Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
3DMark is not a synthetic benchmarks, but rather the real world gaming scenerario my man.
Better contact PC Gamer, Tom's Hardware and all the other big gaming sites about that..
3DMark is one of the oldest, most widely-used synthetics, and it has been subject to its own controversies and abuses over time. Its current iteration is 3DMark 11, which provides some of the most rigorous performance testing available today. Consequently, it's the only benchmark where we loosen our resolution requirements, as there is no graphics card on the market that can tackle more than 1080p in 3DMark 11. Since our goal is to only assess graphics speed, we don't both with the CPU scores in our final result, only tallying graphics tests one through four.
Synthetic benchmarks are programs designed specifically for benchmarking, and usually offer the most detailed results. A few popular programs are Catzilla, Furmark, Unigine Heaven, and 3DMark, which is available on Steam. We use Heaven 4.0 for a lot of our benchmarks, but 3DMark is also a good package: it includes multiple benchmarks for different types of systems, assigns scores for graphics and physics processing, and compares your results to those of other users to show you how your rig compares. You can try out basic versions of 3DMark and 3DMark 11 for free.
3DMark is a synthetic benchmark that measures a graphics card's gaming abilities. Although the tests interact with the CPU for things like artificial intelligence (AI) and physics tasks, the graphics processing unit (GPU) handles most of the workload. The Fire Strike tests, specifically, simulate the stresses of demanding games to determine how ready your card is to handle them. Fire Strike comes in three levels: the Standard version, an Extreme version, and an Ultra version, the last simulating the demands of gaming at 4K resolution.
You dont need to oc cpu and gpu when they performs dam good right out the box.
Because Intel has always been the best bang for the buck overall. AMD always been hotter and needed more cores/cooling to do the same job. So every once in a blue moon AMD catches Intel off guard and some people get wowed by the trivial performance increases. Soon after Intel or Nvidia (in the case of their GPU's) comes and steps on AMD like a bug and the glory is short lived. I remember when AMD was using any nerd with a PC who would convert to it's chips as actual sales rep's. They have come a long way but still far behind Intel who could sink their battleship easily. The only thing keeping AMD in the game is Antitrust laws for which Intel has already been fined heavily. If Intel really wanted they could price AMD out of the market and that would be that.
No, just no
High End: http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-7900X-vs-AMD-Ryzen-TR-1950X/m233971vs3932
Actually, unless you're like me and wishing you had more than 12 threads right now for encoding and the like, Intel is better value for the money for the majority of users. AMDs new chips are awesome for those that need more threads though assuming you can take the heat.
Those processors you listed are not bang for the buck.