I bet zen1/zen2 run big sc2 games like dog shit

Thats interesting. Could you write / fill out more details about it?

>one core at 100% the rest at 0%
Poo-ware at its finest.

reddit.com/r/AdvancedMicroDevices/comments/3h3yw1/amd_mythbusters_sc2_framerates_and_the_intel/

Unfortunately, after searching that was all I could find about it after originally hearing about it years ago when this was making headlines originally.

Whether or not it's actually true is difficult to tell, but there might be something to it if the results from that test are anything to go by.

Though getting more information about Intel's C Compiler shenanigans in general and how it's "cheating" should be a lot easier to find.

I have no idea what the fuck you're trying to say but the intel gets about 50% more FPS

why does ryzen have better frame time?

>those frame times x fps
Something doesn't add up here. Higher fps = lower frame time, not the other way around.

it doesn't

Attached: poozen.jpg (1920x1080, 1.77M)

>overclocked Intel vs stock AMD
>shitty game that doesn't even use 2 cores
>comparing last generation
Kill yourself, seething fucking pajeet

>overclocked Intel vs stock AMD

But you just said that Poozen's "auto-overclock" feature was the best.

intel is better if you're a DIY programmer then since DIY programming is a lot quicker to do when you don't have to implement multi core processing in your algos

>FagCraft
>Literally uses 1 core
kys nigglet

I don't know how many cores it uses but damn AMD's getting btfo in that benchmark

it uses 2

>ryzen 2k
the ryzen 3900 can be overclocked per ccx (3 core clusters) and you can set the affinity of sc2 via windows task manager to the specific core cluster. so you can have 3 cores run at 4.6ghz while the others stay at 4.3ghz, which will boost performance a shit load for badly threaded games

Old blizzard fan here. Indeed, SC2 and HotS run much better on Intel, but that's because they run on a 10 year old engine from the time when dual cores were still running strong. Complaining about shitty frame times should be directed to blizzard and their shitty, linear, engine, which syncs user commands between all players. That's why, when you lose connection and resume, you have basically rerun the whole game simulation from the start.

The game you're showing is as dead as the CPU you're shilling. GTFO gook.

more people play it that ever but ok

Attached: dead game.png (1920x613, 81K)

Try disabling SMT

Nice expansion filter you got there strawman, with no information from the older ones. Any other sourceless proof you got from the first link you got from Google?

Here you go:

rankedftw.com/stats/population/1v1/#v=2&r=-2&sy=c&sx=a

But you AMDreet shills keep telling us that OCing ryzen is pointless because of Poocision Boost Overdrive.

Games using more cores isn't a good thing, idiot.

kek

*NEW*e-sports doesn’t matter!

Never said anything like that
Absolute retard
Based, I can't believe there are so many Intel shills just for the sake of it. Sure I own an AMD CPU and GPU while willing to admit Sandy Bridge was bomb, but everything after it was marginal improvements. Not even talking about the mitigations, monopoly policies and such which Intel is known for. Fuck this board and the retards and the newfags shitting on it with consumer bullshit

t.

Attached: 11df3f.jpg (588x823, 39K)

>I own an AMD GPU

Only thing that gave you away as a shill.

>I own an AMD CPU and GPU

If you had an intel you could play sc2

What did I shill, homosexual?

Your faggot CPU that can't run SC2

What CPU? I pointed out how retarded this benchmark is and how much of a faggot you are, that's all Rakesh

>playing on any other settings than
>all low/off
>textures and terrain on medium

I seriously hope you guise do not do this

Attached: 3f0f68e1511be3adb578c590eaf9baae.jpg (900x652, 157K)

>SC2
>big matches
babby's first RTS

>agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49
>us.battle.net/forums/en/sc2/topic/16203380383
You can thank your daddy Intel for gimping AMD performance

even intel runs it like shit if you want to have more than 200 units (units not supply) moving on the map
youtu.be/ls1VPNjQDBE?t=111
youtu.be/VYKiqBUSkA8?t=131

Game is so bound to single core performance it will get bottlenecked by a 9700K (or rather the engine) on 1080p.

Definitely not as many as between 2010 and 2013, but it's not ded gaem yet.

B-but I want my fancy explosions and ragdoll physics

sauce for game?

>Making games look like crap on purpose
Ur dum

Attached: 00000000.gif (400x217, 999K)

>if I lose the benchmark that means it's retarded

Doesn't Windows do this with the recent updates now?

This. It's how RTS should be played t. still plays Brood War and WC3

It's the optimal way to play. Pros do it as well

The ignorance of fanboys is astounding.

I wouldn't count on it. Just test csgo for yourself:
Normal
3/4/6/8 threads
3/4 threads and set affinity for real cores of one ccx only
6/8 threads and set affinity for all threads of that ccx
It's quite an improvement.
For best results use the benchmarking map in the workshop.

Look at all those Intshills rushing to shit on AMD without even reading what the fucking test was about. Holy shit.

>10 year old games should be played at lowest detail with no shaders on top of the line hardware!
i mean ok but it doesnt help the performance when you try to move 800 zerglings at once, because graphics have nothing to do with fps at this point.

lol it is not about performance
it is about removing visual clutter

Just your typical double-digit IQ /v/irgins who just check graphs and never question anything

Attached: 1538141434799.jpg (640x360, 37K)

What are you people even sperging on about here? Both of these run the game at 200+ fps. Just who in the flying fucking fucking fuck gives a fuck about fps if you're at those levels?

did you even see this pic?

Still - why give a fuck and make these threads when "you" can afford some of the best hardware money can buy? Just why even take the time to make these threads?

Pic related. If Intel could glue more cores like they intend to, then it would be a good thing right?
I think you legitimately, clinically retarded. What I was saying is that the website, which you found as the first answers on Google, is by no means a good indicator on the popularity of the game. Unlike a CPU shill like you, I actually used to play and enjoy SC2 and watch pro games when I had the time. Just because blizzard has opened the flood gates for casuals by making the game free doesn't mean it's becoming successful. It's just a symptom of its terminal illness.

For who? Relevant e-sports titles in 2019 are mostly dominated by AMD now.

Attached: 1407944655011-dumb_post_109172039073.jpg (489x366, 27K)

this is as good a reason as any to make a thread

>lower frame time
>lower FPS
uuuuuuhhhhh

15.7ms = 66.6FPS not 41FPS
16.1ms = 62.1FPS not 40FPS
This is literally fake.

I think you may be fucked up in the head. You see actual real life evidence with your own eyes and then warp reality in your mind through endless rationalizations to try and avoid facts. Go see a doctor.

keep samefagging with your faggot "frame time" response eventually you'll accomplish something

As you can see, the IDF (Intel defense force®) made another stupid, irrelevant thread, with one year old screenshots of a badly optimized game to desperately justify their already obsolete purchase. You can easily see that it's a single shill, quoted in the posts below, poking through the fence with a stick at spergs hoping other shills would join to form an ICJ (intel circlejerk®). Unfortunately he is as lonely and disabled as his CPU threads after mitigations.

Depends on how you emulate it, I know AMD has always been shit pairing for dolphin. I don't know if the ryzen's some how over came this. My high end athlon from a few years back can't run NFS Most Wanted at 60FPS. Doesn't give a shit about my GPU, it's all CPU based. Mean while equally as old or older i3 - i5 CPU's can run all GC games great.

Average fps = 1000/frametime
Explain to me how you could render more frames with a lower fps (average) please.
Also notice how there isn't even a spike on the frametime on the last 5 frames that could cause a dip in the FPS to justify 20 less frames.

I'm sorry that you can't play SC2 on your CPU. There are other really cool games that you can play such as Assassin's Creed Odyssey or whatever gay shit Ubisoft has released this month so there's that.

Ok buddy you win. The benchmark is fake. Everything is fake. Reality is an illusion. Here's a protip: you should quote that benchmark one more time with some gay comment about how the "frame time" doesn't add up and then you'll REALLY fucking win. Trust me.

Go ahead bro.

Not him but you sound like you're seething after being BTFO with facts and calculations. The only thing you were able to say to those is "ok you win". After that it was just noise.

things like hdr, ssao, lighting and model details (which are on disabled unless you tinker with 'hybrid graphics') are not visual clutter since they can (and should) be used to improve visibility (and in the case of model detail actually provide you with very important information like: what unit is protoss warping in, or which building is being built without you having to click on things) low details for sc2 is retarded unless you have a weak pc, just lowering effects to medium is enough to remove clutter, and visibility of invisible units and force fields is better on medium/high shader details.

Why don't you post a screenshot of you actually playing SC2 on your sponsored Intel Celeron, shill? Maybe some real benchmarks from 2019 maybe? You're not even trying to hide your samefagging any more.

youtube.com/watch?v=C93XWVAH_dk

Keep posting the same video, it only gets older and more irrelevant with each passing second, just as the brand you keep incessantly shilling like anybody cares.

It's one of the most played games in the world and you can't play it because you bought an AMD

Even the intel numbers don't add up. Something is clearly wrong.

Your shitty CPU that can't run a 10 year old game is wrong.

Probably some capture issue lowering the framerates, wouldn't explain how intel got higher frames from a higher frametime though.

Frame time and frame rates are completely unrelated you street shitting mong.

Oh, I can, sweatie, just fine. I actually have it installed and ran it on a much worse configuration than what I have now. I even enjoyed it for a while, when it was still interesting and blizzard wasn't run by a bunch of jews. It doesn't matter much, but you wouldn't know, since all you can do is post a single YouTube video.
. Also,
>It's one of the most played games in the world
Some citation is needed there sweatie.

Give us the definitions then, doctor intelberg.

>Oh, I can, sweatie, just fine.

No you can't. You'll get drops to 40 fps during intense fights and that will make you lose the game because you got memed into buying a shitty CPU.

>Intel CPU using one core 95%, another core 88% (10 sec in)
>AMD CPU only very briefly gets to 50% for a second and most of the time hangs around in 20-30% with the second most used core
Why isn't this game using AMD's second core as much as it wants to use Intel's? The performance is there readily available, just start using it.

Keep repeating that in your head, bud. Can you show us your amazing ladder rank that you have only because of your amazing Intel ® CPU?

naw you can not tell any of that with graphics
the only unit you can see being warped in is stargate units, and graphics do not really do anything for that

only graphics setting that matters is maybe terran/textures to make it easier to see the shimmer of cloaked units like dark templars or observers.
anything else at best has no effect and otherwise is detrimental

Why does a dead game who had one of the most unoptimized engines of all time even on an Intel processor matter?

it's the most active video game in 2019

lol

>t. clueless cum dripping from mouth, blizzard drone

rankedftw.com/stats/population/1v1/#v=2&r=-2&sy=c&sx=a

By that metric TF2 isn't a dead game either. Its a dead game, the devs don't give a shit about it.

Stay salty.

Yeah because blizzard do not respect their customers and use intel compiler.

imagine actually believing this

Attached: 1523185170212.gif (336x252, 2.24M)

Not even /v/ or /vg/ talk about it

Attached: umberwojak.png (229x220, 19K)

Sorry bro. The sad thing is, I probably tried to warn you and told you to buy an intel in the pcbg threads and you probably called me a shill and bought an AMD anyway. Now you can't play Starcraft 2.

Stay punked.

Can't you read your own links? Old binaries made with intel compiler could be patched to counter the bias, new binaries (including SC2) can't be patched to counter the bias. Just boycott blizzard, they didn't make a single non-shit PC game.