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
Windows 11 with Intel Gen 12 CPU has a bug where inactive windows are run on e-cores only, causing steam downloading to slow down by a lot.
I think that intel should make a measurement statement about how fast e-cores are, because currently they seem like a joke that add little benefit for the gamer.
(for the bug, look for this: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/1027852/windows-11-22h2-thread-director-issues-with-intel?page=2#answers )
To this day 11 has problems. Maybe someone can help this guy out, about 11 and a 4070 in 3DMark https://steamcommunity.com/app/223850/discussions/0/3805031898649631071/
That's why Intel "only" offers up to octo cores (they went up to 10 for a brief time before coming back down) and everything beyond that is just e-cores.
The use for more (than 8) performance cores usually comes with stuff that highly parallelizes well anyway, so I can't say I totally disagree with Intel's approach.
The only reason AMD hasn't jumped to this approach (yet) is because they were already offering up to 16 cores starting with Zen 2, so they only needed to keep increasing per core performance (and by time Zen 2 launched, they largely caught up here as well anyway). In the future, I can't see them adding only performance cores if many things don't need a massive amount of cores, and for the stuff that does scale linearly, lesser cores are more space efficient (which again means you actually get more performance for these things).
This approach actually can work well (the bugs such as with scheduling you mentioned notwithstanding, as those are actual issues).
I imagine hybrid is likely going to be the way forward, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
The ASROCK phantom gaming OC model was at one point available for £699 with the premium version of Starfield worth £85. A killer deal but I didn't have the funds for it.
Is there any logic in purchasing the RX 7600 sapphire pulse for £250 just for a free copy of a game?
However, you don't have to have it installed to download the promotional content. I'm using a totally different PC than I setup for the promotion.
I'm actually playing starfield with rtx 3050 and props to it for running this game like a champ! Yeah the rtx 3050 is no joke in starfield. Medium preset without even sweating hard. The 12600k be chillin out.
The Rx 6700 I want to try in my fx 9590 first. Then I'm going try starfield on there also.