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
http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri
type in any game and it gives you minimum specs for any given game. Optional download (whic I haven't tried) will check your specs and give you feedback against your system....
Might help...
Search "A10-7800 gaming" or specific games you want to see played.
Integrated graphics won't perform as well as they should unless your RAM is running at DDR3-2133 or higher. Try overclocking it if it's lower than that, has heatspreaders and a CAS of 10 for DDR3-1866 or 9 for DDR3-1600.
Yes but DDR3 at what speed?
There is DDR3-1066 or there is DDR3-2133 which is twice as fast. There's other speeds below, between and above as well. The A10-7800 specifically needs DDR3-2133 or faster for graphics.
I'd throw a gtx 750ti in there. assuming this is a desktop?
if this is a laptop, the integrated graphics are even worse, since they operate on lower power with thermal restrictions. there's very few integrated graphics solutions that are decent, and the few that are (iris pro and 2 specific amd gcn ones) are crippled on laptops due to much lower wattage. the a10-8800p and fx-8800 laptop cpu's integrated look nice on paper, but then you notice they dont perform. its because none of the laptop makers use them at the higher 25-30watt mode, they opt for the lower 10-15 watt modes, which saves battery but cripples the performance. and this isnt something the user can flip a switch to change, not without the maker adressing it in a bios update (which none of them have)
if this is a desktop cpu, this was a terrible choice. amd's been lagging in terms of performance for so long their budget quad cores are outperformed in a cost to performance ration by intel's budget dual cores.
and to top it all intel's core i3-4160 (a much better choice) is $10-20 cheaper than the a10-8700, and performance better at single core, quad core, and multicore operations than the a10. and did I mention it's a dual core? (20% improvement on sc, 5% improvement on qc, 4% improvement on mc - source userbenchmarks.com)
Amd's cheap quad cores look like a good deal until you look at the performance for the price compared to intel's dual cores performance for the same price. they perform better than the quad cores at the same or typically lower price.
CS go isnt that hard of a game to run at all. I have an old laptop from 2008 with a intel core 2 duo 2.4ghz and gtx gpu that runs it maxed out with constant vsync.