Steamをインストール
ログイン
|
言語
简体中文（簡体字中国語）
繁體中文（繁体字中国語）
한국어 (韓国語)
ไทย (タイ語)
български (ブルガリア語)
Čeština（チェコ語）
Dansk (デンマーク語)
Deutsch (ドイツ語)
English (英語)
Español - España (スペイン語 - スペイン)
Español - Latinoamérica (スペイン語 - ラテンアメリカ)
Ελληνικά (ギリシャ語)
Français (フランス語)
Italiano (イタリア語)
Bahasa Indonesia（インドネシア語）
Magyar（ハンガリー語）
Nederlands (オランダ語)
Norsk (ノルウェー語)
Polski (ポーランド語)
Português（ポルトガル語－ポルトガル）
Português - Brasil (ポルトガル語 - ブラジル)
Română（ルーマニア語）
Русский (ロシア語)
Suomi (フィンランド語)
Svenska (スウェーデン語)
Türkçe (トルコ語)
Tiếng Việt (ベトナム語)
Українська (ウクライナ語)
翻訳の問題を報告
ルールとガイドライン
この投稿を報告する
nvidia gpu
If not, use AMD.
I'm very happy with my AMD 5900X and nVidia RTX 3070Ti.
High performance, good running temps.
Intel is still catching up to AMD in terms of creating a more efficient CPU (when comparing price point), and Nvidia GPU drivers have been more reliable than AMD's in my experience, but things may have gotten better with AMD as of current/last-gen.
Bro, pls, and both are good
But considering the current crazy prices , some pre-built PCs come with Intel CPU , so an Intel PC is acceptible as long as the total price is good
Intel CPU in low mid end have a good value
But high end, its 50/50
Nothing changes
My answer is shut up, both are good
How does nothing change, AMD has been far behind until this latest gen, plus Intel dropped the ball on the high end as the 11900k is slower than the 10900k and barely faster than the 9900k.
Honestly, it depends on budget and what you want to use it for.
If you are obsessed with warzone and want the most fps possible, then you'll want a full custom loop'd OC'd 10900k, maybe even throw in a TEC cooler.
If you want general out the box good performance go AMD, unless you go full oc madness they'll match or beat Intel chips in most games and doesn't need a lot of tweaking and can run cheaper 3600-3800 ram vs 4000-5000MHz ram.
As for GPU's, amd is for the most part cheaper, but lacks some features or aren't as polished, outside of raytracing, they perform fairly closely.
At msrp, the nvidia offerings are a fairly easy choice, more features for about the same price, but, that is not the case right now, so, only you can decide if the extra is worth it for you or not.
With the 12th gen due 'soon' Intel may take the lead again as well as offering ddr5 ram support (which will be expensive and unlikely to be much faster than high end ddr4 initially same as every new gen), some productivity leaks put it ahead, but, frankly, I don't trust leaks as they are rarely correct or tell the full story.
AMD typically offers the best performance right now through their Zen 3 offerings (Ryzen 5000 series). It is both faster core for core than Intel's best offering (but the difference is small and really pushed Intel systems can basically make it nonexistent) and offer more cores (AMD offers up to 16 and Intel offered up to 10 but now it's 8 on the latest generation). However, Zen 3 costs a lot.
The best thing right now for value (meaning performance for the price and not necessarily "low budget") would be Intel with it's 10th generation (not 11th) offering. This used to be the inverse but with the release of Zen 3 giving AMD the performance crown and the following price cuts by Intel to its replaced but still current 10th generation lineup, Intel is typically the better value.
The Core i5 10400/F is basically the go-to budget hex core, but the Ryzen 5 3600 usually outperforms it slightly (but also typically costs more so both are options).
The Core i7 10700 is usually just a bit more expensive than the Ryzen 7 3700X (the previous best value octo core) while being a bit better, so it's usually worth going with this over the older Zen 2. The Zen 3 Ryzrn 7 5800X is better but much, much more expensive.
At the higher end I say it makes more sense to go with AMD but if you don't want more than 8 or 10 cores and just prefer Intel, Intel still have very convincing values (as hard as it sounds) in Core i9 territory, namely the 10850K.
Roughly, architecturally, it goes Ryzen 5000 series, Intel 11th generation, Intel 10th generation, Intel 9th generation/Ryzen 3000 series/Intel 8th generation all rather close (this is actually wrong because AMD's Ryzen 3000 series is actually better than Intel's 10th generation clock for clock, but it USUALLY slightly loses out despite this due to clock speed disparity so I'm using averages here). However, keep in mind that there are outliers where one CPU of a given architecture may be slower than another CPU of an architecture that should be slower, because of other differences (like clock speed) and the above example of the Core i5 10400/F being slower than a Zen 2, despite the rest of Intel's 10th generation above this typically outperforming their Zen 2 counterparts.
If you gave a budget and what you're looking to do, it'd be more accurate to answer. If you just want the "best" gaming CPU regardless of value (but don't want to go totally overkill on cores), I'd say the Ryzen 7 5800X (awful value) or Ryzen 9 5900 (better value but you still pay a premium and it's hard to find) would probably be it. If you want something ALMOST as good but at a much better price, a Core i7 10700K or Core i9 10850K would be convincing options.
Do keep in mind that Intel is supposed to be coming out with the 12th generation soon. It's adopting a hybrid architecture with traditional cores as well as ARM cores. I'm not sure how much faster the traditional cores are expected to be but some rumors are suggesting high scores in some synthetic programs (which... could mean anything). This might mean a decrease in Zen 3 prices or simply Intel matching AMDs prices, AMD being unable to lower them, and Intel taking the performance crown back at the same price, which means you'd have gotten more performance if you wait... but that's always true. DDR5 and PCI Express 5.0 will come with it, and then AMD comes out with Zen 4 (Ryzen 7000 series) later. Up to you if you want to wait.
high fps needs fast cores, ryzen 5xxx and intel 10xxx+ have good enough ipc and clocks to run any current game at 60+fps