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
CPU also has a hand in load times, the i5-4440 isn't the worst CPU but it's not very fast by today's standards, it'll struggle with a lot of games when there's too much in the background eating up resources since it's only a quad-core without hyperthreading, so it only has 4 threads as opposed to the 8 threads that the older i7s have due to HT.
The GPU is a factor here but probably not as bad, if it's Forza Horizon 4 then the game's detection is wrong, because the R9 380 is well above minimum as the minimum from AMD for that is an R7 250X which is considerably weaker.
Even if you just change the GPU, it's not going to be enough in some cases because that i5 will still hold it back due to the low thread count and relatively low frequency, single-core performance, and L3 cache. If you can nab a used i7-4770K (doesn't require a BIOS update) or i7-4790K (might require a BIOS update) then he'd get the most out of a 1660/S/Ti or RTX 2060. Finding one for a cheap price might be difficult, however, and you might need to upgrade the CPU cooler as well if the CPU runs too hot.
Actually, all the other problems you mentioned are likely related to an outdated display driver.
I have the rtx 2060 and the gtx 1660 super. Both of these GPUs are very adequate in all games. The gtx 1660 super can be found for dirt cheap now. It has incredibly fast VRAM performance for a budget option. Forza would load in like 3 seconds.
The Beam game (I always get the full title wrong unless looking at it) is a game my nephew played that I also believe is CPU heavy. He first played it on a Core 2 Duo E8400 and 8 GB RAM with a GTX 650, and later I gave him my old Core i5 2500K overclocked and 16 GB RAM (so pretty similar to what you're using here) and kept the same GPU, and he said there was substantial improvements (graphical level had to be kept similar due to the GPU staying the same, of course), though even it could still drop with a lot of AI/cars going on. So it seems CPU heavy.
Not sure about Forza but I imagine it's more GPU leaning like normal games?
Not at all sure about the slow loading but again, if it's exlsuive to Forza, not sure.
Normally I wouldn't recommend upgrading those older Core i5s to the Core i7s if they're both of the quad core era (meaning before the 8th generation), but if you already recently invested into the system, it might be worth it given two of the games in this case (I'm not sure how threaded teardown is though) seem CPU heavy, especially if you get a K model and trust yourself overclocking it to get a bit more out of it. I see 4770s of various types are going for around $40 to $50 on eBay so that's not too bad these days. A couple of years ago, everything labeled Core i7 from as far back as Sandy Bridge through Sky Lake was laughably not worth the used asking prices.
Either of the GPUs you mentioned would make okay pairings with such a system IMO.
I'd warmly recommend co-op gaming with him. For me and my son that's been great time together for years.
It was Forza 5 by the way.
SSDs are nowhere near full.
I came across this website which suggests the CPU is too weak for even the current GPU.
https://pc-builds.com/bottleneck-calculator/result/0wx0TO/1920x1080/1/general-tasks
I also used the AMD utility to monitor CPU and GPU performance. From the moment I opened Forza, the CPU was at 97-100% and took about 10 mins to start the game while it said it was "optimizing for my pc". The GPU bounced up and down but definitely hit 100% for frequent spikes. Laggy moments of gameplay seemed to coincide with 100% GPU.
I guess I am wondering if there is any point upgrading the GPU if the CPU is at 100%? Forza seemed to run OKish with the CPU at 100% so long as the GPU was less than 100% but the CPU is obviously at the limit too.
I not sure we have the budget right now to upgrade CPU and GPU. Thoughts please?
Best case scenario is the GPU being the main bottleneck.
If your CPU runs at 100% usage, it means your CPU has nothing left to give, it's pushed to its limit in terms of processing power and/or thread count. You don't want 100% usage at all, the only exception being in stress testing for OC stability tests.
Look for cheap 4th gen i7s like the 4770K, or save up a little more and buy an i5-10400F, an H510 motherboard, and 16GB DDR4. The 10400F is about on par with an i7-8700K, but much more power efficient and it's one of the cheapest CPUs worth buying for gaming.
So your GPU and everything else can just do whatever it's supposed to do.
You will have a GPU bottleneck like it's supposed to be and although the GPU isn't strong by todays standards it will be wayyyy easier to just set settings in a game and go for it.
Unlike with a CPU bottleneck.
I would say the cpu upgrade to i7-4770k mentioned is a necessary upgrade that would get you at least playable framerates on (very) low to medium. it just wont look very good.
As someone mentioned before make sure you have the latest drivers from amds website.
And check in radeon settings and in win10s xbox gamebar that any 'instant replay' and alike is disabled to not have the game be recorded in the background. you really need all the compute power you can get.
also disable MSAA (Multisampling) that usually takes a huge hit on fps, especially when the gpu is underpowered like this.
edit: of course a newer cpu/mb/ram combo would be the much better option (took me 25 mins to make the post LUL)
I mean a video card upgrade or any upgrade might help a bit but the machine is quite old and i personally wouldn't throw much money at it,
Some older games can be just as fun as newer games and they can run perfectly fine.
I did a little testing today and I am more confused than ever. I used the AMD Radeon software which shows the CPU and GPU usage. I also used the Windows task manager and got very different results. The AMD utility was showing the CPU at between 80-100% at times but Task Manager never went above 40%. Why would they be so different?
I also got my son to run some tasks in Teardown which made the games really laggy (blowing up buildings etc). Based on the AMD utility, the CPU went high but no higher than 80%. The GPU spiked up to 100% but only for very short times but the game stayed slow. He blew up one building which slowed things down so much the screen was only refreshing 1-2 times per second but at that point the CPU and GPU both stayed below 70% so what could have been causing that lag? VRAM was at about 80% of the 4 GB.
He also added a load of AI cars in to BeamNG and that made the CPU hit 100% but GPU was quite low.
In summary, the games went laggy. Sometimes GPU hit 100%, sometimes the CPU% 100%, sometimes it lagged when CPU and GPU were both less than 70%.
I'm not really sure where to go with this now.
On that CPU, there are four cores (and no Hyper-threading, so four total threads). So a "traditional" full core would register as 25% utilization (presuming the other three cores were close to idle).
This is important because extra cores aren't "used by default". The software HAS to be written to take advantage of it by being multi-threaded to an extrent if shifts the balance around on different cores enough. Some things can't parallelize like that perfectly, and real-time games are one such example, so even though many games do use more than one core, it only takes one core being full for it to be a potential CPU limitation.
Old rule of thumb is if the GPU isn't at 100% and something isn't limiting the frame rate to a set value (like a frame rate limiter, v-sync, etc.), then it's the system (be it the CPU or something else).