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
get a i5/i7 k or ryzen 5/7
CPU's pretty fine, and is a nice thing to get for your high refresh demands. R5 2600 might be a better price/value if you're planning to play all kinds of modern games, yet neither i5 9400f nor the R5 2600 are meant for 144HZ gaming. RX 590 will also struggle to deliver 144FPS@1440p unless it's some e-sports title. What games are you planning to play, anyway?
I have a 240mm Corsair aio so cooling will be fine and a i5 k series would be an extra £100 for not many more frames so I don’t see how that would be beneficial
ryzen will get more threads
k can oc farther than ryzen for better core performance
Going to a 9400f means new mobo and memory, so for 100 quid extra you could also get a 9600k.
Not really. Depending on the game, Ryzen can deliver better gaming performance for the same money.
Stock R5 2600 is slower than stock 9400f in games that have no use of number of threads R5 2600 has, and got comparable/better performance with slight overclock 9400f is not capable of. I clearly see R5 2600 performing better in SOTTR market benchmark, with tons of objects and NPCs, not to mention 9400f drops below 60 fps there what is unacceptable IMO. In my local store R5 2600 costs 25 pounds less than 9400f. That said, and considering new generation of consoles also made using AMD hardware is around the corner, with cores clocked way higher than before, with new games to come likely to have more use for multiple threads of Ryzen, in my case it's a no-brainer - R5 2600 is where I'd put my money. Tho depending on your gaming preferences (which is, as we now know, e-sports), and you local prices, 9400F might end up being a better purchase for your build.
I already hit 150+ fps in 1440p on apex, in 1080p I hit 200 fps even and thats only with my 2500k and RX 590.
Theres no reason for me to keep going on a (very) old chipset and generation when I can easily afford something newer like a 9400f. Money isnt an issue, I just dont see the point in getting anything faster.
However an extra £100 is another 30% more I have to spend for a very little improvement over a 9400f.
Other reasons for upgrading is because there arent any suitable motherboards for my 2500k, im using some cheap £40 non-brand one I found on amazon as a temp replacement. It has awful onboard sound and as its an matx board I cant plug in my soundcard and wifi card at the same time and the onboard ethernet is limited to 60 mbps or something stupidly slow. It also only has 4 SATA slots, 2 being blocked by my GPU so I can only use 2 drives. It also only has 2 ram slots so im limited to 4x2 atm. Plus boottime times are horrible
So the reason why I'll happily spend £300-400 on this compared to a cheap £150 on a new i7 27xx or whatever is because I want a new fast motherboard and more ram
Ill consider the R5 2600x but seeming I mainly play source games and a few AAA titles I think the 9400f would be better