安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
4~6GB is the minimum or recommended for a lot of games, 8GB is generally ideal if you want to max out settings in every game
For 4K it helps to have 11GB cards like the 2080 Ti
Huh? It's miles ahead of what you have now.
But you will require to just do an entirely new build.
AM4 Motherboard that supports Ryzen 3xxx series out of the box. Such as MSI B450 Tomahawk Max.
AM4 Cpu obviously.
DDR4 RAM. 2x8gb is the minimum to go with.
A case with a more modern layout to ensure better airflow. Old cases still using 80/92mm fans won't cut it.
A modern PSU. Preferably a gold certified modular PSU. At least 550-650 watts
Then whatever GPU, namely something also modern, like RTX 2070 Super or RX 5700 XT
You can't guarantee anything, you're just claiming that it will last 8+ years, which is a statement you can't actually prove. There are games already out that use more than 6 cores, understand? Performance tanks when the core count isn't enough, older quad-thread i5s have a rough time in modern games, often struggling to maintain a good high frame rate that people are generally looking for, and that's the whole freaking point of buying anything better than a 1660/S/Ti. He isn't buying a 5700XT for 60 FPS at 1080p when it's a card that can do far better than that, that would be a complete waste.
If 60 FPS is the goal, then nobody needs more than budget hardware, because 60 FPS being "standard" is a thing of the past. It has been for years now.
How well it does is an indicative of its relevancy... In 5 years, that's FIVE GENERATIONS of Ryzen and Intel CPUs, and AMD so far has made a minimum of 8 to 10 percent increases per generation, and Intel is pushed into doing the same thing, and that pushes the industry standard further along. If Ryzen didn't happen, Intel would STILL be making 4C/8T i7s, 4C/4T i5s, and 2C/4T i3s, but because the core counts have been pushed, everything older has been rendered irrelevant and hardly able to play heavily multi-threaded games, in some cases with bad enough optimisation that can stop you from even getting 60 FPS. Beyond core count, IPC will be massively better, and there's no telling how that will affect the progression of game development, but it won't be good for mainstream and budget CPUs that exist right now, that is guaranteed.
Ryzen 1000 is already often the minimum requirement for newer demanding titles, and they're not particularly great anymore, nor were they at launch compared to Skylake. (They were only about as good as Devil's Canyon, i.e. Ryzen 5 about as good as 4690K, 7 about as good as the 4790K)
It's not a difficult concept to understand. There are already badly optimised games that can run like absolute garbage with better CPUs than the 3600, regardless of graphics. 7 Days To Die is a huge example of that.
I know users of 4C/4T CPUs like the 6600K that struggle to game on modern games in general because of bottlenecking due to lower-than-standard IPC and lacking cores. Core progression for CPUs and games will definitely mean 6C/12T will be phased out in far less than 8 years. I have a system with an i5-6500 that can't game for ♥♥♥♥ even with a 1070 Ti.
I do want something better like a 5700 xt but is that one so much better exept for the 8gb instead of 6gb.?
As i stated earlier i will only play in 1920x1080. No VR, 4K or 2K. Im just happy that i can play and when the time comes to tweak the settings i dont mind, as long as i can enjoy gaming.
5600 XT is good, but only as long as 6GB is enough, and that goes with any 6GB GPU.
The VRAM amount has no effect on performance as long as you have enough and most games at 1080p use ~4GB, though some can use 6+ at max settings. The 5600XT is still very good and enough, but it literally depends on what the user is looking for, so only you can really answer if you need 6 or 8. But if you're using a 1080p 60Hz monitor without framesync tech, there's no reason to go higher than the 5600XT hands down, because it's just wasting a good card when you have to limit your FPS or suffer screen tearing.
In raw performance, the 5700XT is only around 20~25% better than the 5600XT, and the 5700 is in the middle of that. (5700XT BIOS can be flashed onto a standard 5700 but I don't recommend that novices do that if there's no dual or tri BIOS switch on the card as there is a risk involved. A flashed 5700 would perform more like a 5700XT.)
Well at least the price difference is also around 20%.
Could always just do the 5700 non XT. It's also 8GB.
If planning to do 120-240 hz on a 1080p panel, then a decent amd gpu offering might be more suitable.
Regarding AMD "not holding on," that literally describes how NVIDIA GPUs are. Older AMD cards are still kicking and running better than they were compared to NVIDIA's counterparts from the time.
Navi performance has also increased since launch. AMD cards don't get worse with age, they get better.
Most amd gpus only good for around 1080p stuff, or entry level 1440p, not much else.