Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
No issue here, with a Ryzen 7 5800X / 32 GB of RAM / RTX 3060 Ti, constant 75 FPS (my screen limit) @ 3440x1440. Most setting at mid, textures and details at high.
Maybe the game is extremely CPU demanding, and you hit a bottleneck ? I haven't tested it, just a wild idea.
I suppose I'm the lucky one :s
I'm also using an RTX 4060 ti but I generally get 60-75 fps while playing with lows hitting 40 or even lower. The game is just badly optimized.
Is "Zen+" an improved first gen or the actual second gen ? Don't remember... Guess I wasn't too far off when I assumed CPU bottleneck.
Anyway, if they were to change their CPU, they'd need a new motherboard, and also new RAM. The old RAM would probably work, but the CPU would underperform with slower RAM than what it was designed for. That's quite a bill for an unexpected upgrade. Probably still alot cheaper than what they paid for their RTX 4060, though.
Generally speaking, a well balanced machine will always perform better, because a frankenrig will only be as fast as its slowest parts.
Not entirely true. AMD CPU perform better than Intel ones in games, if the recent gens are compared. Sure, they underperform in everything else, but you can get a stable 75 FPS (and maybe more, but I limit my FPS to my screen refresh rate to avoid the "jet taking off" syndrome) with my rig, which isn't bad but nothing to write home about either. When lots of ♥♥♥♥ is happening, I dip into 60-ish. Just gotta be realistic with options and not set everything to "epic quality".
For the record, the CPU that is considered the best for gaming as of today is the Ryzen 7 9800X3D, due to how the cache is designed. On the other hand, with Intel adopting a design philosophy that ressemble what is found in ARM processors, with large cores and smaller cors working together, they are less useful for gaming, but generally better at everything that isn't gaming. Either way, any modern CPU will do, but since AMD is cheaper, more energy efficient (never thought I'd write thart some day !), and also motherboards are cheaper too, it's hard to recommend Intel for a gaming rig nowadays.
i mean yeah if you got $2000 to piss away on a graphics card then yeah, i guess go nvidia. but other than that, i'd be keeping my eyes peeled. but i would never buy a card with 128bit memory bus in 2025. to people that have been paying attention to hardware specs for decades, that is sac-relig. only low end cards would use that (even 192) and they know it. the performance gain from memory bus width alone is staggering,
3.49 is what i paid for this and still refunded it lol. It's good to know a lot of the talentless devs who worked on this got marching orders.
Funny that, it runs pretty well on my 3060 Ti. And it sure doesn't look half bad either.
False