Інсталювати Steam
увійти
|
мова
简体中文 (спрощена китайська)
繁體中文 (традиційна китайська)
日本語 (японська)
한국어 (корейська)
ไทย (тайська)
Български (болгарська)
Čeština (чеська)
Dansk (данська)
Deutsch (німецька)
English (англійська)
Español - España (іспанська — Іспанія)
Español - Latinoamérica (іспанська — Латинська Америка)
Ελληνικά (грецька)
Français (французька)
Italiano (італійська)
Bahasa Indonesia (індонезійська)
Magyar (угорська)
Nederlands (нідерландська)
Norsk (норвезька)
Polski (польська)
Português (португальська — Португалія)
Português - Brasil (португальська — Бразилія)
Română (румунська)
Русский (російська)
Suomi (фінська)
Svenska (шведська)
Türkçe (турецька)
Tiếng Việt (в’єтнамська)
Повідомити про проблему з перекладом
Правила і настанови обговорень
Поскаржитися на цей допис
Ryzen 5700x + Radeon 6700XT 12GB + 16GB of DDR4 3600 doesn't cost a fortune and let you play all games at console or better visuals.
And that's for the newest AAA games. To play older games you can keep using whatever you have to write on forums.
The 16GB of RAM won't account for memory leaks breaking the minimum requirements.
The Ryzen 5700X is too slow for "performance mode" implementations. Console equivalent at an unstable sub-60 FPS is insufficient.
Maybe the Radeon 6700XT 12GB makes up for the slowness of the Ryzen 5700X, by allowing for a somewhat adequate "quality mode" resolution, but when one is talking VRAM limitations, they are generally giving side eye at NVIDIA and their "Pro Console equivalent" demographic.
Ryzen 7700x + rtx5070 + 32GB 6000 won't break the bank and will be plenty fast for most people.
My comment was about gaming being available to 1%.
what world do you live in??? my 5700x paired with a 3080 10GB is still hitting 150 frames plus in EVERYTHING at 1440p........2042 in 128 player rush will max both to 98% load and still be over 170 frames....
bashing on the best budget CPU released in the last 20 years gets you no where as it proves you dont know what your talking about.....
bet 5 bucks you dont know there is less then 50 frames between a 7800x3d and the 5700x when using a 4090 at 4k.......let me guess you dont know the numbers shown on youtube are 1080p.........
Choosing between slamming the RTX 4090 experience onto lesser hardware for a "heavier" experience, and graphics that would look shameful on integrated GPUs for that classic iGPU potato gaming experience, doesn't bode well.
Signs are all over that it is the end of Moore's Law. This implies that those weaker PCs aren't ancient relics, but the future. Why neglect the weaker PCs?
Define not breaking the bank.
How much faster can a 7700x be from a 5700x anyway. I would expect the RTX 5070 to be better than an RX 6700XT, but maybe not worth the upgrade cost.
That is what I'm saying.
Everything??? Play some 8th Gen breakers and get back to me. Does your Frame-Gen really hold a solid 150+? AMD AFMF2 breaks if I don't get a locked 60 baseline.
Battlefield 2042 is a Cross-Gen release, having been released on the PS4 and XBox ONE, which means it is inherently optimized. This isn't a modern "9th Gen" game. It is a first person shooter, so higher frame rates would also cater to the demographic.
Link for review.
My initial reaction is that the 7800X3D is a lousy mid-range CPU at only 50 frames difference. It might compensate for developer and publisher inadequacy on the console optimization side of things.
H:L is a special case. It was not and still is not optimized for PC in many aspects.
Its never a good idea to use Ports as a guide for actual performance or avarge needs.
A console have no dedicated vram ie. It have only shared system ram, that it can allocate..
H:L had an issue where it allocate all your vram, all your ram and then went bananas... in some situations it would draw all vram for those with 12 or below... (without reason) this was patched, but the ram still had issues... but we talk about 4k and everything on highest setting with RT...
People that play 1080p or even 1440p does not have this issue (I have 32gb ram, but never saw a draw above 12gb... with 1440p after the patch)
It is never a good idea to use the games you will play as a guide for actual performance or average needs?
What am I supposed to do then, measure performance against the games I do not own or play and assume that a poorly optimized port will somehow magically perform equal to or better than on its "native" console?
One of the aspects of PC Gaming is to compensate for shoddy "native" console ports, by taking advantage of Moore's Law making upgraded hardware available for the PC Port to perform at console adequate performance standards not present on the literal console port.
It is never a good idea to use console games as a PC performance test no..
Its like trying to use a PC game ported to Console as a Console marked... imagine if we had done that with CP2077, by that argument, consoles were non functional and low quality.
The point I am putting across, is that the vast majority of games does not need the claims you try to put out and in the few cases we have its either console ports that were not optimized or Star Citizen.
Not in terms of overall players, only in terms of peak (that was 4k higher than BG3)
Nobody is saying that console games for the mainstream are not popular on PC (they are) but when you take one or two of them that had so many issues and then claim that its because PC performance is problematic its hillarious...
H:L does not use the amount of ram you say anymore... besides... a PS5 (the platform its made for) only have 16gb shared ram.
https://youtu.be/mklCPWNyJC0?si=ZyaqIbBbtRgUlCW2
I said 16gb is enough if you wanna play 1080p and don´t slide everything to ultra with RT and FG on.... Even 1440p will be fine for most cases.
If you want to play 1440p or 4k or crank everything up... then sure.. but nobody that have the hardware to do so will have 16gb anyway.
People will be fine if they just casually game and don´t slide right.
Did anyone even play Forsaken? was it like 10k sales on pc in total?... rofl.-