU.

• Qasar - Friday, August 30, 2019 - link

  " Many games benefit heavily from single threaded performance on even the highest end CPUs " and that performance, is tied to the cpu's IPC, so the frequency a cpu can get.. isnt the be all tell all of performance. " but there are a lot of people who prefer framerate over quality " and there are also a lot of people that prefer quality over frame rate, point is ?

• inighthawki - Friday, August 30, 2019 - link

  Performance is based on IPC and frequency, not just IPC. A CPU that already has a higher base IPC *and* can overclocking the frequency much more has a huge advantage in single threaded performance scenarios.
  
  >> and there are also a lot of people that prefer quality over frame rate, point is ?
  
  I never said those people are wrong. I've been being told throughout this discussion that my decisions are stupid or wrong because it's what I care about. If people prefer the quality then more power to them, I'm happy they're getting what they want.

• Qasar - Friday, August 30, 2019 - link

  " A CPU that already has a higher base IPC *and* can overclocking the frequency much more has a huge advantage in single threaded performance scenarios. " then explain why Zen 2, while clocked 600 mhz slower is with in a few % of the intel equivalent. which is because Zen does more instructions per clock, then intel does at the moment. again.. the frequency a cpu can get, isnt the tell all, be all when it comes to performance.. look at the P4 and A64 days.
  if Zen 2 were to clock higher, then its quite possible, the performance would be in amds favor across the board.

• inighthawki - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link

  Youre misunderstanding what I'm saying. I didn't say "greater frequency == greater performance". You should go back and re-read my posts.

• Qasar - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link

  thats how it sounds, cause thats how you seem to have worded it.. to get higher IPC, the freq the cpu runs at, also has to go up.. but thats not necessarily the case, and with Zen2, it does more work per clock, compared to intel, which is is while clocked slower, the performance is close enough, its not worth the extra cash that intel charges, in the case of the 9900K vs 3800X the price difference is a $150 difference, personally, id rather save that 150, and put it towards a better vid card, or something else, or get the 3900X for the same price as the 9900k. its also probably a safe bet, that if Zen 2 could reach the same clocks as the intel equivalent, then the question is, based on performance and price, why buy an intel cpu

• inighthawki - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link

  >> the performance is close enough, its not worth the extra cash that intel charges
  
  And that's where we seem to disagree. The performance is not close enough. If we were talking a completely negligible give and take scenarios of 1-2fps that would be one thing. But many gaming benchmarks show the 9900K still having a 5 if not 10% upper hand in gaming scenarios. When my goal is hitting 144 or even 240fps in games, that is definitely not performance I'm willing to let go.
  
  I'm not calling Zen2 a bad CPU lineup. The 3900X is a fantastic chip and meets the requirements of many people. Just not me. I don't need core count, I need maximum single threaded performance. I don't care about the dollar per clock per watt or anything like that.

• Qasar - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link

  yep, then thats where we disagree... but that 5 or 10%. IMO.. isnt worth the price of the 9900K cause just the cpu alone is 150 bucks.. AND you NEED a mid high to high end cooler for that 9900K to reach those clocks, and sustain them add another $75 + to that, if the $200 premium is important to you, then by all means.. for me.. no thanks..