Установить Steam
войти
|
язык
简体中文 (упрощенный китайский)
繁體中文 (традиционный китайский)
日本語 (японский)
한국어 (корейский)
ไทย (тайский)
Български (болгарский)
Čeština (чешский)
Dansk (датский)
Deutsch (немецкий)
English (английский)
Español - España (испанский)
Español - Latinoamérica (латиноам. испанский)
Ελληνικά (греческий)
Français (французский)
Italiano (итальянский)
Bahasa Indonesia (индонезийский)
Magyar (венгерский)
Nederlands (нидерландский)
Norsk (норвежский)
Polski (польский)
Português (португальский)
Português-Brasil (бразильский португальский)
Română (румынский)
Suomi (финский)
Svenska (шведский)
Türkçe (турецкий)
Tiếng Việt (вьетнамский)
Українська (украинский)
Сообщить о проблеме с переводом
Правила обсуждений
Пожаловаться
novabench shows RAM performance is typically much higher on the 14900K compared to 9800X3D.
sperg harder.
No, at least not directly.
It doesn't though in games, I mean, it does in some, but it's how you measure it.
Overall the 9800x3d has higher max fps than the 14900ks tuned, let alone a stock 14900k, Intel beats them in some games, but, most go to AMD.
Where Intel beats AMD is when games don't fit in the cache, they swap ccu etc which leads to dips or stutters on the 1% and 0.1% lows, which tend to be a larger dip and more often than Intel experiences, the big problem is, these don't show up on graphs, but they do show up in actual gameplay if it's being benched like you actually play the game, it's also a snapper experience in windows.
As I lock my fps to 120 at 4k, I don't care about the max fps, it's the 0.1% I'm interested in, which is why I went for a 14900ks, but, you really need to tune the cpu and memory, likely delid the chip and tin a custom loop on the cpu and memory to get the best out of the 14900k/s, where as, you need to slot the 9800x3d in, put on any old cooler 6000-6400 ram vs 7200-8000 memory and just turn it on.
The 9800x3d IS the better chop for 99.99% of gamers.
The 285k doesn't even get a real look in, but I'd expect some solid gains next gen.
So even someone from "your court" agrees with us, if that isn't enough to get through to you if you're not just trolling, then idfk what will
If I was on a high refresh screen, 240 4k, 480 1440p etc I'd of gone with the 9800x3d for a planned upgrade.
The 14900ks was not planned, I wanted upgrade from ddr4 to 5, got a z790 apex encore for half price and 8000MHz ram for £120 instead of 300,i figured I'd try my luck binning a couple 14900ks' and I hot Lucky with a pretty good, top 10% chip, which, I also got gir £500 and not £630-700.
But, as I've said, it suits my specific situation where I care more about lows and consistency than max fps, plus, I'm dumb enough to set fire to the warranty on all of it and delid and direct die the whole lot.
If that isn't you, and 99.99% of people are not, the 9800x3d IS the better chip and it's notably cheaper.
If I didn't score the bits cheap, it would cost £630 cpu, £700 mobo, £300 memory, before watercooling / delid (£500+) etc to edge out a 9800x3d in a fairly niche scenario, vs, £200 mobo, £500 cpu and £150 memory with a £50 cooler.
So it would costs over £2000 vs £900.
There is NO real competition, AMD wins.
Im just a dumb butt who got the parts 'cheap' and had the rest of the setup to make use of it.
https://novabench.com/results
I'll trust novabench over the word salads.
I just said that synthetics are irrelevant whenever real world results contrast them, and your retort is "show your useless score to me"? I never said your 14900K wasn't higher in a synthetic than whatever I have. I'm not sure how that's even relevant to the discussion. I said synthetics are not always 1:1 and not the singular thing that matters.
Which in the case of a synthetic, merely means counting up to a higher number before time runs out.
Now what happens if the most important factor preventing that particular synthetic from reaching higher is, say, FPU performance, yet many games are instead seeing an even larger increase by increasing the cache size? And that happens because surprise surprise, games are often latency limited and a higher cache means less waiting time while fetching from RAM? Suddenly, that synthetic doesn't represent real world results in this case very well now, does it?
You do realize the performance gotten out of hardware is not a static thing and will vary depending on how the particular software in question is limited in that given moment (which may also change moment to moment), right? You apparently don't.
And this does show up in graphs (which often include 1% and/or 0.1% lows, you know), which is why the 7950X3D and especially the 7900X3D almost always show lower performance in lows and averages than the 7800X3D.
Lol, no. No you are not.
This is why intel is king in 1% lows in many games except for racing games.
No matter which CPU you decide to buy in the end it's important to look at 1% lows since that's the most important metric to look at. Avg fps is meaningless if you dip to 10-20% of it in 1% lows.
Just do your own research and don't rely solely on this forum for information.
Yeah thats not whats being shown in benchmarks. You guys keep saying Intel is "king ins 1% lows" while the benchm,arks show Intel with LOWER 1% lows.
Where are you seeing this?
It's looking like I'm the only expert here so far.
https://novabench.com/results
These spergs are free to benchmark their systems and see how they compare.
Unless you confusingly thought about arrowlake? Which is pointless for gaming when raptorlake is better.