安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
So? Doesn't matter. What he wrote was incorrect.
A CPU is either faster or slower. A video card is either faster or slower. RAM is either faster or slower. There is no strength
Lol @ those thinking an FX 8/9 is too slow for gaming...
(Is it slower than its competition? Sure... Is it too slow to game (or slower than a G4560)? Heck no. Get a grip people...)
https://www.3dmark.com/compare/sd/4723985/sd/4506663
DX11 light, notice how much faster just an 8350 is especialy in multi-threading...
https://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/12840020/fs/11780539
DX11 Heavy...
https://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/1598320/spy/3035732
DX12...
Same GPU each time, 54, 28, 18% faster for each more demanding test in overall score, 92, 40, 60% faster for cpu only testing...
The average game doesn't use 8 cores.
And nobody said it can't game. It can game just fine, on the low-end..
You obviously either dont have first jand experiance or have not kept up on the times...
There are *plenty* of FX-8 core review availavle that ate late 2017 and early 2018 testing FX-8 core chips on current AAA titles...
Guess what? When paried with a good GPU, and an average 4.5ghz core clock, an FX 8 core chip can return a pretty decent 60+ average from 720p to 4k using high to ultra presets in most games...
So no. They are not for "low end" gaming. Will they be slow compared to an i7? Sure. Will they be fast enough to hit the pc master race barrier of 60fps is most games? Yeh it will...
https://youtu.be/-TPVphqLYmo
Example. He does side by side testing with an r5 1600...
Im at work but can link more vida when home.
Point is there is allot of hate on FX, but it does *not* change the fact that real world performane shows them capable of mostly high and above gamong at 60fps. Just dont expect 144hz or VR frame rates, which at least imho are above high end and in the ehlnthusiast/pro-sumer space like i9s and threadrippers.
https://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2673-battlefield-1-cpu-benchmark-dx11-vs-dx12-i5-i7-fx/page-2
Here is an even older article:
https://www.techspot.com/review/878-metro-redux-benchmarks/page4.html
The FX 8350 was already losing to i5 CPUs 4 years ago.
Aaand same story for more recent titles like Watch dogs 2:
https://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2808-watch-dogs-2-cpu-benchmark-thread-intensive-game/page-2
The FX 8370 has only half the FPS the i5's and i7's are getting.
as for the i7's getting twice the frame rate...
100fps is pointless with a 60hz screen.
Few people running an FX cpu will be spending $$$ on a higher than 60hz display, and if they *do* spend extra on a display it will be for higher rez over higher refresh is most cases.
Therefore its a pretty solid assumption that *most* people using an FX chip will be running 60Hz and likely either 1080 or 1440p.
If the FX-8 core can hit the 60hz rate for most common place monitors , with *high* settings on most game up through 1440p and beyond, it is still more than capable of "high end" gaming.
And for the record, if you are running highger than refresh rate (on any system) you should take the time to push that extra GPU power into service rather than waste it on unseen frames.
Pro-Tip - Certain settings are GPU specific loads, and can be turned up to:
A) lower frame rate to closer to refresh while attaining better image quality
or
B) increase GPU usage to account for unused potential with better image quality.
example:
If you have a game that pulls ~70fps with ~80% GPU usage on an FX, but the same card and game pull 95FPS and 100% usage on an i7, but you are on a 60FPS screen, what do you do?...
Turn up AA/AF untill you reach closer to 60fps... Now your image quality is increased, and the render time spent useless overhead frames (or not spent at all due to waiting on game engine from CPU) will be put to use cleaning up the image, and in the end you will still have greater than refresh frame rates....
Now both systems will be running at roughly the same 60'ish FPS and 100ish load on GPU...
The only real place an FX chip has to worry for now is if the user wants greater than 60FPS... and anyone wanting that should *know* better than to look at an FX in the first place.
But for the casual "Durh, 60FPS Master Race" argument, an FX 8 core @ 4.5 is enough to hit the mark 9/10 times...for now.
And that's the whole point in a G4560 it was half it's cost for a long time achieving the same just being on upgradable LGA-1151 socket.
But its not the same.
in *any* game that uses 4+ threads the FX will beat the pentium. Period.
Sure, for any 1/2/3 threadd game, and even *some* 4 threaded games a pentium can hit that same 60fps and be fine for upper end 60Hz gaming...
BUT
Most titles now days are multi-core aware, and will use more than 4 cores when they are physically present. Many might stick to 4 threads on a hyperthreaded chip, but on 6 core and higher machines you will see usage with *new* games.
Thats why its *important* to keep in mind the tests done in games from late 2017 and early 2018, where we start to see the same thing in games as we see in benchmarks, Heavy CPU demands with mutiple threads saturate the Pentium where the individualy weaker 8 cores in the FX prevail.
Not to mention that in any CPU bound tanks the FX will be at least 50% or greater faster than the pentium...
So sure, for games made with dual-cores in mind you are fine with that pentium, and for lighter quad core games you will get by (you have 4 threads) but anything that would push you beyond that will show the limitation of the pentium where the FX will still hit the mark.
Im not arguing the fact that Intel and current gen AMD beat FX, they do. I am pointing out the fact that the Pentium is *not* a comparable chip in *any* way other than sub-4 thread gaming, and in any modern titles and future titles the 8 core FX can and will hold a lead over such a chip. In CPU centric task aside from gaming its no even a competition with the FX stomping the pentium again in muti-threaded performance.
You just do not distinguish software process threads from hardware core threads. And so on.
But I do not want to irritate moderators by offtopic reasoning. So, I just draw your attention to the fact that you're wrong and this can be proved by CPU benchmarks in real games.
And that's all about this.