Installa Steam
Accedi
|
Lingua
简体中文 (cinese semplificato)
繁體中文 (cinese tradizionale)
日本語 (giapponese)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandese)
Български (bulgaro)
Čeština (ceco)
Dansk (danese)
Deutsch (tedesco)
English (inglese)
Español - España (spagnolo - Spagna)
Español - Latinoamérica (spagnolo dell'America Latina)
Ελληνικά (greco)
Français (francese)
Indonesiano
Magyar (ungherese)
Nederlands (olandese)
Norsk (norvegese)
Polski (polacco)
Português (portoghese - Portogallo)
Português - Brasil (portoghese brasiliano)
Română (rumeno)
Русский (russo)
Suomi (finlandese)
Svenska (svedese)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraino)
Segnala un problema nella traduzione
Regole e linee guida per le discussioni
Segnala questo messaggio
Ryzen 3000's IPC is about the same as Intel 9th gen, sometimes higher, but the 3900X and 9900K have the same single threaded IPC.
The 4790K can handle a 1080 Ti, your CPU isn't the primary issue. The RX 570 is more likely the problem as it's an entry level graphics card with only 4GB of VRAM, so some settings have to be dropped to conserve VRAM in some games, otherwise it'll take from your system memory, which is much slower than VRAM.
Dual core has 2 cores, quad core has 4. 4 > 2, so quad is better..
See above, your Quadcore is one of the ebst CPU's on the market and easily beats any dual core in single and multicore tasks:
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Pentium-G4560-vs-Intel-Core-i7-4790K/3892vs2384
why do you think a "bottleneck" would matter? if you push an acceptable framerate theire is nothbing to fix.
No, dropping cores will be worse. Any bottlenecking can be minimized by limiting your framerate, as letting FPS go as high is it can without limit often results in FPS fluctuations that create stutters and other issues that lower gameplay quality.
As long as you're getting playable FPS, then there really isn't an issue. With old games, the RX 570 4G should easily pull over 60 FPS, so there's no issue.
Well since both of you stated that I needed a GPU upgrade instead, should I go for RX 580 or is there anything available higher than that for my setup? preferable AMD as I'm using FreeSync. Noticed I have like 50% AMD and 50% Intel for my setup
The thing is if my GPU is the bottleneck, how come someone with:
GTX 1060 3GB VRAM
Ryzen 7 3700X
runs it better than my rig @60 FPS as the game's requirement specified above? while I'm here stuck with a fine CPU struggling with the GPU? FPS drops majority of the time when.. RX 570 should be less than or equal to GTX1060 but has 1GB VRAM ahead tho.
VRAM =/= Performance
VRAM is simply the amount of video memory it has, it has nothing to do with performance so long as the game you're playing isn't using 100% of it and taking up system RAM.
The 1060 cards are up to 25% better than the RX 570 cards (It's the RX 580 that's on par with the 1060), and the 3700X is a way more powerful CPU, that's why his build gets better results. The 4790K can barely scratch the 3700X in the latest titles when it's overclocked, but in the game specs you mentioned, your CPU is still overkill.
Newer PCs also have faster DDR4 memory, higher IPC, etc. Older systems with 4th gen Intel are still good nowadays, but they show their age in games that benefit from more than 4 physical cores, like Assassin's Creed: Odyssey.
Your best bet, assuming you can't afford to upgrade the entire system is just get a 1660 Ti.
The easy explanation is, the GTX 1060 beats your 570 anytime,
Info I got was a better CPU with a stronger single core or single thread so that's why I think my CPU is inferior to that of a Dual Core with a better core/thread power than the amount of core by itself.
For instance, I've played R6 Siege and whenever I go beyond the VRAM it crashes the game.. doesn't that count as performance if we go by VRAM? I heard VRAM gives better performance with Anti-Aliasing on too.
I'm still waiting on the response for the same manufacturer parts advantage.. cause when I set my PC parts, the guy who built it for me said it has nothing much to do with different manufacturer. Who to believe in now?
VRAM is similar to system RAM in that it doesn't have a noticeable difference with performance by quantity, just speed up to a certain degree, and GDDR5 RAM is much faster than DDR3. It's just a quantity. If you run out of VRAM, you need to drop some settings that take up a lot of VRAM.
If he means that different manufacturers of products mean nothing, he's pretty much correct. ASUS, MSI, Gigabyte, and other vendors don't really matter as it's all the same core or chipset and they have almost identical features.
Also, the 4790K is not inferior to a dual core with higher single threaded IPC because it has the cores. Games that benefit from 4 cores instead of only 2 will run better on the 4790K, just as games like AC:O that benefit from 6~8 cores like the 1600, 1700, etc run better on those CPUs than they do on the 4790K, but games like that are too few to say that the 4790K is obsolete, especially if it's overclocked.
It doesn't matter, but Intel is not the cheaper alternative in the terms of gaming performance, AMD is. You can buy a cheap celeron or pentium, but it won't handle a good GPU. Right now, the best value CPUs on the market for gaming are the Ryzen 5 1600/2600. The 1600 is about the same as 4th gen Intel performance, and the 2600 is a little bit better.
The 3600 dwarfs them both, as with some tweaking it can match the 8700K and come close to the 9700K, which had previously strangled Ryzen 1st and 2nd gen.
The conclusion I got now would be getting a GPU upgrade first, preferably RX 580 8GB VRAM. Next step for a jump would be X570 A PRO for the Motherboard and then Ryzen 7 3700X for CPU.
I haven't checked the compatibilities of them all yet but that's what I've come up with from a third party site PC builder.
Again, I recommend the 3600 if you're only gaming because you could afford a better GPU than the RX 580, and a better monitor if you go with a Gigabyte X470 or B450 motherboard and use Q-Flash to update the BIOS for the 3600. Cheap X570s aren't worth it because the VRMs aren't any better than X470, and PCI-e Gen4 is pointless. In some cases, some X470s can be better than the basic X570 models.
I'm using an X470 AORUS Gaming 7 WiFi with a 3900X and I have no issues maintaining 4.5~4.55 GHz while gaming because of the power delivery being enough for a 12 core chip.
For example, the X470 AORUS Ultra Gaming costs 40~50$ USD less than the X570-A PRO, but has comparable VRMs (8+3 with doublers as opposed to the 8+4 with doublers with the X570 board, which makes next to no difference), better VRM cooling, better rear I/O, comes with a single M.2 SSD heatsink (The A PRO has none), and, while it doesn't matter much at all, the A-PRO only supports 2-way crossfire, while the X470 supports Crossfire and SLI.
tl;dr - budget X570s are a horrible value, and you should only buy an X570 if you can afford at least a mid-range model, because X470 still holds better value.