How is simspeed lag in 2018?

Talk about general things concerning Forged Alliance Forever.

Moderators: FtXCommando, Ze Dogfather

Re: How is simspeed lag in 2018?

Postby Farmsletje » 03 Jun 2018, 23:39

send $$ and i'll never lag again
FtXCommando wrote:
need to give him some time to blossom into an aids flower
Farmsletje
Contributor
 
Posts: 1116
Joined: 14 Sep 2016, 18:38
Has liked: 383 times
Been liked: 452 times
FAF User Name: Farmsletje

Re: How is simspeed lag in 2018?

Postby E8400-CV » 04 Jun 2018, 02:47

Endranii wrote:No, honestly man, just send them free CPU's and problem fixed. You will get nowhere with that attitude, as if complaining about people belongings would make them buy better stuff...


Attitude problem is on your side... too many people with sh*tty hardware that think they are entitled to lie about it.
E8400-CV
Evaluator
 
Posts: 849
Joined: 24 Feb 2013, 21:00
Has liked: 29 times
Been liked: 32 times
FAF User Name: jcvjcvjcvjcv

Re: How is simspeed lag in 2018?

Postby QuestionMarkNoob » 04 Jun 2018, 02:54

E8400-CV wrote:
i5-2500 is about the bottom for playability, so comparing to that works just fine.



First of all, a 2500 is clearly a good enough chip, and probably will be for the next years. When that Chip is at -1, most others are -1 as well. There is just no denying that, and anyone with with/with experience with that CPU will tell you the same. Secondly, your version of "playable" is’nt defined anywhere and could be everything so yea, nice point.

E8400-CV wrote:
So they are not fine, except [insert gazillion exceptions].



Could say that about pretty much anything in any argument at any time. My point is that the most popular Chips of the FX series (8370, 8350 and 8020 (maybe even the 6300)) are still viable. A good theory must be falsifiable ;)

E8400-CV wrote:
Most are just loaded with cheap stuff, you can do the same with a board for Intel CPU's. Just look for a decent NIC on an AM4 board and you already topped the €110 mark...



The first part is a blatant lie. The second is very hard to check since there are like 100 mobos. There has got to be one somewhere... If you search, you will surely find one.

E8400-CV wrote:
You got less for less money, value-wise that is often not that good.


The FX 8350 still has around 1.1% market share. That is a lot. Do you really think that all of those people were idiots and just bought what looks shiny and red? If a CPU/mobo combination has a bad value, it will not be bought at all.
By your logic we would see like 0.1% market share for all FX CPUs. That is clearly not the case. FX CPUs had their niche, even though it was not large.

E8400-CV wrote:
People did that all the time.



Extremely unlikely, because the CPU is only fully supported by a handful, expensive mobos with insane VRMs and MOSFETs. So again: Blatant lie.

E8400-CV wrote:
And the latter part is exactly what happened.



Dumb people exist everywhere. A swift look to the supported CPUs and that would not have happened. You cannot blame anyone for other people’s stupidity

E8400-CV wrote:
Not really. System consumption for i7-4820K is about half compared to FX-9590. And contrary to the Intel X platform, AMD didn't make a hard break between the platforms... which was the cause of CPU's that used too much being combined with motherboards that couldn't deliver in the first place.



I was talking about X-series mobos having the ability to serve a high amount of power to the CPU because the mobo HAS TO SUPPORT HIGH POWER CPUs ON THAT PLATFORM.
You name a low-end X-series Intel CPU and claim that my point is wrong… wow. Spoiler: There are Intel CPUs with high power consumption that must be supported by the same range of mobos! You cannot make this stuff up…

I also read the rest of that argument and yea… irrelevant.

E8400-CV wrote:
Haha, you still don't get it. 250 is already sh*t.


Well that is just like… your opinion man. There is always the option to just host a game yourself and kick those people out… Problem solved? You will still have plenty of players left ;)

E8400-CV wrote:
Either way; move your AMD preaching elsewhere.


Could say the same about you, just with Intel. Smart move.
Also: You did not even fully respond to my “concept” of kicking people out of your game.

JUST KICK THEM IF YOU DO NOT LIKE THEM

It is just too funny how that one argument just tears up your entire post lol. It’s a waste of time even responding to your elitism.
But it’s alright. I also like complaining about slow CPUs. But only if they are much slower than the CPU bench says :o

You have to draw the line somewhere.
QuestionMarkNoob
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 171
Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 15:55
Has liked: 48 times
Been liked: 24 times

Re: How is simspeed lag in 2018?

Postby E8400-CV » 04 Jun 2018, 04:05

QuestionMarkNoob wrote:
E8400-CV wrote:
i5-2500 is about the bottom for playability, so comparing to that works just fine.



First of all, a 2500 is clearly a good enough chip, and probably will be for the next years. When that Chip is at -1, most others are -1 as well. There is just no denying that,


There is. Many of the better games I played my stock i5-2500K was (tied) slowest. Also, newer CPU intensive games like Battlefield 1 are handicapped by an i5-2500K.

QuestionMarkNoob wrote: and anyone with with/with experience with that CPU will tell you the same. Secondly, your version of "playable" is’nt defined anywhere and could be everything so yea, nice point.


I just defined it... didn't I.

QuestionMarkNoob wrote:
E8400-CV wrote:
So they are not fine, except [insert gazillion exceptions].



Could say that about pretty much anything in any argument at any time. My point is that the most popular Chips of the FX series (8370, 8350 and 8020 (maybe even the 6300)) are still viable. A good theory must be falsifiable ;)


Another example of the attitude problem.

QuestionMarkNoob wrote:
E8400-CV wrote:
Most are just loaded with cheap stuff, you can do the same with a board for Intel CPU's. Just look for a decent NIC on an AM4 board and you already topped the €110 mark...



The first part is a blatant lie. The second is very hard to check since there are like 100 mobos. There has got to be one somewhere... If you search, you will surely find one.


Yes you are right. They aren't "loaded with" but "scarcely populated with". The second is very easy as there are websites that just list everything. Most AM4 boards have a Realtek NIC that uses four times the CPU resources an Intel NIC does. There are AM4 boards with Intel NIC (i211AT)... and those boards are all >€110 in NL. The S1151 boards with Intel NIC (i219V) beging at a much lower price.

QuestionMarkNoob wrote:
E8400-CV wrote:
You got less for less money, value-wise that is often not that good.


The FX 8350 still has around 1.1% market share. That is a lot. Do you really think that all of those people were idiots and just bought what looks shiny and red? If a CPU/mobo combination has a bad value, it will not be bought at all.
By your logic we would see like 0.1% market share for all FX CPUs. That is clearly not the case. FX CPUs had their niche, even though it was not large.


A large part yes. Most people are too stupid to even calculate TCO.

QuestionMarkNoob wrote:
E8400-CV wrote:
People did that all the time.



Extremely unlikely, because the CPU is only fully supported by a handful, expensive mobos with insane VRMs and MOSFETs. So again: Blatant lie.


No lie, it's a fact. Regardless of the board manufacturer listing the 220W models... they still allowed them boot just fine.

QuestionMarkNoob wrote:
E8400-CV wrote:
And the latter part is exactly what happened.



Dumb people exist everywhere. A swift look to the supported CPUs and that would not have happened. You cannot blame anyone for other people’s stupidity


Most of the people that were smart enough to figure that one out were smart enough to buy an Intel.

QuestionMarkNoob wrote:
E8400-CV wrote:
Not really. System consumption for i7-4820K is about half compared to FX-9590. And contrary to the Intel X platform, AMD didn't make a hard break between the platforms... which was the cause of CPU's that used too much being combined with motherboards that couldn't deliver in the first place.



I was talking about X-series mobos having the ability to serve a high amount of power to the CPU because the mobo HAS TO SUPPORT HIGH POWER CPUs ON THAT PLATFORM.
You name a low-end X-series Intel CPU and claim that my point is wrong… wow. Spoiler: There are Intel CPUs with high power consumption that must be supported by the same range of mobos! You cannot make this stuff up…


Actually... I can. Since all the CPU's for the X79 platform we are talking about have a stated TDP of 130W, which is nowhere close to the 220W of the FX-9590.

QuestionMarkNoob wrote:I also read the rest of that argument and yea… irrelevant.


Not really. AMD should have kept their partners better in check to not allow them to boot with the high-power FX's if the board couldn't support it at full throttle. By not doing so, they took a hit in public image too. But I guess that was the price for clinging to "are socket is future-proof" :lol:

QuestionMarkNoob wrote:
E8400-CV wrote:
Haha, you still don't get it. 250 is already sh*t.


Well that is just like… your opinion man. There is always the option to just host a game yourself and kick those people out… Problem solved? You will still have plenty of players left ;)


No, since the -U sh*t smurfs the bench. Don't you ever pay attention?

QuestionMarkNoob wrote:
E8400-CV wrote:
Either way; move your AMD preaching elsewhere.


Could say the same about you, just with Intel. Smart move.


I preach whatever is best, can't be bothered by either brand. In 2005 that was the AMD Athlon 64+, in 2006 that was the Intel Core 2 Duo. Only now with Ryzen2 does AMD come close again. But the drawback of reduced memory clocks when using four DIMMs is something a lot of people are going to find out.... later.

QuestionMarkNoob wrote:Also: You did not even fully respond to my “concept” of kicking people out of your game.

JUST KICK THEM IF YOU DO NOT LIKE THEM


The bench is flawed since it allows -U CPU's to get a fake low number. It's not like that isn't mentioned already plenty here...
I already kicked for high bench number, but the problem is too many low bench numbers that aren't deserved (mostly Intel -U series).

QuestionMarkNoob wrote:It is just too funny how that one argument just tears up your entire post lol. It’s a waste of time even responding to your elitism.


So having the brains to do a TCO calculation and not buy a slower CPU that ends up being more expensive is elitism now?

QuestionMarkNoob wrote:But it’s alright. I also like complaining about slow CPUs. But only if they are much slower than the CPU bench says :o

You have to draw the line somewhere.


Good, we seem to agree on the -U thing.
E8400-CV
Evaluator
 
Posts: 849
Joined: 24 Feb 2013, 21:00
Has liked: 29 times
Been liked: 32 times
FAF User Name: jcvjcvjcvjcv

Re: How is simspeed lag in 2018?

Postby QuestionMarkNoob » 04 Jun 2018, 19:51

E8400-CV wrote:There is. Many of the better games I played my stock i5-2500K was (tied) slowest.


This depends on cooling, motherboard quality, voltage ripple of your PSU and most importantly on RAM speed and on your background tasks.
There are too many variables to 100% prove that your CPU is a/the sole cause for this.
Also, when looking at other people’s experience, it really should be fine.
Getting such a lobby depends on pure luck btw so this could just have been an edge case. Since you did not provide any further information about this, it is very hard for me, and anyone else in fact, to validate your argument.
E8400-CV wrote:Also, newer CPU intensive games like Battlefield 1 are handicapped by an i5-2500K.

Battlefield 1 is handicapped by my 6600k as well. Or any 4-thread processor in fact.
Why are we talking about BF 1 now… isn’t this in the “General Discussions” section?

E8400-CV wrote:I just defined it... didn't I.


You defined what CPU (and nothing else in fact) is playable for you. But not what slow down at which point in the game is.

E8400-CV wrote:Another example of the attitude problem.

So, everyone that criticises you has an attitude problem? Nice to know
E8400-CV wrote:Yes you are right. They aren't "loaded with" but "scarcely populated with". The second is very easy as there are websites that just list everything. Most AM4 boards have a Realtek NIC that uses four times the CPU resources an Intel NIC does. There are AM4 boards with Intel NIC (i211AT)... and those boards are all >€110 in NL. The S1151 boards with Intel NIC (i219V) beging at a much lower price.

Since I do not know much about NICs, I will give you that one, though I will note that I have never seen anyone complain about this.
The rest of the argument is not verifiable since this depends on both pricing, availability and location. It might be true for you, but certainly not for anyone.
E8400-CV wrote:A large part yes. Most people are too stupid to even calculate TCO.

Yes, everyone who bought an FX system is dumb and wrong, and you are right. Sigh…
E8400-CV wrote:No lie, it's a fact. Regardless of the board manufacturer listing the 220W models... they still allowed them boot just fine.

Yes, they allowed them to boot. And most of the people who did that regretted it. Probably with dead VRMs.
The thing that bugs me is, that this can be said about everything. If you are not doing what you should do, you will have to live with the consequences. People also put 6950x CPUs in the wrong motherboards and killed their CPU, even though it was said you should not do it (just like with AMD :o). You cannot blame a company for having a minority of idiots as their customers.
E8400-CV wrote:Actually... I can. Since all the CPU's for the X79 platform we are talking about have a stated TDP of 130W, which is nowhere close to the 220W of the FX-9590.

TDP =/ power consumption. Very, very serious mistake.
Also, you have to consider, that the 9590 was pretty much an overclocked CPU. Those Intel CPUs you are talking about are not. After overclocking, you will clearly see that those guys are closer than you might expect.
I am not disagreeing that the 9590 consumed more power. It did. But comparing the TDPs of processors and then judging their power consumption, is just a Noob mistake.
The TDP is calculated by the BASE CLOCK btw. Since your CPU will boost up anyway, the TDP rating is bullshit in most cases anyway. A 65w CPU will DEFINITELY need a cooler that can handle more than 65w.

E8400-CV wrote:Not really. AMD should have kept their partners better in check to not allow them to boot with the high-power FX's if the board couldn't support it at full throttle. By not doing so, they took a hit in public image too. But I guess that was the price for clinging to "are socket is future-proof" :lol:

Are you really defending Intel’s habit of shitting on any motherboard that is not the latest anymore?
Is the high amount of support that AMD gives a bad thing, because some people cannot READ?
E8400-CV wrote:No, since the -U sh*t smurfs the bench. Don't you ever pay attention?

What does that have to do with 250 CPUs anyway? Did we not just conclude that those “smurfs” as you call them have extremely low CPU scores? Do you even play attention?
1. You were saying that 250 CPUs are shit
2. I was saying that they are just fine
3. Now you are talking about CPU “smurfs” that have like a 170 CPU rating
And you are telling me I cannot read? Are you kidding me?
E8400-CV wrote:I preach whatever is best, can't be bothered by either brand. In 2005 that was the AMD Athlon 64+, in 2006 that was the Intel Core 2 Duo. Only now with Ryzen2 does AMD come close again. But the drawback of reduced memory clocks when using four DIMMs is something a lot of people are going to find out.... later.

Yes you are the white knight of the tech community.
E8400-CV wrote:The bench is flawed since it allows -U CPU's to get a fake low number. It's not like that isn't mentioned already plenty here...
I already kicked for high bench number, but the problem is too many low bench numbers that aren't deserved (mostly Intel -U series).


I am a Gapper. A map known for its long arty war games, extreme slow down and lag. Are you seriously trying to tell me that these guys completely ruin the CPU bench?
From my experience around ~2% of players that play on maps with considerable slow down have those CPUs. When it happens, it is annoying. But is it really that big of a problem? Probably not.
And since you can just ban those guys and never let them play again…
E8400-CV wrote:So having the brains to do a TCO calculation and not buy a slower CPU that ends up being more expensive is elitism now?

Oh yes you are so smart. Smarter than anyone else.
E8400-CV wrote:Good, we seem to agree on the -U thing.

Yes, we do since it is a problem.
A very small problem that is hard to solve.

I think after my posts and the comments of other players, I have made my point clear. I will not respond to any of your other posts in any meaningful way now, spamming this thread about things that are not even related to the core topic is not the way to go.

If you want to make this game a better place, try to make a post on the FAF suggestions site, and suggest making the “quality of performance” mod ranked, so people would actually use it more which would then result in fewer laggy games. Maybe I will do that anyway.
Many of us like complaining about slow CPUs, but in the end, it will not change anyone’s mind.
If you have anything meaningful to contribute to this thread, like a suggesting on how to improve this this situation, let us know. I am out otherwise.
QuestionMarkNoob
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 171
Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 15:55
Has liked: 48 times
Been liked: 24 times

Re: How is simspeed lag in 2018?

Postby E8400-CV » 05 Jun 2018, 00:02

QuestionMarkNoob wrote:
E8400-CV wrote:There is. Many of the better games I played my stock i5-2500K was (tied) slowest.


This depends on cooling, motherboard quality, voltage ripple of your PSU and most importantly on RAM speed and on your background tasks.
There are too many variables to 100% prove that your CPU is a/the sole cause for this.
Also, when looking at other people’s experience, it really should be fine.
Getting such a lobby depends on pure luck btw so this could just have been an edge case. Since you did not provide any further information about this, it is very hard for me, and anyone else in fact, to validate your argument.


All 7 others had OC'd Ivy Bridge or Haswell(-E) i7-K's

QuestionMarkNoob wrote:
E8400-CV wrote:Also, newer CPU intensive games like Battlefield 1 are handicapped by an i5-2500K.

Battlefield 1 is handicapped by my 6600k as well. Or any 4-thread processor in fact.
Why are we talking about BF 1 now… isn’t this in the “General Discussions” section?


I think someone already went besides FAF with the nonsense about FX-8350 doing things in the background...

QuestionMarkNoob wrote:
E8400-CV wrote:I just defined it... didn't I.


You defined what CPU (and nothing else in fact) is playable for you. But not what slow down at which point in the game is.


75 minutes for a 1-hour Setons, tops. Never below zero before 40 minutes.

QuestionMarkNoob wrote:
E8400-CV wrote:Another example of the attitude problem.

So, everyone that criticises you has an attitude problem? Nice to know


Earth isn't flat... FX's are bad.

QuestionMarkNoob wrote:
E8400-CV wrote:Yes you are right. They aren't "loaded with" but "scarcely populated with". The second is very easy as there are websites that just list everything. Most AM4 boards have a Realtek NIC that uses four times the CPU resources an Intel NIC does. There are AM4 boards with Intel NIC (i211AT)... and those boards are all >€110 in NL. The S1151 boards with Intel NIC (i219V) beging at a much lower price.

Since I do not know much about NICs, I will give you that one, though I will note that I have never seen anyone complain about this.
The rest of the argument is not verifiable since this depends on both pricing, availability and location. It might be true for you, but certainly not for anyone.


Nope, that goes for everyone, everywhere. Yeah... pricing had a lot to do with it.... and the AM4 boards with Intel NIC just happen to be expensive.

That you've never seen someone complain about is goes a long way to indicate that you haven't seen much at all.

QuestionMarkNoob wrote:
E8400-CV wrote:A large part yes. Most people are too stupid to even calculate TCO.

Yes, everyone who bought an FX system is dumb and wrong, and you are right. Sigh…


Nah, the fanboys had some reason, all the others buying it for the $5 savings that is paid in multiples to the energy company... that's just plain dumb.

QuestionMarkNoob wrote:
E8400-CV wrote:No lie, it's a fact. Regardless of the board manufacturer listing the 220W models... they still allowed them boot just fine.

Yes, they allowed them to boot. And most of the people who did that regretted it. Probably with dead VRMs.
The thing that bugs me is, that this can be said about everything. If you are not doing what you should do, you will have to live with the consequences. People also put 6950x CPUs in the wrong motherboards and killed their CPU, even though it was said you should not do it (just like with AMD :o). You cannot blame a company for having a minority of idiots as their customers.


Oh yeah... what board killed the 6950X's?

QuestionMarkNoob wrote:
E8400-CV wrote:Actually... I can. Since all the CPU's for the X79 platform we are talking about have a stated TDP of 130W, which is nowhere close to the 220W of the FX-9590.

TDP =/ power consumption. Very, very serious mistake.


True, but in power consumption the AMD even looks worse, so it just strengthens my point.

QuestionMarkNoob wrote:Also, you have to consider, that the 9590 was pretty much an overclocked CPU. Those Intel CPUs you are talking about are not.


So?

QuestionMarkNoob wrote: After overclocking, you will clearly see that those guys are closer than you might expect.


You can unvervolt and underclock that Intel and still outperform that FX. Now, if you live in a cold climate with $0,06 per kWh you calculation might be slightly different from someone living in a place where it's hot half the year the a kWh is $0,25

QuestionMarkNoob wrote:I am not disagreeing that the 9590 consumed more power. It did. But comparing the TDPs of processors and then judging their power consumption, is just a Noob mistake.


Quoted figures earlier (the "double") are from actual usage.

QuestionMarkNoob wrote:The TDP is calculated by the BASE CLOCK btw. Since your CPU will boost up anyway, the TDP rating is bullshit in most cases anyway. A 65w CPU will DEFINITELY need a cooler that can handle more than 65w.


AMD and Intel use a different definition. Mainly so AMD can quote lower numbers. They did the same with the reference board for the RX-480, exceeding current draw on the PCIe x16 slot and losing the right to display the PCIe-sig logo for those boards. And why... because they wanted to show off with a single 6-pin. Later updates decreased slot current and increased the draw on the 6-pin... exceeding standards there.

QuestionMarkNoob wrote:
E8400-CV wrote:Not really. AMD should have kept their partners better in check to not allow them to boot with the high-power FX's if the board couldn't support it at full throttle. By not doing so, they took a hit in public image too. But I guess that was the price for clinging to "are socket is future-proof" :lol:

Are you really defending Intel’s habit of shitting on any motherboard that is not the latest anymore?
Is the high amount of support that AMD gives a bad thing, because some people cannot READ?


I don't care about either, since the "long" support AMD had was useless anyway, since right from the start to the end of that AM2 / AM3 socket they had nothing interesting. Intel going from S1156 to S1150 to S1151 to S1151v2 doesn't affect my i5-2500K system one iotha. I do resent that I can't replace my i5-6600K with an i7-8700K, but had I bought an AMD system at that time it would have been a death-end as well.

QuestionMarkNoob wrote:
E8400-CV wrote:No, since the -U sh*t smurfs the bench. Don't you ever pay attention?

What does that have to do with 250 CPUs anyway?
Did we not just conclude that those “smurfs” as you call them have extremely low CPU scores? Do you even play attention?


The people with sh*t CPU's are divived in categories... the ones with the long bar; the AMD FX users, the Intel Core 2 Quad users, etc. And then the ones with the low (good) bench score but slowing down just as much... the Intel -U users.

QuestionMarkNoob wrote:1. You were saying that 250 CPUs are shit


They are

QuestionMarkNoob wrote:2. I was saying that they are just fine


You did say that yes

QuestionMarkNoob wrote:3. Now you are talking about CPU “smurfs” that have like a 170 CPU rating


That was an issue right from the get-go.

QuestionMarkNoob wrote:And you are telling me I cannot read? Are you kidding me?


Yes, no.

QuestionMarkNoob wrote:
E8400-CV wrote:I preach whatever is best, can't be bothered by either brand. In 2005 that was the AMD Athlon 64+, in 2006 that was the Intel Core 2 Duo. Only now with Ryzen2 does AMD come close again. But the drawback of reduced memory clocks when using four DIMMs is something a lot of people are going to find out.... later.

Yes you are the white knight of the tech community.


Don't care about that either.

QuestionMarkNoob wrote:
E8400-CV wrote:The bench is flawed since it allows -U CPU's to get a fake low number. It's not like that isn't mentioned already plenty here...
I already kicked for high bench number, but the problem is too many low bench numbers that aren't deserved (mostly Intel -U series).


I am a Gapper. A map known for its long arty war games, extreme slow down and lag. Are you seriously trying to tell me that these guys completely ruin the CPU bench?
From my experience around ~2% of players that play on maps with considerable slow down have those CPUs. When it happens, it is annoying. But is it really that big of a problem? Probably not.
And since you can just ban those guys and never let them play again…


2% in a 8 player game means you get at least one in 13% of the games, if you take 7 unknowns out of a pool of 98% good, 2% bad.

They don't actively ruin the bench... it's just the bench doesn't fit their hardware. Looking up a Passmark number based on CPU name would be more accurate in the cases of the -U stuff.

QuestionMarkNoob wrote:
E8400-CV wrote:So having the brains to do a TCO calculation and not buy a slower CPU that ends up being more expensive is elitism now?

Oh yes you are so smart. Smarter than anyone else.


When I bought my first PC's, I don't bother with TCO either. But one can improve...

QuestionMarkNoob wrote:
E8400-CV wrote:Good, we seem to agree on the -U thing.

Yes, we do since it is a problem.
A very small problem that is hard to solve.

I think after my posts and the comments of other players, I have made my point clear. I will not respond to any of your other posts in any meaningful way now, spamming this thread about things that are not even related to the core topic is not the way to go.


Most of your responses weren't meaningful anyway, so good that you knock it off.

QuestionMarkNoob wrote:If you want to make this game a better place, try to make a post on the FAF suggestions site, and suggest making the “quality of performance” mod ranked, so people would actually use it more which would then result in fewer laggy games. Maybe I will do that anyway.


Game performance has already improved with patches a few times. I don't know what that mod does, so I'm not going to agitate for it being ranked. It still doesn't solve the problem with the fake low CPU bench numbers. It just reduces it's consequences a little bit.

QuestionMarkNoob wrote:Many of us like complaining about slow CPUs, but in the end, it will not change anyone’s mind.


Haha, of course it will. Many people just walk away if it's -3. I've Ctrl+A, ctrl+k'd on fullshare games to just end the sh*t. I was the first one to do so, but often most people agreed anyway and were happy the rehosted game was funny and finished long before the lagfest would have ended otherwise.

QuestionMarkNoob wrote:If you have anything meaningful to contribute to this thread, like a suggesting on how to improve this this situation, let us know. I am out otherwise.


I started off this thread with a question. The suggestion has already been made 3 years ago..
E8400-CV
Evaluator
 
Posts: 849
Joined: 24 Feb 2013, 21:00
Has liked: 29 times
Been liked: 32 times
FAF User Name: jcvjcvjcvjcv

Re: How is simspeed lag in 2018?

Postby Endranii » 05 Jun 2018, 00:16

So much talk and this guy still didn't reach the conclusion of hosting his own lobbies.
Image
Endranii
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 255
Joined: 16 Feb 2017, 18:07
Has liked: 83 times
Been liked: 50 times
FAF User Name: Empty_Spot

Re: How is simspeed lag in 2018?

Postby QuestionMarkNoob » 05 Jun 2018, 01:42

I was about to respond to all of that nonsense again, but quite honestly I think there is no hope. Pretty much only talking down on other people's rigs and distracting from the main points I made, that he has no real response to. Every time I make a point there is a dice rolled if there is an actual response to my argument lol.

Bad decision on my part to waste my time on a guy that does not even play the game.

The best part is that he himself stated that is CPU was the slowest in game. The irony is taking over.
Attachments
Those AMD CPUs are ruining my game!.jpg
Those AMD CPUs are ruining my game!.jpg (69.74 KiB) Viewed 1479 times
QuestionMarkNoob
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 171
Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 15:55
Has liked: 48 times
Been liked: 24 times

Re: How is simspeed lag in 2018?

Postby moonbearonmeth » 05 Jun 2018, 02:18

Huh, didn't know there could be autistic threads outside the balance forums.
Good job guys, really exceeding my expectations.
Ask me about my amazing content production to watch while you wait in a lobby.
User avatar
moonbearonmeth
Priest
 
Posts: 397
Joined: 15 Jul 2016, 21:15
Has liked: 166 times
Been liked: 225 times
FAF User Name: Suomi KP-31 desu

Re: How is simspeed lag in 2018?

Postby ZOB » 05 Jun 2018, 03:53

250 is not a good cpu score.
170 is what a 6 year old intel (3770k) cpu will get with no overclock
ZOB
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 109
Joined: 12 Jan 2012, 12:15
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 8 times

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest