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
helpfull tool.
in 4k your cpu reduces performave by 17%
on 1400p your cpu reduces performance by 32%
a 14700k
-lessens this performance ise due cpu to 5.6% for 1440p
-completely removes it in 4k..
presuming you use 4k..
your 4090 should get around 115fps in ultra settings.
but due your current cpu you getting around 95-100
so yes upgrading that cpu will gain you 15-20 fps.
I play in 1440p so that means Im getting 32% less performance right now?
Thanks
yes in which case the gain in fps is even bigger upgrading.
you now have 95-100 fps. in 1440p ultra
after upgrading you should have 130-135fps.
(which still means you loose out some frames) but 5% loss is a lot better than 32% loss.
That makes sense, thanks for that!
Bottleneck calculators are a concept trying to sell a solution for a problem that doesn't exist to the extent these places present it. There's always a bottleneck (all that changes is where it is, how often, and by how much), and whatever they use to arrive at their calculated average might not match your own use cases.
As for why the 7800X3D is worse than the 7700X, it's very simple. That's what happens when "single core speed" is presumed to reflect average gaming performance, and if whatever is being used to determine this "single core speed" doesn't have its results impacted by the extra cache of the X3D. Even Passmark's single core speed doesn't get impacted by this, meaning using it as a measure for gaming performance is outdated, but they have a new gaming measure that should be used instead (or, ultimately, put less stock in synthetics and put more stock in real world results, but nobody wants to do that because instead of researching and learning, which is time and effort, these websites prey on lazier people who want a simpler plug in comparison).
I've tried pointing this particular flaw out to people who still treat single core speed as the holy grail to CPU or gaming performance but people don't want to listen. The 7800X3D has a lower clock speed than the 7700X, so a synthetic test that doesn't get benefited by the cache of the 7800X3D will give slower results on it due to the lesser clock speed. This means the "single core" result is being measured by ignoring the cache entirely.
In other words; they're not even truly testing this. They're plugging in "single core speed" for the CPU's actual performance and anyone who takes that as a sign of gaming performance is fooling themselves, because we know from real world results that the cache of the X3D CPUs tends to do a lot for gaming performance, so such a method is seriously flawed. Treating single core speed as reflective of CPU gaming performance might work well... if you ignore the existence of the X3D CPUs entirely. But doing so is living in a reality different from this one.
A lot of websites exist merely as SEO benefactors in order to turn up as the top few results when people Google "X versus Y" and that's it. Anything that feeds you a chart of synthetics to tries to feed you some silly value like "effective FPS" or "bottleneck amount" instead of actually doing proper reviews and benchmarks should be avoided.
1% lows in almost every game and when intel is overclock beat it in most.
intel hands down is more stable FACTS !!!
5.3 to 5.4ghz this should give you a nice little boost.
Maybe, if you pay through the nose on its running environment and live with the fallout. Why would a sane person pay extra to get maybe-the-same-ish?
Facts, as you say. While the push is just emotions and fanboyism. Which is fine as long as you use your own resources -- but moral hazard on a forum asking for advice.
...While using up to THREE TIMES as much power and costing more to purchase and cool because it's a flagship "9" versus a "7." The 7800X3D uses around 50W in games on average while the 14900K with a MILD overclock uses over 150W on average.
Choosing to overspend and overclocking to solve inadequacies isn't facts, it's fanboyism.
attempting to oc will just make it throttle sooner and lower than if left at stock
Use MSI afterburner and check your GPU utilisation in games you play.
If your GPU is at about 97-100% utilisation then you will likely won't gain any FPS. At least not the average number. You still may improve your 1% lows and stutters.
7800X3D uses only around 50W in games, same as the 5800X3D, yet gets around the same performance as a 14700K and 14900K, there's just no point