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
For Intel, there only difference in performance between their 6th gen and their 10th gen is the frequencies, because they've kept pretty much the same IPC since Skylake, only bothering to increase core counts and frequencies as well as improving boost functionality for their SKUs.
The main reason why the i3-8350K could hold you back:
Core/thread count; 4C/4T is on its deathbed for gaming at this point, it's not going to last much longer and it's barely holding on, because you can't run much in the background and a lot of games are showing benefits from going with at least 4C/8T or 6C/6T.
If you try to pair it with something like the RTX 3080 or RX 6800 XT (or better) then you'll actually notice some bottlenecking, but below that, it's not really going to be a problem outside of titles that benefit heavily from 6+ core processors.
Their benchmarks are hardly accurate, especially when you compare directly competing brands like AMD and Intel, because the site owners have been known to skew their results in favor of Intel for a very long time and never admited to AMD's previous price/performance value standpoint. It's a similar situation with AMD/Radeon vs NVIDIA in GPUs, they really don't like AMD and Radeon.
the 7600k-8600k-7700k-8700k would be much better since they have 4 cores or i7 adds ht
will fare much better with games
but even now they are weak with newer games that need more cores/threads
Intel started doing quad-core i3s with their Coffee Lake generation, not the refresh.
but still, same concept, quad overclockable but no ht will only go so far with newer games
its slightly better than a 4690k or 6600k
and esily swappable for a 8700k or 9700k
get one of those while you can
I will be brutal trying to play modern games though.
As long as that i3 8350K handles the games you play reasonably well, then all is fine and there's no need to upgrade. But a 4C/4T CPU these days is past its prime, any upgrade at least a newer 4C/8T (at the very least) CPU would be good, though it seems 8C/16T is where it's at these days.
Your CPU also seems to support AVX so even that is out of the way.
Nor is there any way to calculate a bottleneck, so not sure where you're pulling that "50% bottleneck" from. It's all BS.
I used to have first gen i3 since it is what I could afford for my college class.
However from an objective standpoint, it is a weak CPU, even for when it was new, it was weak.
It is somewhat lessened by the overclockability, but that would depend on motherboard, cooler, and silicon lottery.
4c4t in 2021 is pretty trashy, and, makes quite a lot of modern games unplayable (at least for decently high FPS gameplay.)
That 20% is wrong, that's single core -- many (new) games use DX12 or Vulkan, which spread the load over all (usable) thread (of a game.) There is no dedicated render thread, so single core thread for new games is a pretty pointless metric, and older games it's going to be plenty.
If you look at quadcore speed, 31%, a notable increase in performance, and anything above that is going to be a drastic increase (because you don't have more than 4 cores or threads.)
If you're hitting limits of the CPU (maxing all threads), you are going to see an improvement from a new CPU, it just depends on the game.
And, UBM is a pretty poor benchmark/comparison tool to use, because it's heavily biased to Intel. (Meaning, it cannot be trusted with the majority of results, but still useful as a quick check comparison tool, with more research required from more accurate comparison sites.)
No real reason why you NEED to upgrade, unless you're unhappy with performance.
The i3 is just a poor choice, the only one(s) being remotely useful are the 10th gen ones, 4c8t.
But they're still not worth the money, because for just a little more, you can get a CPU with equal performance and more cores, with hyperthreading, from both AMD and Intel.
The 6c12t CPUs would be a MUCH, MUCH better investment.
That's the wrong answer -- You can't calculate bottleneck like that. It depends on the game in question, how graphically demanding it is, and other factors.
My old i5-6600 4c/4t already struggled in 2017 with battlefield 1, running maxed out at 100%, giving me stuttering and bottlenecking gtx 1060. That's enough said about 4c/4t cpus, it is dated if it bottlenecks such weak gpu as 1060. A modern 4c/8t is still kinda decent for budget gaming (10100f/3300x).