Steam 설치
로그인
|
언어
简体中文(중국어 간체)
繁體中文(중국어 번체)
日本語(일본어)
ไทย(태국어)
Български(불가리아어)
Čeština(체코어)
Dansk(덴마크어)
Deutsch(독일어)
English(영어)
Español - España(스페인어 - 스페인)
Español - Latinoamérica(스페인어 - 중남미)
Ελληνικά(그리스어)
Français(프랑스어)
Italiano(이탈리아어)
Bahasa Indonesia(인도네시아어)
Magyar(헝가리어)
Nederlands(네덜란드어)
Norsk(노르웨이어)
Polski(폴란드어)
Português(포르투갈어 - 포르투갈)
Português - Brasil(포르투갈어 - 브라질)
Română(루마니아어)
Русский(러시아어)
Suomi(핀란드어)
Svenska(스웨덴어)
Türkçe(튀르키예어)
Tiếng Việt(베트남어)
Українська(우크라이나어)
번역 관련 문제 보고
토론 규칙 및 지침
게시글 신고
In the end it depends on resolution and overall budget.
You actually have any decent GPU, but your budget is tight? Go for something like a 11400.
You actually have a higher end GPU, and you play high end resolutions and graphics? Heck, some 3700x or so yields the same as some current gent.
You don't even have discrete graphics, nor do you wanna spend a crap ton in the upcoming months? Well, AMD is your bet right now.
...
List goes on and on. Rather spend your money in generally decent hardware, to have a strong foundation, than just looking at some benchmarks that probably don't even concern you.
I can't speak of their GPUs as I don't own one so I won't speak based on what I read others say because others can say it and not need to be parroted, leading to exaggerated sweeping claims based on anecdotes. Regardless of the GPUs, the CPU side of things is completely different. There was a rough patch with stability issues on some BIOS/AGESA versions when Zen 3 launched but that's been improved. There were also generally poorer boards for AMD until recently (think AMD Phenom/FX days), but that's not entirely on AMD either. None of the board manufacturers wanted to invest in good AMD products because of the dwindling user base, but that's been changing as AMD gets more competitive and gets more users.
Want to know the funny thing? The one actual issue I had with my new platform, the motherboard, was due to the NIC... and it is an Intel NIC. "Go for the Intel NIC over the Realtek NIC" they said. It's a flawed chip that should have resulted in a recall, because the 2.5 GB chip on early revisions (of which my board has) has a "fix" that limits it to 1 GB. I had random disconnects (infrequently, mind you) when I first got it. It's been somewhat ironed over now but I imagine it's because the speed was limited (I don't need 2.5 GB so it's not a "problem" for me personally but it's a notable failure when you have to cut your product more than in half to fix it).
edit
12 gen Intel seems to not deliver any boost to the performace . I expect , the advantage will be the power draw compared to the previous gen of Intel
FX 8350 to anything Intel / AMD based for the past 3-4 years should yield a very nice boost for majority of games.
(sadly enough, 8350 was a very good CPU, just ahead of its time, kinda...?)
fx8 has 4 modules, each module with 2 threads, shared cache bank and 1 fpu
is like 2 workers sharing a cubicle with a single desk and calculator
they cant work on different tasks at the same time
thats what killed the ipc on fx
fx ipc was even outperformed by the pii series, but fx had higher clocks which kinda made up for it
In fact the cores are 8 , in 4 chunks (FX 8350)
edit
I think he wants to have the best PC . So , i guess if one day i get Ryzen 5900X , he ll go and buy at leat 2x faster than mine . But i dont compete with him .According to him , he has to have the best . lol
He has to have the best, yet stayed with a crap platform gir a decade and didn't buy a 5950x?
Thst doesn't add up, I don't think this friend of yours exists.
Not that you should trust them, but the leaks of the 12900k show it crushing the 5950x in production workloads, so, once again you appear to be, being less than honest and pushing fanboy rubbish as usual.
OP,
Reading through the thread there are clearly two different type of reply, the short 'my team best cos I have it' and then there's the longer replies pointing out how it varies based on budget and use case giving examples of how both have their pro's and cons.
Which you chose to listen to, is down to you, but for a better set of answers, try letting us all know your budget and use case.
the guy above missed the latest article of Tom s hardware , where the things were not so good for Intel
Nvidia is still king but if you can find any decently priced GPU, buy it.
So unreliable leaks some say it's great some say its bad, it's almost as if I said not to trust them either way.
OK, so it's your uncle, still doesn't make my points, any less true or your fanboy antics useful.
I personally run Intel for Linux compatibility at least on the CPU side. I am a fence sitter, I wouldn't ever claim that AMD is better than Intel unless A. I know your workload, B. the purpose of the computer you want, and C. a number of other factors. Some games perform better with Intel some with AMD it really just "depends" on paper specs are unfortunately not representative of the the actual performance a system may have.
But I am a computer scientist I'm impartial go with what makes sense for you. I can provide "advice" thats all I can give, but look at your resolution you plan on playing at, game settings playing at 1080P is more CPU demanding because it's more likely to reach high FPS than playing at 4K.
To develop an understanding of what you want to play you need to look at VRAM memory consumption benchmarks and GPU utilisation charts with respect to those games you wish to play. If you google you'll find plenty of them on youtube or even on Toms Hardware.
Different game options consume varying amounts of VRAM. Higher shadows often consume more VRAM because larger shadow maps have to be loaded into memory these maps could be as big as 8192 x 8192 pixels or more, Anti-aliasing in the form of MSAA or Multisampling Anti-aliasing requires more VRAM because the system has to "create" pixels between object boundries to make "aliasing" less pronounced.
Ambient occlusion which more accurately approximates the representation of shadows which again gets added to the rendering pipeline to further improve shadow quality which may result in even larger memory consumption. Often does.
AMD packs more threads at lower clock speeds therefore in theory if a game is unable to leverage a large quantity of threads will suffer a performance penalty. Games are still largely limited to max 4 - 8 threads with 6 cores being the sweet spot, after that at say the 5950X you hit dimminishing returns. Games being real time workloads makes them limited in how many threads they can leverage due to constant context switching on those threads, and context switching creates thread contention, this leads to actual performance reduction if this context switching is carried out too frequently.
Putting a thread into sleep, wait or other states costs time. In a game 60 FPS means you get 1/60 ~ 16.6 milliseconds to compute a single frame, speed that up more to 1/120 you get just ~8.333 milliseconds to compute a frame and then once you start reaching frames rates beyond that you get less and less time.