It’s appreciated you try to give advice and help people but for the love of God do some analysis before making statements like this.
At that resolution your GPU is more important than say 1080p. Depends on the rest of your setup/situation a 6/12 could be your bottleneck. I’m not saying it is or it isn’t overall but your analysis provides 0 insight and nothing you posted support your statement.
GPU was below 70% usage. Clearly CPU bound in this scenario.
Sigh. I took you off ignore but it was clearly not worth it. This is clearly a You situation where I have to wonder about and feel bad for the people that have to deal with you in the real world. Given the wrong info you share repeatedly, your pathetic self-liking patterns with your alts, and your general trash nature, you’re just not near worth interacting with.
Back you go.
The 9700k is still one of the better gaming CPUs. Especially if WoW is your main game. That being said, the 3700x is a fine CPU as well. Is it better than the 9700k in WoW? No. It’s just not.
Regarding GPU. 5700xt vs 2070 Super. The 2070 Super is a better card. The price reflects it too.
The bigger issue is going to be monitor selection. Which monitor do you have? How much are you willing to spend on an upgrade if you’re going to buy a new one?
???
Your CPU is hardly working but it’s ‘clearly CPU bound’? It’s clearly NOT CPU bound. Stop making up BS statements and no one will call you out on it.
The opposite is true for WoW. A 3600 stock is 2% slower than a 9900K stock in WoW. If there are other games than WoW I’d say get a 9700K over a 3700K given the 9700K can be bought cheaper now.
If WoW is the only game played then stick in a 3600 and call it a day.
That’s not good advice.
Clock for clock the Ryzen chips are very competitive with the Intel parts. Unfortunately, the Ryzen CPUs cap out lower than the Intel CPUs. Meaning, when the poop hits the fan in a raid setting, your Ryzen CPU is going to bottom out lower than the Intel.
In large scale raids or PVP when comparing 6 core 3600 core vs 8 core 9700K yea you’re completely correct. Up to 5 man you can go either way (ignoring price of course).
More info tangentially related:
We can both agree clock isn’t the only thing that makes a CPU (Pentium5/Faildozer come to mind). The cache is 2X the size on a Zen2. That hides a lot of screw ups. The 3600 has more bubbles in it’s pipeline than a 9700K. You get a max of 80% CPU scaling with AMD SMT vs 50% from Intel’s HT.
I mean I did the same scenario he did and my GPU was bouncing between 80-90% usage
It was Hordes time to do stromgarde warfront so I logged on my horde character and tested it out
Then again I was at 4k
I use a 2700x and a Vega frontier at 4k resolution, I still get 60 fps in mostly everywhere until heavy world boss fights then it drops to 45-50ish
During Queen Azshara fight I had at least 15 people on normal mode, fps was fine too
Probably with a 3rd gen that gap will be better
The experience between a 2600X and a 3700X was day and night for me (both u sing Liquid VEGA 64 and 4K). It’s the mins that really help the 3700X skyrocket. This is all on stock with a sub par mobo.
… i see that nothing has changed in my absence.
but… wait wait wait… is there an ignore feature now?
Uhh…
Yes, yes it is CPU bound.
The Game Engine IS NOT USING THE EXTRA CORES, which is why it is running at ~30% (over all cores), which is therefore holding the GPU back, and is why it is only running at 70%.
Thats literally the definition of a CPU Bottleneck. The GPU is not running at 100% because the CPU cant feed it fast enough.
Never change, Aribeth. Never change.
Not built in. Still requires a CSS browser extension. Well worth it, imo.
Ugh, i use too many different machines for that to be practical.
Look at the graphs posted. BFA INDEED USES UPWARDS OF 16 CORES (diminishing returns). Typical Kagthul trolling again.
If you actually test and lower graphics settings in question you’d see the CPU can more than handle the scene at the resolution mentioned. Draw calls are the bottleneck.
Then again we can’t expect you or Griefs to do any actual testing or provide any facts… even when data is provided to counter the BS your ilk spreads.
This is literally like the 30 billionth time you’ve posted something that quite literally proves the exact opposite of what you’re claiming it does.
Also… “using 16 cores” does NOT mean it performs better with more cores (it doesn’t)… its just spreading a bunch of low-impact stuff out onto other cores instead of running them on one core… exactly like it has on Intel since literally forever, now that the AMD scheduler has been updated/re-written. But all that stuff spread out over those cores would cause ZERO performance issues if they were on one core.
And the more important metric in WoW performance, as even a dual-core Pentium-G chip can hit max framerates well over 100fps, is in minimums, which is what the recent multi-core enhancements really improved. A faster clocked Intel chip will BURY a Ryzen chip in sustainable minimums (can literally be the difference between maintaining a solid 60+ in a busy raid setting and bottoming out in the 50s).
And before you try the “quit fanboying” argument… im not saying Ryzen 3 is bad. It isn’t. Its THE platform to be on unless you have money to burn and the extra performance you get from Intel is worth the extra cash to you. Dropping into the 50s doesn’t exactly make the game unplayable or anything. But if you want absolute performance, then Intel is still the way to go, provided that the additional cost isn’t a problem for you.
Which are issued by the CPU, you ignoramus. Holy ****, can you POSSIBLY BE any more ignorant of how this stuff works?
The CPU CANNOT ISSUE THE DRAW CALLS FAST ENOUGH, so the GPU starves. THATS A CPU BOTTLENECK. Like, the very definition of one.
Considering you’ve never, while ive been present, literally NEVER been correct about any of the crap you claim, this is the height of an ironic statement.
But, by all means, keep posting stuff that proves you wrong that you think proves you right. Its like, your thing.
I mean… seriously, loved watching you claim in another thread that a Ryzen 3000 series chip running 600+ mhz slower than an Intel chip, given IPC parity (as IPC between Zen 2/Ryzen 3 and 8000/9000 series chips is within the margin of error) will somehow outperform an Intel chip, despite a 600mhz deficit.
I mean… seriously. What is wrong with you? Is it like some form of information dyslexia? You read the information, but it turns backwards in your head? Eh, you know what, i dont want to know.
Whatever you do, seek help. Serious, professional help. You need it.
Good to have you back, Kagthul 
just here for Classic.
I quit posting all that time ago because there had apparently been a bug that was letting people with lapsed accounts continue to post, that they ‘fixed’ in May or whenever it was i quit posting, since i didn’t have an active account (and hadn’t for some time).
I re-activated today for Classic.
Good to be back, i guess. Still wish there was an ignore feature.
Having the script on only my home desktop keeps me from checking these specific forums very often. While I feel bad for the people who come here and get crap advice from the resident fools, it’s just not worth it to me to step in as often as needed to provide a rational position.
The WPvP and Classic General forums are much better places, anyway.
You and Griefs REALLY need to have your eyes checked.
1 - This is new data so who know what you’re thinking of.
2 - 4 cores vs 8 core is a 10% performance improvement. How is that ‘opposite’ of more cores = better performance?
Going from 4 core to 16 cores having an 18% performance. 18% isn’t an improvement over 0? You’re math impaired.
Great more BS and no proof.
Lowering the graphics to 1 would still have poor frame rates. Guess what? Lowering graphics to 1 is smooth as butter, proving your dribble useless (ie the GPU is the bottleneck). A CPU can feed draw calls and not have the GPU render it (ie GPU bottleneck). Man you’re clueless.
Maybe because I actually watched the benchmarks while you didn’t… Shock! People who read actually know more than you.
Did you just use mhz as a comparison? ROFL ok man, maybe next you’ll tell us how the 5000mhz Bulldozer will be better than the ‘4000mhz modern chips’.
Says the guy who thinks 18% improvement is ‘no improvement’. You need to figure out what improvement means.
You should take some reading comprehension classes first. Start by learning how to read graphs. Maybe they’ll have a 2 for 1 sale with you and Griefs, we all know you need it.
Then stay there and stop offering people bad advice with 0 proof attached.
The multi-core performance enhancements in the 8.x patches have been fairly substantial. I benchmarked some quick and dirty results on a 4.5 GHz 9900K with a 2080 Ti and render scale set to 0.25 to ensure that CPU was the bottleneck.
I probably should have thrown a 2-core/4-threads result in there as well. I’ll do that if I rerun it sometime. Regardless, WoW scales very comfortably up to four cores, and then sees marginal improvements beyond that. There are no doubt situations where scaling will be somewhat different, possibly pushing even higher minimums with additional cores.
