Steam'i Yükleyin
giriş
|
dil
简体中文 (Basitleştirilmiş Çince)
繁體中文 (Geleneksel Çince)
日本語 (Japonca)
한국어 (Korece)
ไทย (Tayca)
Български (Bulgarca)
Čeština (Çekçe)
Dansk (Danca)
Deutsch (Almanca)
English (İngilizce)
Español - España (İspanyolca - İspanya)
Español - Latinoamérica (İspanyolca - Latin Amerika)
Ελληνικά (Yunanca)
Français (Fransızca)
Italiano (İtalyanca)
Bahasa Indonesia (Endonezce)
Magyar (Macarca)
Nederlands (Hollandaca)
Norsk (Norveççe)
Polski (Lehçe)
Português (Portekizce - Portekiz)
Português - Brasil (Portekizce - Brezilya)
Română (Rumence)
Русский (Rusça)
Suomi (Fince)
Svenska (İsveççe)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamca)
Українська (Ukraynaca)
Bir çeviri sorunu bildirin
on 7 days to die I only get about 35% gpu usage and that gives me about 40 fps which is very little for a 2060 on a 5 year old game.
The reason why I want high gpu usage is so that i can reach the 144 fps target for my monitor on games that i play a lot (like that one).
7 days to die running on low fps. When the game gets more demanding my usage can sometimes go up to 70% and with it comes around 90 fps and i dont understand why it cant run constantly at those rates.
That's likely to be a misunderstanding how the graphics pipeline works. To be able to render a frame, GPU has to receive some basic information about that frame from CPU. If there is no data to process - GPU will idle, as it's not the GPU creating frames, it just continues working with frames created by CPU. You can easily get more GPU usage by increasing resolution, graphics, antialiasing, but that will just make those frames more complex, won't create new frames anyhow. So in this particular case it absolutely is the CPU bottleneck caused by games not able to use that much threads of yours. But low GPU usage not an issue, it just means you've got an awesome GPU that can deal with those games without breaking a sweat.
I am starting to wish i bought the i7 8700k now as that has more power per core.
Still you actually did a right thing by choosing Ryzen. The new generation of consoles is just around the corner, and those will have AMD CPUs just like this gen. Will it be more cores, or still 8 but clocked higher than before, or 8/16 by SMT like you've got - games' developers will aim at utilizing more cores and threads, so you can except more and more games making a good use of your CPU. The same did happen with arguably-8-cores FX CPUs, which at first were worse than i5-2500 game-wise, but ended up coming close to i7-2600 in newer games.
Will 8700k be better for gaming in a few years? Now that depends on games' devs. And those first make their games for consoles. And consoles, both this gen and next gen, got AMD hardware inside. There's no middle ground here, but if I'd build a new PC right now - I'd stick with AMD without a doubt.
i7 2600 is best cpu this guy is lying