Cài đặt Steam
Đăng nhập
|
Ngôn ngữ
简体中文 (Hán giản thể)
繁體中文 (Hán phồn thể)
日本語 (Nhật)
한국어 (Hàn Quốc)
ไทย (Thái)
Български (Bungari)
Čeština (CH Séc)
Dansk (Đan Mạch)
Deutsch (Đức)
English (Anh)
Español - España (Tây Ban Nha - TBN)
Español - Latinoamérica (Tây Ban Nha cho Mỹ Latin)
Ελληνικά (Hy Lạp)
Français (Pháp)
Italiano (Ý)
Bahasa Indonesia (tiếng Indonesia)
Magyar (Hungary)
Nederlands (Hà Lan)
Norsk (Na Uy)
Polski (Ba Lan)
Português (Tiếng Bồ Đào Nha - BĐN)
Português - Brasil (Bồ Đào Nha - Brazil)
Română (Rumani)
Русский (Nga)
Suomi (Phần Lan)
Svenska (Thụy Điển)
Türkçe (Thổ Nhĩ Kỳ)
Українська (Ukraine)
Báo cáo lỗi dịch thuật
FX6 is Triple (6 modules)
FX4 is Dual (4 modules)
FX8 is obvious winner against the lower ones here. How u come off thinking an FX4 or 6 could be faster, u making that up. If your FX8 is lacking in performance, then either your Motherboard is not good enough, or you doing something wrong.
A liquid cooler is also a option.
Most games in the future will use 8 cores. Many or even most games already do.
fx8-9 = 4 modules
fx6 = 3 modules
fx4 = 2 modules
each module = 2 cores, 1 fpu, and l2 cache bank
if you want an older cpu with better core perfromacne go back to a pii x6
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/323/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_AMD_Phenom_II_X6_1100T.html
its clocked 33% lower, but its performance is only 6% slower
it can oc by 10-15% easily with a good board and cooling
FX8 is still a Quad core performance, cause of how the modules work.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1348623/amd-bulldozer-and-piledriver-overclocking-guide-asus-motherboard#
To the 4350 It'd be like a sidegrade if you overclock the 8120.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8427/amd-fx-8370e-cpu-review-vishera-95w/3
http://www.techspot.com/review/956-dying-light-benchmarks/page5.html
http://www.techspot.com/reviews/graphics-cards/gaming-benchmarks/
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.co.uk&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.sweclockers.com/artikel/14650-prestandaanalys-battlefield-3/5#pagehead
More reading ^.
Ps keep what you got provided you overclock it.
4+1 with vrm heatsinks or better
The Operating System will take up one core at least - so don't forget that.
A lot of single player games don't have 8 threads or anywhere approaching that. The vast majority of games today use 1 or 2 cores, with some using 3 or 4.
I've personally never coded a game will more than 2 threads, apps on the otherhand perhaps would be more logical to make better use of them all, but still complex to achieve. Most AMD cores end up simply sitting there idle, only kicking in with apps / multi-tasking, and not on games. This is why many perfer Intel over AMD for gaming purposes these days - it focuses on removing bottlenecks from the motherboard, rather than just the CPU being a beast.
Battle Field 4 in multiplayer with 64 players on the map could make use of a full 6 cores. Windows / Multi-Tasking using another core, therefore it will be maxing out most by that point of time. So it can depend on the game, but still rather currently limited.
The "Cryengine 3" game development software with Crysis 3 is capable of using 8 core processors well, and it shows. That would make some good use of the AMD multiple cores.
h100 you mean?
Anyways just overclock your CPU.
You can disable 2 modules (4 cores) and clock the remaining 4 even higher if you only want to use a quadcore for whatever reason or think you can get a higher overclock that way.