Zainstaluj Steam
zaloguj się
|
język
简体中文 (chiński uproszczony)
繁體中文 (chiński tradycyjny)
日本語 (japoński)
한국어 (koreański)
ไทย (tajski)
български (bułgarski)
Čeština (czeski)
Dansk (duński)
Deutsch (niemiecki)
English (angielski)
Español – España (hiszpański)
Español – Latinoamérica (hiszpański latynoamerykański)
Ελληνικά (grecki)
Français (francuski)
Italiano (włoski)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonezyjski)
Magyar (węgierski)
Nederlands (niderlandzki)
Norsk (norweski)
Português (portugalski – Portugalia)
Português – Brasil (portugalski brazylijski)
Română (rumuński)
Русский (rosyjski)
Suomi (fiński)
Svenska (szwedzki)
Türkçe (turecki)
Tiếng Việt (wietnamski)
Українська (ukraiński)
Zgłoś problem z tłumaczeniem
Zasady dyskusji i wytyczne
Zgłoś ten post
So, does the pc run the games you want to play at the desired performance levels. And will it in the near future? Cost might be a factor as well.
To determine if a cpu might be a good replacement look at the in-game gpu usage in a game you want better performance in. .
According to one benchmark -
A 10400f has a single thread capability of 2,574 MOps/Sec
10700f - 2,926
10700k - 3,079
11700k - 3,457
12400 - maybe 3,600 based on leaked benchmarks
12700k - maybe 4,000 " "
What would you do? Spend $420 (in my country) on a 10700f for a 14% theoretical max boost. Or maybe spend $1000 for a 50% boost.
Depends on the game. If 120 fps versus 100 fps was possible, is an upgrade worth it? If it's AC Valhalla where the gpu will limit performance in most cases, is there a need? etc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt1XRHR_amY
The answer is don't fix something if it isn't broken.
But if it is then work out the options, check benchmarks and make a decision.
Usually small increments in cpu performance don't amount to much in terms of noticeable improvement.
I'd rate your system as very good maybe unless I was playing something like Cities Skylines or heavily modded Fallout 4.
If you want to be part of the PC gaming master race, you need at least 64GB Ram, a minimum 16 core cpu and dual rtx 3090s.
No wait. Who cares. If you are happy with it then use it.
I usually "rate systems" by asking how well it's doing compared to what you want it to do rather than giving it some numerical rating based on how it stacks up against the newest and fastest, which is somewhat of a non-answer in a way, but so is rating it against what is available at the top end, because you can just look at synthetic benchmark scores for that. So ratings are always subjective and meaningless fun.
As an example, I have an ancient Core 2 PC I use for an HTPC and it does a near 10/10 job for what I ask from it, because it just needs to stream in some videos. Meanwhile, my much faster and newer PC is one I use far more and ask far more from, and while I'm overall very happy with it, I'd rate it a bit lower (due to GPU mostly) even if it's objectively much better in every way than the other PC.
And as for replacing anything, again, raised the point I would have. A Core i5 10400/F might not get the same results a Core i7 10700K or greater or whatever would, but the time to make that choice would have been when choosing it at the onset. Now that you have what you do, replacing it would be "not worth it" until the increase becomes larger. I'd only move from a Core i5 to a Core i7 in the same generation if the extra cores/threads justified it for your uses. And the issues with bottlenecks are often (not saying always) exaggerated because you will always have one. Of course it's important to be aware of it and to try to avoid wild imbalance, but unless you're playing heavy games and just need the most performance for them (and can afford to spend for that level of performance), your particular CPU and GPU pairing isn't too awful or anything. People just usually raise a fuss if it isn't "mid range CPU with mid range GPU" or whatever. If it's a low-mid CPU with a mid-high GPU, it's seen as bad.
So it's "how well do you enjoy it/whatever number you fancy" from me. Boring, I know.
OS : Windows 11 Pro
Processor : AMD Ryzen 5 5600X @ 3.7Ghz (Turbo 4.6Ghz) (6C / 12T)
Motherboard : MSI MPG X570 Gaming Edge WiFi
RAM : PNY XLR8 16GB DDR4 @ 3200MHz (1x16GB)
Cooler : MSI MAG CoreLiquid 240R
GPU : MSI Nvidia GeForce® RTX™ 3070 Ti SUPRIM X 8G
Case : Thermaltake View 32 TG Edition
PSU : Themaltek Tough 750W Gold 80+
Storage : Samsung 250GB SSD 980 NVMe M.2 / Segate Barracuda 2TB HDD
Display : Dell S2421HN @ 1920 x 1080 @ 75Hz (i know this sucks, i was out of budget for a good monitor. will be buying 1440p one soon)
Keyboard : Logitec K345
Mouse : Logitec M275
Speakers : Panasonic SA-UX100
2. Restrictive glass case
3. Untrustworthy PSU brand
4. Nasty cheap membrane keyboard and cheapo mouse but eh it works, right?
5. Only 250GB SSD, forcing you to put games on a 2TB HDD which for huge open world games with few loading screens like GTA is a bad thing for performance, and loading screens in general will take much longer than even a cheap SSD
6. Still some performance issues between Ryzen and Windows 11
Overall, 6/10, the saving grace is the fact that it's still a 5600X and 3070 Ti, but they're held back by the monitor and RAM (for now)
Thanks mate. I will be getting new monitor, keyboard and mouse soon. I have another 256 SSD to put open world games when play. Could not mention it.
Is it a good idea to use Team ram on this system? I have 8GB 3600 at the moment.
And as long as the RAM has the same speed/timings, it will be fine. If you're more of a purist, yes, you can seek to match what you have, but you don't have to. It will likely even work with lesser or greater frequency too, but you'll be limited to whatever the slower module can do in that case.
R5 5600x was my personal preference. There were no competitive advantage going to Intel.
R5 5600x is a 7nm CPU and still Intel is 14.