Nainstalovat Steam
přihlásit se
|
jazyk
简体中文 (Zjednodušená čínština)
繁體中文 (Tradiční čínština)
日本語 (Japonština)
한국어 (Korejština)
ไทย (Thajština)
български (Bulharština)
Dansk (Dánština)
Deutsch (Němčina)
English (Angličtina)
Español-España (Evropská španělština)
Español-Latinoamérica (Latin. španělština)
Ελληνικά (Řečtina)
Français (Francouzština)
Italiano (Italština)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonéština)
Magyar (Maďarština)
Nederlands (Nizozemština)
Norsk (Norština)
Polski (Polština)
Português (Evropská portugalština)
Português-Brasil (Brazilská portugalština)
Română (Rumunština)
Русский (Ruština)
Suomi (Finština)
Svenska (Švédština)
Türkçe (Turečtina)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamština)
Українська (Ukrajinština)
Nahlásit problém s překladem
Pravidla a pokyny k diskuzím
Nahlásit tento příspěvek
The i3 is garbage, don't buy it. And then you'd lock yourself to a dead socket board.
It's honestly worth spending the extra on the Ryzen.
but the i3 is on the LGA 1151 series 3. that goes up to the i9 9900k no?
and isn't the AM4 socket the 2600 and 3600 on dead now? with the new AM4 socket they released for the 3850 and r9 3900x ? isn't it the other way around lol.
and can i ask why you think the i3 is garbage? its rather close in benchmarks to the 2600. (its also half the price) being only around 10% difference in most titles. especially when it comes to games like arma 3 athat primarily use singlecore performance over multithreaded .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q18YFIum2Q
But, to be honest, despite I for some reasons stick with Intel myself, for inexpensive desktop gaming I'd prefer Ryzen build nowadays.
I wouldn't buy either.
(If you haven't got the funds to buy a good cpu now then what's the chance that you would be buying a 9900k? Intel was possibly going to release new cpu's in a few weeks time but that looks to be off now.)
i did not understand that
also i already have a pc. i'm upgrading my mobo and cpu, so i was weighing my options.
pay the extra $90 for more cores and around 10-15% extra performance (but also buying a mobo with a "dead" socket)
or save the $90 loose the 10-15% performance but have a mobo that has a large upgrade path and spend that money i saved on something like games. cause tbh the i3 is still easily good enough for 60fps gaming. i only have a 60hz panel.
i just wanted to see what others thought before i pull the trigger. as so far i was just thinking the i3,
i\v gotta buy a new mobo anyways so.
and these cpu's are pretty decent what are you on about lol.
AMDs AM4 socket supports up to the 3950x. And they're going to do one more generation on the socket. Which should yield the same as or better performance than Intel.
It would also be cheaper, and offer just as many features (if you buy a B450 board.)
I think the i3-9100F is garbage, because I have an i5-6600k, much the same in performance, and it struggles to play lots of games, especially those that need more threads. If you're playing CSGO, or something, you'd be fine, want to play anything that uses more threads, you're going to run into low FPS, constant stutter, and bottleneck.
That wouldn't really happen with the 1600-AF/2600/x, it has more than enough threads to cover any game, and has decent single thread/quad thread performance, for games like CSGO or other esports games.
It's honestly not worth buying the i3, because you'll only replace it sooner, wasting money, buy the Ryzen, and you'll get much longer out of it, and more performance (in the games that need more threads.)
You also get better features, like overclocking, more memory (speed) support, and upgradeability, to close the (small, if any) gap between the i3 (in <4 thread workloads.)
In my eyes, the only Intel CPUs worth buying right now, are the i7-9700k/f, and the i9-9900k/f.
And, then overclock them. Otherwise it's just not really worth it from a practical, or economical sense.
Not for now they don't, but some of their CPUs come close (and even do beat in some games), the next generation should improve apon that.
i'm not sure where i heard that the new R9 (3000 series) required a new mobo/socket switch but i'v done a bit of research and it seems that most mobo's that support the 2600/1600 af also support the new cpu\s like the R9 3900x so i guess i was wrong about that.
why do none of the videos show this stutter everyone on forums talks about with quad cores ? i dont even stutter on my g4560 dual core with HT sure my fps drops below 60 alot but its not a stuttery mess or anything. its "smooth" the frametimings are fine.
your cpu is also like 20% slower and 2 process nodes older.
im not sure if your cpu is really comparable to this i3. your cpu is a fair amount slower in benchmarks.
also what do you mean " more memory (speed) support" technically they both only support 2400mhz any higher is an overclock. and the i3 9100f supports XMP so you could get 3200 or 3600 running on it. there's videos of it on youtube.
they both have good upgrade options.
the i5 9400f is faster then a 3600 and is cheaper by $50
and the R9 series is a good upgrade from the 1600 af.
i can see your reasoning for going with the 1600 af. games are starting to use more cores.
like ACO that game loves the extra cores. but man it's double the price for like 10% fps difference on 90% of games out right now. and i only own 2400mhz ram.
2600 2400mhz vs 3600mhz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkJIAB7KBsk&t=1s
i3 9100f 2400mhz vs 3600mhz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=claAxtPSE8s&t=1s
they are even closer with this speed of memory.
And 4000 Series should be supported on most boards too. So there is upgrade ability.
Because lots of things can effect stuttering. And also because videos don't show stutter like you'd expect.
Videos have their OWN framerate, which is often smoothed, and also, when viewed in a browser, it has forced Vsync, smoothing things out.
If you look at the frametime graph, technically if it moves, it's causing stutter, to some degree.
Also, in those videos, they're not doing CPU tests, because they're running at max settings, it then becomes a GPU test, because it's the ''bottleneck.''
If you have frametime variation, it's not smooth.
My CPU isn't ''20% slower''
(https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-6600K-vs-Intel-Core-i3-9100F/3503vs4054) It's almost the same, and can be overclocked to higher performance.
The node refinement doesn't change much a couple of percent, at most.
Yes, technically anything above 2133/2400mhz is an overclock, but if you're running a H310 board (which makes sense, because you're buying a locked chip, no need for a Z390/270 board), you can't really get far, but with AMDs B450 chipset, you can get (up to) ~4000mhz pretty commonly.