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
why cant you admit intel has been garbage for 20 years???....intel has never been worth the money......got my first laptop in 1991 to know this.....were you even born then???
Intel has been better than AMD for the longest time. It's only really the past 2 years where AMD has put forward stuff that actually compete with Intels stuff.
But it was often that in games, Intel would get ahead of AMD. Even the budget i5 line up where greater than AMD counterpart.
That comparison isn't the best. The i9 12900K is more for workstations loads because it has more cores or E-Cores. Games can't make use of all the cores and because of that the results are going to be similar.
https://youtu.be/hBFNoKUHjcg?t=1157
Lets use Gamers Nexus and look at the work stations scores. The i9 12900K wins on all of them over the 5800X3D. By quite a big margin too.
It's the same with the AMD CPU that had 64 cores and AMD fanboys would not want to hear from Intel people "How good is it in games though?" only to get "It's not made for that!"
If Peter cared that much about productivity then his 13900K also wouldn't be sitting in a box. No, he's an Intel user that's stuck in the past and still thinks Intel is better even though they've made an absolute clown of themselves ever since Ryzen 5000 series came out.
I'm personally waiting to see if the rumor is true that the 9950X3D is going cache on each CCD... If so, that's my upgrade for my system, since do workloads more than gaming, why I've stuck to my 5950X for so long.
I never even claimed the performance spread in the example I was using represented the same performance spread between another two random CPUs. Why would you even presume that?
My point was that people have used the "faster CPUs don't matter because the increase of the faster CPU gets masked for most people/most of the time" forever.
My response wasn't even to disagree with that in entirety.
It was just to say that faster CPUs aren't entirely reduced to being equal to slower ones because of it. There are circumstances (individual games, etc.) where a faster CPU helps, especially when you consider that not everyone is on a 7800X3D to begin with. Yeah, if you have a 7800X3D then the 9800X3D is pretty pointless. Similar to how a 7800X3D is pretty pointless to a 5800X3D owner, and similar to how an 11900K is pointless to a 10900K owner, and so on. Not everyone has the current fastest CPU when a new one exists though. There's plenty of AM4 (mostly non-X3D users) or older Intel users who will be comparing the 9800X3D to those lower points, and there it starts to make a little more sense, at least if you already have a decent GPU and/or play certain games where the CPU (or cache) matters a lot. And some people have decent GPUs and some people play those sorts of games.
Regular MSFS2020 player here. MSFS2020 might be one of the, when not THE most demanding game CPU-wise in the last years
, even on 4K/4K Ultrawide.
When I switched from AM4 to AM5,(5800X3D to 7800X3D), I kept my 6900XT for a few weeks before gifting it to my brother.
It always bothered me that you got those microstutters, even with high end hardware so I was pretty optimistic when I fired up the game after switching to AM5.
Keep in mind, Im playing MSFS on 5120×2160 or 3440x1440 if there is no upscaling option.
Ima keep it sweet and short. NOTHING has changed, literally nothing, and Im someone who doesnt run any game without Rivatuner overlay + graph.
Better 1%'s. sure, but like already mentioned in another comment, you couldnt feel the difference while playing.
Wanna know how I got rid of most of the stutters?
By upgrading my GPU.
I know, crazy right?
5800X3D, 7800X3D, 9800X3D, 200000X3D, youll notice no to almost no difference as long as you dont run into a CPU bottleneck.
Period.
1080p/720p is another story, Ill give you guys that.
edit:
And this goes for all games out there, CPU intensive or not.
So your gpu cant handle 4k, and now suddenly the cpu upgrade is bad?
Do you also knw that if your ram is only 4gb, a rtx4090 wont make the perfomance better?
Jfc some ppl in this thread 🤦♂️
Yeah, a 6900XT is a pretty low end card, right?
You didnt rly got the whole point of my comment, did you?
Unlike you,Im not talking out of my as*. Ive personally experienced the difference between a 5800X3D and a 7800X3D on high resolution.
The whole point of your comment is you're bottlenecked by your gpu and you expect a cpu upgrade would magicaly make the bottleneck disappear.
Cpu upgrade is pointles they said 🤦♂️
You are aware that you are on the Steam forum, right?
Just take a quick look into Tiberius comment history and tell me, it's worth the hassle.
You know, what "heavy" on CPU means, right?
CPU workload was always at 100% on MSFS2020, even with a 7800X3D even on a 4k ultrawide,a resolution youve prob never heard about, much less played on....
Thats what Im talking about. People talking out of their AS* and selling it as facts just because theyve read or heard something somewhere....
ahh yes the classic "i have nothing to add to the conversation but let me do some ad hominem to show how good i am at this topic"
He is entitled to his opinion and so am I.
No reason to derail.