Matt Miller PCs is (Potentially) Ruining PC Gaming for Newcomers 

@NathanaelHunter So the 12600k basically performs identically to your 5800 so I'm guessing your CPU is too weak to run that 2080!? And bottlenecks it alot, since you think the 12600k is too weak to push the 2080 properly 12600k is faster than the 11900k!!

Bro The I5 is a decent processor which he paired with a decent DDR5 RAM. (Like you say dd3 wtf). There is still I3 out there and they are from the new 14000 line. His setup will push the 2080 to the max. The guy pushed Warzone and other multiplayer games on the lowest because this is how any competitive player plays them. The 3060 Ti beats is the 2080. ( by not much) (The simple 3060 beaten by the 2080 by 20%) (just noted) He said multiple times the card performed awesome. Texture filtering barely costs any performance. He wasn't fair with Starfield this card can run that game on med setting decent 2K. and no other card except the 4090 can really do better on that game without DLSS. So he made the car look bad on single-player games?! He made the bad conclusions because we can say the RTX 2080 is still a very decent card if you can buy it cheaply on the used market but it's not future-proof because to day games use way more video than they should.

They have always been around and they're just as obnoxious now as they ever were. The mongo PC people are always so incapable of hearing that anything older than the latest tech is possible to be decent. It's insane how fast they go to tossing specs rather than actually caring about real application. I work in the IT sector (networking mainly but I do hardware repair too) and you never usually run into these kinds of people in the wild. It's an internet thing. They feel safe behind a screen because if anyone started acting like that in real life they'd be laughed at and mocked for it.

I gained my initial traction on social media through being aggressively unflinching in completely honest speech. I don't hold back in what I say or how I say it and I expect the same of anyone near me. If people feel a certain way I don't just ask it of them I demand it of them that they hold nothing back and say what they feel without hesitation. It's how I have led my teams in work and it's how I go through life. I would never place that standard on somebody else's comment section or in their video creations, but I have that standard here. I know it's not seen by many as respectful and that it comes off as being confrontational and I say damn right. Will I grow faster falling in line? Probably. But I don't do what I do online for anyone but myself and my own enjoyment and because I can. That means people who disagree with me will come and lock horns with me over it and that's just the way I like things. I've lived with a very literal fight for your beliefs mindset and many of the people who I've literally traded punches with eventually became really good friends. It's been my experience and it's held well enough in my life. I don't expect everyone to understand, but I wont tolerate people thinking they need to be weak willed in my presence, say what you feel and say it with your chest. Say what you mean and mean what you say and stand behind it. Around here, this is do unto me as a I do unto you kinda place. I'm gonna go at it full on with no hesitation in calling something retarded and I don't want anyone to feel that they need to police what they say either.

I have a 6650xt that I got for $270 brand new and it either outperforms the 2080 or is relatively even with it and even at 1080p some AAA games are below 60fps for me and I have a 12600kf so im for sure not cpu bottlenecked.

@@peik_haikyuu2265 i have the 6750 XT, going for 300 brand new now and outperforms the 2080 by a decent margin...the only game that i had to turn a couple of things down was alan wake 2 (at 1440p) but that's known for being hard to run but I can still do it on a mix of med-high just flick on FSR which ain't too bad at 1440p and 4k.

As I said, footage on my channel is filmed on a base model 2080. Everything from 2022 is in 4K and the FPS counter built into Steam in the top left shows 60. That's 4K 60 on Modern Warfare 3. You either don't know what you're saying or are a liar.

@@NathanaelHunter you are using the worst possible game to prove that your gpu can run 4k lol, 4K Dlss enabled you can easily get 60fps, I get 120 at 1440p with a 6650xt. Try running cyberpunk at 4k no dlss high setting rt on and try telling me you have a 4K gpu🤣

@@NathanaelHunter you could easily show your footage during the video why do we have to go look at your footage on your other videos … seems pretty low effort work to me.

Alright I guess I have to go through your shit and point out everything you said that was retarded. I knew it was an AMD something or other. The point was that I have a decent enough CPU and RAM that I can game at 4K 60. My statement about only saying speed was that he made a point of explicitly saying what CPU, GPU, and Motherboard but didn't say anything but the speed for his RAM. The implication was that that could be ANYTHING. Yes, only DDR5 can handle what he said it was set to, but that also doesn't say HOW MUCH he had in there. It's not normal to state all the hardware by name and then not say one part. I was highlighting that it's very odd behaviour to leave out what and how much RAM he had in there. What he is doing is not capable of being classified as a Benchmark, please don't treat it like it is a Benchmark. Benchmarking aims to measure and assess the maximum performance possible at a given task or function. He put the settings at low. This fundamentally is a showcase, not a benchmark. He was targeting very high FPS. That's no longer a benchmark, that's a showcase. There is a very important difference and it's critical to make the distinction. This is why I have such a problem with his video. Correct, the 2080 cannot handle Cyberpunk at Ultra settings 4K with raytracing. By all means timestamp the exact moment where I said it could. You can't because I never said that. I said it can play Cyberpunk at 4K with raytracing at 60fps. I pretty clearly stated that my settings of choice are in the mid/high range and that I usually turn raytracing off and raise the standard graphics settings because I don't particularly care for raytracing over higher fidelity. As you claim that Anisotropic filtering at 16x doesn't impact performance, I have to ask, what are you fucking talking about. If the graphics settings are set to anything but potato low, 16X absolutely will drastically impact performance, more and more heavily the higher you get with the Anisotropic filtering. I don't know why you think this isn't the case, but it unquestionably is so. I have no idea why you are saying this about Apex, this isn't even important. As I said, shooting for high as shit FPS isn't rational and has no genuine benefit. If somebody is just OK at a twitch shooter, a higher FPS isn't going to make them any better. The general term is 'diminishing returns' and going beyond what you monitor can handle provides no benefit to visuals. Saying 'textures don't impact performance' and then putting that IF in there means you understand why I said what I said about anisotropic filtering being at 16X with the graphics set to low was a very deceptive move. The 2080 can handle higher graphics settings and maintain a solid FPS. It will struggle if the anisotropic filtering is set that high because that directly impacts the performance. You clearly just believe I don't have any experience and that I'm just flat out wrong. The reality is that this video was filmed at 1am with zero effort in one take. I work in IT and have for nearly a decade. I understand fully what is considered standard practice for benchmarking and the limitations of hardware like the 2080. I phrase things the way I do for the every man. That's why I say I play at 2K and I'm referring to 1440p. I'm not taking the time to script shit and I never will because the general concepts of what I say are almost always correct. You are claiming that I'm wrong and that I don't know what I'm saying while you should be more than aware that I outright said I use an RTX 2080 and that I can literally state first hand the card can handle 4K gaming. If I'm as wrong as you seem to think, it's in the very nitpicky aspects of how I phrased things and the tiny details like word choice and not the overarching statements themselves. I like to use the term 'nuance is dead' for things like this because while everything I said is very much true, people seeking to make me look like a liar will use the fine details that I was even slightly wrong or misleading with as proof that everything I said was wrong, regardless of the validity.

@@NathanaelHunter Bro "namesdrops" that he works in IT and thinks that this argument is gonna convince everyone after saying some dumb shit like 16X anistroscopic filtering has crazy performance impact.

FOR THE LAST TIME GUYS, IF YOU SET YOUR GRAPHICS TO LOW, THE FILTERING WILL NOT HAVE A LARGE IMPACT. IF YOU HAVE THE GRAPHICS SETTINGS AT HIGHER LEVELS, 16X ANISOTROPIC FILTERING WILL HAVE A DRASTIC IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE. What anistroscopic filtering does is that it takes the textures on objects and warps them to pretty them up an viewing angles other than head on. I would think that the concept of 16X being more impactful to performance on higher graphics settings than on low would be obvious but we're still at the point apparently where this isn't well known. If people think that 5-10 frames of performance difference with higher AF levels on higher graphics settings is a small impact that's fine, but that's definitely not a completely unnoticeable performance impact. This is something that literally anyone can test for themselves and they will get a consistent result of a FPS drop with every step up in AF they go.

A lot of people in this comment section would probably call you a liar and discredit you entirely, but you're 100% correct. I don't know half the time if it's NVIDIA bootlickers or if it's just hardware elitists but they're all incredibly persistent and annoying about what the 2080 can and can't do all while being wrong.

Click the play button.

I have a 4090 and I get 60-80fps with raytracing at 4k ultra native no way the good old 2080 is doing that. ( just tested in dog town btw)

I used to have an i7. I had to check, but I currently am using a Ryzen 7 5800X. So while I cannot show that, I am more than happy to go ahead and prove the 2080 can handle this. Mind you I also said repeatedly that I don't run Cyberpunk or anything at 4K anymore, I play at 2K on a 4K screen. I also outright said that while I play with the graphics turned up I don't turn raytracing on because I prefer the higher resolution textures and don't think raytracing is all that worth it over better overall settings. Since this has become such a common trend of everyone in the comments section here saying 'it's not possible' I guess I need to get the footage and prove that it's 110% not just possible but that it's what I actually do. Not that I didn't already say just go look at the footage on my channel, it's all 2K 60FPS mid/high settings.

@@NathanaelHunter 🤣 you are on here trying to flex that you have a 2080 that can run 1440p medium settings and get 60fps with rt off🤣 a gtx 1070 can do that no problem😂

Right. I must be a troll. Not you, saying that a GTX 1070 can do everything I'm making an RTX 2080 do. It literally cannot. It's not even capable of Raytracing. Fucking graphics whores I swear you're all a plague on the population who want to have rational conversations in tech. Even funnier that you really don't see fucking mongs like this in the IT space, it's only ever online. Funny that. I like to believe it's that you jackwads never go outside and frankly it definitely seems to be the case.

@peik_haikyuu2265 the 2080 is 'slightly' faster than the 3060 12gb and slightly slower than the 3060Ti all 3 cards within 10-15fps of each other.

100%

Me? No. Matt Miller? Also probably not. All the footage on my channel is games using a 2080 at 4K or 2K. There is not trolling here, just reality.

I play 2042 somewhat often on my RTX2080 and I have no issues with getting a stable 60FPS at 2K medium/high settings. I think you have a bottleneck somewhere beyond the GPU if you're having issues with a 3070 TI, I would consider seeing what settings you have going on and try making some changes.

There's skewing results, and then there's what Matt Miller is doing here. Yes, hardware can have some variation in the production line that can alter performance and yes, a different CPU and RAM choice can make some games run better or worse with any GPU. Matt Miller is intentionally for whatever reason putting a very low end CPU into this rig. That's going to hard limit the performance of any game he plays right off the bat. Then he doesn't bother saying how much or what RAM he's using, just that it's got XMP on and the clock speed is high. It could be garbage RAM and making the results even worse. On top of all of that, he literally says he's setting the games to Low and has them set to 16X Filtering. It's one thing to have a paid deal to make something look better or worse. It's different to do a bad job because you have a bias. It's entirely unacceptable behavior to be as deceptive and bad at your entire stated objective as Matt Miller is. This is, for reasons I cannot even begin to understand, lying. There are zero acceptable excuses for intentionally lying to your viewers. There are zero reasons to put out a video and say with such confidence that X Graphics Card is only capable of Y output when it's blatantly false. It's not something I can just chalk up to being 'skewed'. Matt Miller is, as I said, outright lying and deliberately misleading potential consumers with this video. I can only assume he has done this with ALL of his content. He's an FPS elitist who's also completely moronic and incompetent. He said with what he believes to be valid authority that 240 FPS is the golden sweet spot for gaming as if it's based in any possible reality. Yeah, go ahead and turn VSYNC off to get that 240 FPS and call it 'competitive settings' like that's in any way going to make it true. He's a mong who doesn't even have the brain capacity to comprehend just how stupid he actually is. He disgusts me.

There are many factors for why your cpu is running hotter, it could be your games you are playing, or a new gpu which could create extra heat in your case, dead fans, worn out thermal paste, windows scheduler, older/bad drivers, failing cpu fans. You might want to check your voltage settings, if you updated your bios some settings can change, perhaps clean out your case of any dust that might have built up. I have a NH-U12A which has been stable for 3+ years nows, you could always reach out to Noctua, they have great support and might be willing to replace to cooler.

LTT and Nexus DON'T do this (Nexus called out LTT and then LTT corrected themselves). If you aren't getting the same performance that is a you problem. Try finding the programs that cause your problems.

@@cmeier360 and on top of all of that amd has pushed out constant chipset updates so more than likely its now providing more power to the cpu for better performance than it was getting 3 years ago.

This. Literally this. Showcasing and Benchmarking are different. If you aren't going to do what is considered proper benchmarking, then you should not be able to call it a benchmark. I'm not a benchmarking kind of guy. I don't care much for tossing out numbers and hardware specs when I can more easily just show what hardware is actually capable of doing. LTT and Nexus are generally trustworthy people for saying the fine details of what hardware can do. I do not think that the way Matt Miller was showing the RTX 2080 is anything CLOSE to what is expected for a benchmarking and that was the main thing I was trying to get across, though clearly the small details seem to have become the focus rather than the severe issues with the way Matt Miller was handling the demonstration.

Everything you said was dang right !

Alright, let's go through this in order: 1. 4K 60 is what consoles are shooting for. This has been a debate for years now and most people either say 120 or 60. I believe 60 fps and 2K resolution. The average untrained eye can't really tell 4K 60 vs 2k 60 let alone actually make real value from 120FPS. You personally getting sick viewing 60fps is a personal issue, not an issue with standards. 2. I usually have around 30 - 50 tabs of Chrome open at a time. I admittedly usually am hitting 40% of my 32gb of RAM, but I can (though I rarely do) play Battlefield 2042 at the same time. I think that's a deeper issue to look into with your RAM as Chrome isn't really doing anything to your VRAM. Sounds like you're bottleneck is there. 3. 16X requires a massive amount of VRAM to handle. This is the same deal with settings like Texture Resolution and other VFX heavy settings. him dropping the normal settings but cranking the filtering all the way to 16X is, with no question, lying about saying his settings are at Low. The 2080 can easily handle mid/high settings on all the games he said with 4X filtering if not 8X. There was no reason he should be dropping the video settings that low and cranking the filtering. 4. It CAN add input delay. The amount of delay isn't worth the screen tearing he's got going on. I would think it's impossible to argue that somebody should play with screen tearing rather than a very small handful of milliseconds of input delay. I've been playing twitch shooters for years and I have no clue how anyone could argue that VSYNC off if it's causing screen tearing is a good idea. It isn't. 5. Note that when I said he didn't tell us the RAM on his build, he didn't say ANYTHING about it. Only that it has XMP and the speed. If I said brand, it's because it was 1AM when I filmed this, but the statement isn't any less valid. He didn't say how much he had in there. That could have been 2 sticks of 4GB RAM for all we know.

@@NathanaelHunter 1. Consoles are not a good standard; they cost $500 for a reason. If Sony and Microsoft could, don’t you think they would offer 8K at 240fps natively? Most of my friends can easily tell the difference between 1080p, 1440p, and 4K, as well as between 30fps, 60fps, 120fps, and 240fps. They aren’t superhuman, but in my experience, the people around me can differentiate. However, that’s my reality, and it can vary from person to person. 2. I’m not judging, but I don’t understand how you can be productive with so many tabs open. Chrome can use a lot of VRAM depending on what you are doing. 3. Anisotropic filtering does not use much VRAM at all; texture quality does. I invite you to read the wiki on how anisotropic filtering works. If 100% of the screen is at an oblique angle, then I can understand the VRAM and bandwidth impact. Keep in mind that filtering only happens when needed, and most textures do not need 16x constantly. So even if you set it to 16x, very few portions of the texture that are at an oblique angle will use x16 filtering. 4. It absolutely does add input delay; you are correct about that. I personally agree with you that it’s smart to use G-Sync, FreeSync, and other sync technologies to negate screen tearing. I never noticed the difference in latency, but some people swear by it, and I can understand that they might be more sensitive to latency and less to tearing. 5. A DDR5 module has a minimum of 8GB per stick. He had two, which means a minimum of 16GB.

1. If you want to use PC has the standard then I have even worse news for you, the vast majority of PCs per the Steam Hardware Survey are about on par with consoles. Just because better hardware exists does not mean that they are the standard and they are not what game companies target. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is not the truth. 2. Chrome uses regular RAM, it doesn't really tap into VRAM, that's why I have 32GB and should I ever find I have too many tabs open, I can close them or simply get more RAM and go to 64GB or heaven forbid 128GB. I use my computer for a lot of things other than gaming and many things, such as going through technical documentation on things like Cisco Switches that I work with, means that I can't simply close tabs all the time. I have a very non standard use for my computer, and for that I'm well aware of what kind of impact dozens of Chrome tabs can have on performance. 3. All textures are impacted by AF at all times when it's enabled because there will always be a texture at an angle to the perspective of the player. The impact of 16X AF on performance is most notable with higher graphics settings, most notably the textures. Higher resolution textures are going to need more power to handle 16X AF than if it was lower resolution textures at 16X AF. Anyone who thinks AF has basically no impact likely doesn't notice the impact as they have hardware that can handle the frankly insane levels of detail modern western AAA games have. They do look pretty, but the hardware needed to have things like 16X AF, Raytraced, and set to Ultra while also getting stable frame rates is pointlessly expensive and for almost anyone, it's not even worth it. 4. For most people, that input delay is a non issue. They likely are not winning or losing gunfights in shooters because of a few milliseconds of delay. Screen Tearing absolutely can impact an engagements outcome. Yes, very bad input delay can decide a fight, but the delay from VSYNC being on is only going to be noticable if the screen and FPS locking are wrong. If VSYNC is set up correctly, the delay is going to be so small as to not be a genuine factor. It's added to games because screen tearing is THAT bad of an issue. I do not, nor will I ever, say that Screen Tearing is acceptable to want over lower more stable frame rates. You only even get Screen Tearing if your monitor isn't able to handle that high of a frame rate anyways so most people would be better off with VSYNC on anyways. 5. I hate that I need to keep saying this, but while yes, he was using DDR5, his video is claiming to be a Benchmark (it isn't, it's a showcase by every possible metric and definition) and as such my point in bringing up things like 'it could be DDR3' is to highlight that specific notable lack of outright stating what he was using. If this is to be treated like a Benchmark, as he wants it to be, then the lack of an explicit statement of what RAM was in there and only saying the speed of it is unacceptable. That said, 16GB of RAM is rather low for a Benchmarking computer, that's a concerning choice if that was how much he had. When doing a GPU Benchmark, you need to far surpass the power of that GPU in all other hardware to make explicitly sure no other component is impacting the GPU performance. 16GB is considered to be just about the minimum for modern gaming and I would hope he isn't using only 16GB in what he claims to be a Benchmark. That is also why I was so harsh on the choice of CPU, even if I ended up being wrong about the i3 still being sold (though with the way Windows 11 isn't even allowing i3s as an option and many other factors that led to my incorrect though about them they likely will cease to be available for sale soon.).

It's a good thing you're not in any position to validate me then because I'm not interested in looking good in the eyes of anyone. I say what I mean and I mean what I say, if I insult somebody you can damn well bet I felt pretty fucking strongly. I don't give a rats fucking plague riddled ass about if you or anyone else wants to take me seriously. Insulting him doesn't invalidate the rest of the things I say.

@NathanaelHunter no one takes you seriously. You're openly being mocked by everyone in the comments, including the guy you tried to insult.

You are either intentionally ignoring or just didn't understand the meaning behind me saying DDR3 there. He made an explicit choice to name all the other hardware down to the model and NOT the RAM. He only said XMP and the speed. While yes, it is obviously DDR5 RAM and not DDR3, the point of saying 'it could be DDR3 for all we know' is to highlight the fact that he was not wanting to say how what RAM he had in there. People have chosen to take my words for what I literally said rather than the deeper context of them. I was showing the deceptive nature of what he was doing and saying, not explicitly claiming it was DDR3, though I can understand if this was not particularly easy for people to grasp. I did rather swiftly move on after saying it.

People genuinely don't believe older cards are worth buying, and you hit the nail on the head, it takes a LOT to actually max out some of these GPUs and many modern titles aren't even doing it. With things like DLSS available older cards can still have a lot of life in them if only people weren't so quick to make sweeping inaccurate claims about what real world performance they can reach.

This is gonna be another long comment... You and a lot of people seem to have chosen to take my words as literally what I said rather than the meaning of what was said. For a start, you will note that I lumped all i series CPUs into the number and nature of it rather than naming anything more specific. This was to state rather generally that in each release, the i5 will always be weaker than an i7 and that will be weaker than an i9. This is how Intel does things. While I was wrong on the existence of the i3 and don't have time to restate all that I said to Matt about this when I explained what things led to my incorrect assumption that Intel had actually stopped selling the i3 line, suffice it to say, the i5, as a generalization, is objectively weaker than the i7 and i9. I was not interested and am still not interested in hashing out petty debates over if Y model i5 is better than X model i7. That's a non issue and has no factor in the reason I brought attention to his CPU choice. Picking an i5 for a Benchmark is already a very concerning choice as it goes against standard practice. You can't just pick whatever part for no reason, there are specific reasons to go with specific parts on a machine that's to be used for a Benchmark and he picked that specific model of i5 and said he was going to use it ALL YEAR. That's not a normal choice and it's not in line with what is acceptable for Benchmarking. Generalization is acceptable for making a point, you can lump i5 as worse than i7 and i9 and say that it's not normal to ick that CPU for a Benchmarking PC. It's not wrong, it's not inaccurate, and it's not even really rational to say it's a problem or to bring up specific models in the conversation here when I didn't do that myself. I said it was bad and not a good choice for Benchmarking the 2080 and I stand by that, it's not good practice and it's a shameful decision. Anyways, skipping over all the other things you noted as I've addressed these points over and over many times now; I will always say that people who have financial incentive to mislead doing anything to mislead are disgusting and I will always call that out when I see it. I didn't say anything about it until the end and I didn't explain in any detail, but PC flippers disgust me most of all. They have direct financial incentive to be as misleading and underhanded as possible to maximize profit. The reality is that PC hardware is a razor thin margin for profits and it is NOT a market that the average person can thrive in without doing very shady and frankly manipulative things. Flipping as a concept is not inherently bad, but the way it almost always ends up going IS bad. Used car dealerships are a perfect example. It's in their best interest to put as little money in and do as little work as possible and upmark the price as high as they can, almost exclusively to the customer's loss. There is a LOT that can be done to scam PC buyers and things like saying Higher FPS is better is an easy way to con less than intelligent buyers. I have no respect for people in the PC flipping market due to the way it almost always goes and I have no issue is saying they are potentially all nothing more than scammers because it very often can be found that the engage in the same tactics as scammers. Moving on from the flipping aspect of why I hate misleading people, Matt is trying to pass off this Showcase as a Benchmark and he rather intentionally made the choice to go with strange hardware selections and put all the games to their lowest settings despite the incredibly deceptive nature of those choices. I have nothing to gain from saying what he was doing is disgraceful, nothing to gain at all, calling it out was done in an act of rage and disgust, and I stand firmly behind what I said and how I chose to say it all as I always do. I do nothing and say nothing that I don't stand behind, people who don't say what the believe and stand firm in their convictions disgust me just as much as people who aim to deceive. I admit when I say things that are wrong, as I did with the i3 many times both here and in his comment section. I will not say that I was wrong to say what he was doing was disgraceful and deceptive. It was, without a doubt, deceptive and potentially had real impact on people who were looking for information on the RTX 2080. His showcase being treated like it was a method of displaying unbiased information was shameful and disgusting. I was enraged to see such behavior, especially when I was looking for an unbiased showcase of the RTX 2080 for just that reason, and it's something that I could not allow to stand. The way I act in my comment section is how I act in all places at all times, without any filter and without any desire to protect people from harsh statements and insults. I hold one thing above all others as my rule for how people should and can act when around me and that is to hold nothing back and to speak your mind and do so without hesitation. If what you think and feel is that somebody is an arrogant retarded fuck up, you should say it. It goes back to what I said, say what you mean and stand behind that. I live by the age old saying of treat others how you wish to be treated. You can damned well expect that I would be insulted more by somebody being polite if they feel otherwise than them saying how they really feel. I believe strongly in unfiltered raw conversation. If people feel they need to walk on eggshells in a conversation they will not speak nearly as often or with the passion and emotion that is needed. I don't blame you for thinking it's boorish behaviour and that it could be off putting to people. It's just how I've lived my life and how my experiences guide my actions. I don't hold others to that standard in their comment sections, if they want it to be a place of non aggressive conversation, than I have no issue with them having it be that way, but in my videos and in my comment section, I don't want people to feel like they have limitations, they are held to the same standards I hold, if I was to have them be chained to standards I don't hold, I would be a hypocritical bastard, and that is not the kind of man I am. So while I can agree, my way of speaking and decision to not hold back and go directly for what is objectively a conflict seeking conversation style may come off as seeking a 'win' as you say, just know that it's not wanting a 'win' in any way, I simply speak as I believe and in a manner that holds nothing back.

He is so obviously trolling. Can't be held accountable for words taken literally. If you didn't want to be taken literally why did you make a 52 min stating that he is skewing results, why are you commenting on peoples comments. Words you say and type are meant to be taken literally your just trying to use this as a cop out. 12600k is plenty fast enough to fully saturate the RTX 2080 on 1440p 4k and 1080p - 1080p being more CPU bound obviously. "Picking an i5 for a Benchmark is already a very concerning choice as it goes against standard practice." - this makes absolutely no sense. The reason this make zero sense is because the CPU is not the limiting factor the RTX 2080 is. The 12600k can handle a 2080 no problem. He could have paired it with the newest cpus and the cpus would still be bottleneck by that card at every resolution. He picked that part because it made sense, clearly you lack that.

and you obviously don't know much about pc's but xmp being disabled can make you lose up to 10% of your performance, and once again an i5 12600k is capable of running a 4070ti perfectly fine so nothing about this is rigged, the 2080 in his system is the slowest part by far and is a bottleneck to the rest of that system. How can his system be rigged when the gpu is literally the slowest part in it? at 16:04 you can literally see that his cpu is only at 50% usage while the gpu is maxed out and then you immediately say that he gimped the cpu, are you like trolling or something? And you saying that "the every man isnt going to own a 200fps capable monitor" when you can buy a 1080p 240hz 1ms curved monitor brand new off of amazon for $130, it is quite literally entry level pricing. You are stuck in the past, tech has upgraded so much in the last few years that old hardware is pretty much null and is insanely cheap. When you can buy a budget cpu that doubles the fps of the highest end cpu from 5 years ago, that hardware is no longer useful.

"can't buy worse than an i5" what is this guy smoking

@@iitzfizz exactly lol he’s trying to say the 12600k is why his 2080 isn’t a good card for 4K🤣 when that cpu can handle a gpu 4x as powerful as a 2080

@@peik_haikyuu2265 i thought it was legit but when he started talking about cpus deffo seems like a troll or he's a lost cause. Also 50TB storage wtf 😂😂

@@iitzfizz yeah 50tb of hdd’s flopping around in his case🤣 I just can’t believe he thinks a 12600k is holding back a 2080😂

Lol happy birthday Matt!

I want an i3 for my bday but apparently they don't make them any more

Happy birthday !

@@itsNightShine thank you 🧡

@@MMillerPCswatched some of your videos keep up the work I enjoyed them ! Dont listen to this guy

1. I'm not a tech youtuber and I never claimed to be. 2. I didn't bother adding anything about it here, but when I said they don't make the i3 anymore there was several things that all were in my head at the time about the i series that meshed into the i3 not being for sale anymore. It wasn't true, but given Windows 11 not supporting i3 cpus is a thing I would start to believe that the i3 is likely going to be phased out. That and Intel outright said the i series naming is going away so in a way the i3 dies with that anyways. 3. I was clearly generalizing every i series cpu into it's section. That may not be the tech tuber thing to do, but it is the 1am borderline asleep let me slam this video out with layman terms and generally correct statements thing to do. So while yes, I am more than happy to say that the i5 is not objectively worse than the i7 in all cases, if you consider the most up to date hardware as the metric, saying the i5 is worse than the i7 and the i7 is worse than the i9 in a very general way that's entirely true. It's not per spec and model true, but it is generally a factual statement.

@@NathanaelHunter WIN 11 is supported on the 10100, 11100, 12100, 13100,14100 that's 5 generations (4 years!) of ''i3'' processors, all officially WIN 11 ready so again your wrong! and I think you need to learn about PC hardware before complaining about someone else's selections.

my i7-6700 in real world gaming can still just about keep up with a 3050 so I mean you don't really need a massive CPU compared to GPU unless you're streaming or multitasking but if you're testing the GPU I get you want to make the GPU the point of the bottleneck not the CPU

@@NathanaelHunter What are you on? Intel is making i3 you have 14th gen i3 and you can buy them. Please educate yourself before posting stuff like this.

I say it rather often when talking about hardware but if the price is good and you don't have an explicit reason to buy a more powerful piece of hardware, buying something weaker at a good price is always a good idea. If people would just buy what they need rather than what's the newest and take strong consideration of what they want to get out of their hardware, they would probably save a lot of money and barely notice the difference.

This is how PC gaming used to and IMO should still be, buying upgrades when the price is right and there is a sizable increase in performance options. Going from a 2080 to a 30 or 40 series card doesn't provide a worthwhile performance jump for the price people would pay. Going from a 1070 to being able to take advantage of things like DLSS and Raytracing for a good price is great. If only more people would think like you did and buy what makes sense rather than spend time saying anything worse than the latest tech is bad and shouldn't be bought.

No an i9 9900k is not better or equal to an i5 12600k. The 12600k is at minimum 10% faster

@@itsNightShine 9900k has a score of 13k in cinebench r23, a 12600k gets about 18k in the same test, thats almost 30% faster.

12600kf can be found for $150 brand new on amazon when a 13600k is almost double that. The 12600kf scores 20k in r23 with just an undervolt and people are overclocking the 13600k and only getting 26k so is double the price worth about 20% more performance?

@@peik_haikyuu2265 yeah, I just checked a quick bench and the first title was overwatch and thats where I saw the 10% that’s why I put a minimum 10% because I was sure it was much faster than that thanks for the info !

@@peik_haikyuu2265I don’t really expect most people to under volt. I do it because I enjoy the process but none of my friends do it.

I don’t see how you agree with him on many points… this whole video is almost completely wrong

@@itsNightShine Ok... this is true but firstly... I just didn't want to put any hate on the 2080, its still viable card... And Also I started typing that as soon as he made his outrageous comment about the 12600k... So obviously couple of minutes in.. then half switched off after that so my bad. 🤣 The boy obviously has no idea about Intel CPU's, marking it as just some ''i5'' even saying he should get a previous gen ''i7'' instead... 😂😂 This is obviously dumb as the ''12600k'' out performs all previous gen ''i'' CPUs including the 11900k, with the possible exception of the 10900k. also all the benchmarks shown above, have the GPU at 100% so why he would think the 12600k is bottlenecking the 2080 at 4k, if it can max it out at 1080p?!... does he not know 4k is more GPU bound than CPU? The 12600k can max out a 3080 Ti at 4k & 1440p and only shows a 10-15% bottleneck with a 3080Ti 12gb!! at 1080p!.... but is going to struggle with 4k on a 2080 8gb somehow?!..... 🤣🤣🤣 That being said, the 12600k still shouldn't be a test bench CPU in 2024, if it bottlenecks a 3080 Ti at 1080p, As basically anything over a 4070S at 1080p will be bottlenecked by this CPU, but plenty for a RTX2080 benchmark, also plenty of room in that CPU socket as well, so platform is ok.

@@TriPBOOMER he probably had an i7 9700k which came out the same year as the 2080, it only gets a score of 9000 on cinebench r23 when the 12600k gets 18000 with a good cooler. He is just under the assumption that any and all i7’s have to be better than an i5.

I hate that this was understood that way. I meant it as in it isn't the top of the line for what Intel sells. Matt Miller was treating this as if it was a Benchmark when it's not, it's a showcase. He didn't follow what is generally considered standard practice and even explicitly commented that FPS being high instead of graphics is a personal choice. Personal taste has no place in showing the capabilities of a piece of hardware, i.e a Benchmark. So yes, I generalized very heavily that an i5 is weak because comparatively to the other modern Intel CPUs it is weak. People are very mad that I condensed all the CPUs like this and while they are not wrong in saying that the i5 he picked isn't garbage, the sentiment about it being very far from the top is not incorrect. I also don't understand how the concept of proper procedure in a Benchmark not being followed is potentially an issue. Sure, the i5 he did the video with is solid enough. That does NOT mean that it would be considered by any means to be a good choice for a BENCHMARK. This is why I have been so up in arms about the video. It's a SHOWCASE and not a Benchmark. Matt Miller could easily have done what other groups do and made sure the GPU is in zero ways impacted by any bottlenecks elsewhere in the system and raised the graphics to a reasonable level. I have a suspicion that if he was pushing the RTX 2080 as it would have been for a proper Benchmark, that the CPU would have started taken on more load, as well as the RAM and that could have potentially impacted the results. I am not a hardware benchmark expert. I don't bother with benchmarking tools. I go off my actual experience and what I have first hand seen hardware do. That is why I take people saying Benchmark and hold them to a high standard. If you are potentially influencing purchases of consumers and the information you put out is bad, that's not cool. Matt Miller's 'benchmarking' of the 2080 is so far from what any other reputable group would have done that it simply HAD to be called out. I'm rambly and I lump things together and I don't bother with the very fine details. I'm a big picture guy. I feel like the fine details are a right time right place kind of deal and that a video saying that a showcase of the 2080 is shit is not the right place for getting down in to the specific models of CPU over just lumping i7s and i9s as being more powerful than an i5. So, to be clear, yes, there is more fine detail that I did not go into. It isn't important that the i5 he is using is more powerful than some of the other higher i model CPUs available because the point of lumping i models together like I did was to generalize. Fine details do not make the point of what I was saying any less valid no matter how much some of the people here want to claim.

@NathanaelHunter regardless of how much you ramble on about it, that 12600k would NEVER under any circumstances bottleneck a RTX2080 so I agree that for a standardised test bench for all hardware then the 12600k is a bad choice, but to benchmark an RTX2080 then their is nothing wrong with it, as there is NOTHING the 2080 can do to out perform the 12600k, also you say its far from the top?... their are currently 8 Intel CPUs higher than this CPU only 8! 2 of them are newer 600k!! So 6 none i5 CPUs also for gaming the 12600k outperformed the 12700k so..... My point is that you dont have a clue what you're on about with CPUs, and again for benchmarking just a 2080 the 12600k is plenty, again more CPU than that GPU can handle so would never bottleneck a 2080 in any situation ever. I think you should go learn about hardware and its capabilities before complaining that hardware that is more than enough for a job, and the ONLY way it would cause a bottleneck is if somehow the Rtx2080 was more powerful than a RTX3080TI so unless the 2080 becomes atleast 60% faster stop complaining about a CPU that is getting bottlenecked by a 2080! You talk about him lying ect, and you start your video, lying about the 12600k being too week and the 2080 is stronger than it is. Again there is NOTHING the 2080 can do to create a bottleneck on that 12600K, you are spitting bubbles lad!

A lot of people online shit talk hardware. I have come to realize it's buyers remorse. They bought the latest tech and when the price to performance isn't super amazing they feel the need to tell everyone with older hardware how much worse the stuff they have is. It's often not even a real argument. There is nothing wrong with older hardware and the Steam Hardware survey makes them look like idiots because LOTS of people have chosen not to buy 40 series cards and are rocking older GPUs. I've gamed on bad hardware and super good hardware and played on PC and console. I know what garbage graphics and frame rates are like and I know what good graphics and frame rates are like. I think people deserve a voice saying that older hardware is good and in some cases, better than people are claiming. The RTX 2080 is amazing for what it is and people shoot out to try and say it isn't because the numbers say blah blah blah. Game how you enjoy and ignore the mongs running around the internet saying your hardware isn't good enough. They usually don't know what they are saying anyways because they don't have the hardware in question.

From a conversation I had explaining this on Matt's video: I had to go check, I will admit, I was wrong about the sales of the Core i3, and I figured out why I had thought it wasn't available anymore. For a start, Intel stated they were moving away from the 'i' naming scheme. There was an article I can no longer find that I recall mentioned the i3 was no longer being sold as an option by some manufacturer (I think it was Dell or HP). There is also the most recent information that i3s are apparently not supported on Windows 11. I don't know the scope of that, but I now know that they are still around and that there were a multitude of things that led me to believe they were no longer available. Regardless, the i5 is Intel's lower end of modern CPUs and even a powerful i5 is questionable over other available options, particularly given the i9 has been available for years now and current i7s and i9s outperform all i5s. I was generalizing in my statement by lumping all i series into just the most recent ones, I can see how this was unclear.

always thought that 2k was 1440p. why would anyone call 1080p 2k? genuinely??? especially when its been called 1080p for years and years

@@FiveMissiles the K system is the first number in resolution (rounded). 3840x2160p is 4k, 2560x1440p is 2.5k, 1920x1080 is 2k. Of course, other weord resolutions can fit into 2k/2.5k/4k, but those are the most common ones. And people call it 1080p and not 2k, just like how people call it 1440p and not 2.5k. The only one people say is 4K. It's better to be specific and say 1440p, but if he's gonna say 2k he should get it right with 2.5k

nobody calls 1080p 2k Wtf? lol 1440p is 2k

​​@@GODFADEDyou clearly didn't read my above reply explaining how it works. Calling 1440p 2k is factually incorrect. If your friend jumped off a bridge, would you jump too? Just because some people are wrong, doesn't make it right.

@@kanavyre and calling 1080p 2k is factually incorrect as well your point doesnt hold up wtf are you yapping about? if 1440p is 2.5k right?, which is 78% more pixels then 1080p then hows does 1080p add to 2k if 1440p is 78% more pixel dense then 1080p ur math aint mathing

It does perform well. I have now posted proof that it does. If the PS5 and Series X are considered 4K capable consoles than what the 2080 can do is also fair to consider as 4K capable. Shut up you filthy basement dwelling graphics whore.

@@NathanaelHunter Grow up, no need to trashtalk you clown. Hes just giving his point of view. Dont be a bitch.

Naw

cringe

@@NathanaelHunter but but but like- damn 🦫

Ah yes, I'm cringe. That means alot coming from somebody with a Roblox PFP who posted a bunch of Fortnite clips. I swear children should be banned from internet access.

@@NathanaelHunter nah bro ur not cringe the only Chad member from anime fan club discord group

Facts

Oh I cannot wait to hear how everyone is going to rant and scream this in the coming months. The RTX 2080 is pretty much capable of everything the current Gen consoles can do so if GTA 6 is on there the RTX 2080 is going to be more than capable of handling it too. Also, you really want to call me a bozo then not even manage to spell the word around correctly or punctate that sentence? REALLY? I'm the bozo here?

GTA 6 is not relasing in 2025 on pc 2026/2027

You are not about to try and say something about how VSYNC is bad and screen tearing is good to my fucking face. I know damned well you aren't going to try and make an argument for screen tearing being GOOD. Of all the fucking retarded, shit for brains, nonexistent neuron activity statements that I have heard, the ones trying to DEFEND SCREEN TEARING are the ones I am NOT about to give even the smallest amount of respect towards. That is just outright fucking bullshit. Don't even try it.

Do you also average 120-144fps on cyberpunk ultra ? Native 2k

You are the kind of person I made this video for. Ignore the hardware whores screaming that you're not using the latest stuff and thus you must be lying about what you're getting fps wise and that anything lower than 120 or whatever fps is just unacceptable. It's just nonsense. Most of them say you're poor for not buying the newest GPU or whatever but they're just having buyers remorse. They're mad you can get decent FPS and graphic settings without paying a billion bucks for it. They get even more mad when I say that my Steam Library is valued at about 35 grand. I can easily buy a newer GPU, I just don't because I don't need to. I never lied about what my GPU can handle nor did I lie about the settings, but note how mad they get at me saying it.

@@NathanaelHunter you are lying🤣 your 2080 is worth about $200 used, a 6700xt gets anywhere from 15-30% more performance than a 2080 and can be bought brand new for $299. Your gpu is not a 4K gpu, a 4K gpu can run something like cyberpunk at 4k native high with rt off at 60fps which a 2080 absolutely cannot do. 4K high preset in cyberpunk gets about 25fps avg.

You are the person the 'well aktually' joke is making fun of dude. You keep saying Cyberpunk 2077 4k ultra with Raytracing like it's something I said the 2080 can do. I never said that. You can't timestamp me having said it. It's not even something anyone is claiming. I never even brought up the price of an RTX 2080 because it's not even an argument to be had. It's literally sounding like you bought a 40 series card for way more than it's really worth and you feel the need to say anyone on older hardware sucks because its not the newest tech.