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
In reality, even GPUs that are closely "equivalent" are often wildly apart in individual circumstances. You lose depth when you have to average something. That's how it goes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ae7XrIbmao
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O7Ij5rOqso
As with some older boards or some motherboards from OEM pre-builds; RTX 40 series and AMD 6xxx/7xxx series might not be an option.
Forget the Intel GPUs; their best GPU is around 3060-3070 level of performance and that's in a select few DX12 titles.
GTX 1080 is still a perfectly capable GPU for 1080p which has sufficient power to play any games to date (including the Starfield).
Forget A770 or RTX 4060, they are only around 25% more powerful compared to your existing GTX 1080. If you really wanna upgrade, go for RTX 4070 or 6800xt, which are around 70 to 80% faster.
As for the bottleneck, yes 7700k will bottleneck the RTX 4070 or 6800xt to some degree in many CPU heavy games like the Cyberpunk or Far Cry 5 at 1080p. But you can make the game more GPU demanding by playing on ULTRA settings with High/ ultra Ray-Tacing, it should avoid the bottlenecks.
Price is decent, vram is decent, speed is decent, psu requirements are decent, latest series which is great.
Anything lower might be risking being choked memory wise and in that case I might as well just stay with my 2070 which does get stable 60 fps at 1080p. Anything higher costs just way too much to justify spending for the little bit of gains.
are you planning to play new games? what resolution and settings are you interested in? is raytracing important to you?
a770 is awful. I would avoid it.
base 4070 models should be avoided. some of them don't even passively cool the vrm which jumps to 97 degrees Celsius at 22 degrees room temp.
in the end if you are worried about vram limitations then I would suggest you wait, since there hasn't been any undeniable conclusions that you require at least 12gb vram for 1080p. all three gpu giants, have their own proprietary solutions for faster asset streaming but it's up to microsoft to implement them and given the rumor that ratchet and clank a rift in time, will have gpu decompression, I would suggest you wait until the end of this month, to see if more vram is even necessary
if rumors are to be believed, they will skip 2024 and instead release the 50 series in 2025. so probably that's the time you should be looking for a decent upgrade.
Well, That's fair enough but the way I see it is that it kind of equals out. If you do save money by going last gen, you're saving money at the expense of the performance.
So for someone consciously making that choice, that's fine but it'll be sooner that they again spend more money because they'll be behind a generation. Also, the waiting game hasn't paid off too much for anyone the last couple years as far as I can tell.
I would only upgrade if I had a Kepler GPU or something like that, if I had pascal I would it be upgrading, not when you can just turn on FSR.
If anything it's the 7700K that's lacking as it wasn't even that good to begin with. Only thing that made it good at the time was the fact AMD didn't have a completing CPU for it at that time.