安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
the locked intels have lower core performance
i5 10600k has the faster cores and unlocked to oc if you give it better cooling
the 10700k has 2 more cores, 10900k with 4 more cores
both with about the same core performance ~+5% over the 10600k
They aren't though, there's plenty of space to overclock for extra performance, as for 11th gen, just ignore it, but 10th gen while urs still about abd heavily discounted (10700k is currently the king of mid range) then move to ryzen.
So not true.
Who is better varies between task/objective and budget.
Op. Ignore non K chips, save up a bit more and go with a 10700k with an entry level z490 or if you can find it cheaper a 9900k with a z390, the extra cores will pay off over time while both chips overclock really well to the point they happily trade blows with the 5800x and 5900x and your only giving up pcie4 which has very little real world gains for gaming.
Locked cpu's will bite you in the bum long term.
This has been happening since the "Core i" scheme took hold. The last three digits usually signify position on the lineup, and any prior ones usually signify series (with the exception of the very first generation was just three digit numbers and lacked a 1 at the start, which, besides not having a 1000 series, I at least commend Intel for not skipping generations as nVidia and now AMD seem to).
For example, Core i5 2400 would be a second generation Core i5, whereas a Core i5 10400 is a 10th generation Core i5.
For the following numbers after the generation, usually, 100 through 300 is Core i3, 400 through 500 or 600 is Core i5, and 600 or 700 and up is Core i7 (now with Core i9, 800+ seems to be it). And, for the most part, the numbers are clean 100 multipliers, with a few 50s and even fewer rare exceptions (8086K, for example, being an anniversary throwback to the original 8086 CPU). It's varied a bit through the years, of course (for example, the 2600 was a Core i7, but the 8600 was a Core i5). On the whole, Intel's numbering scheme has been consistently better than AMDs on the CPU or GPU front or nVidia's on the GPU front IMO.
Edit: The above point on the second part of the numbering was more in reference to desktop parts. Mobile parts are more often broken down by more than a simple 100s ending number.
No such thing as 'future proof', however, the extra threads should allow it to last longer.
the cheap chipsets often limit ram and other things
Also, Userbenchmark is awful and isn't used by anyone who knows what they are talking about for comparison.
It was and is often used by part manufacturers as a general quick-link to customers, among other sources as well, if people are having doubts. Sometimes linking quickly to push out emails faster is all you need.
That being said, if you're using it to compare Intel to Intel only or AMD to AMD only, and ignore the summary, it's fine.
Did a quick run and they show me this
http://imgur.com/a/XNiecxH
My arrow is outside of this scale. Still dx9/dx10 tests in 2021? I dont think these numbers are helpfull at all.