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
I would get i5-4690K or i7-4790K if you want to also do some video/photo editing or stream your games and Z97 motherboard.
Plus the GTX 970 if you can afford it and sell your R9 280X. GTX 970 rivals R9 290X in many games. i5 or i7 and GTX 970 would run fine with 600W PSU.
Can also wait with getting new graphics card at first and see how the R9 280X performance is in AC Unity.
I got this info by typing wmic baseboard get product,Manufacturer,version,serialnumber in CMD
Manufacturer: ASUSTeK Computer INC.
Product: Crosshair IV Formula
Serial #: MB-1234567890
Version: Rev 1.xx
PSU is ThermalTake Purepower RX 600W
Ok. I'll get the i7-4790k, but what about the socket type? Will I be able to take out my Phenom and replace it without doing anything else?
No, you would need LGA 1150 socket motherboard, Z97 chipset works best with K-version CPU's.
4690k/4790k would be a huge upgrade
any z97 board will be good
may need a new windows key if your old one cannot be transfered
also make sure your ram is 1.5v, or run it at 1.5v profile on the intel build
Not quite sure though, maybe someone with better knowledge in AMD CPU's can help.
Also I would not try to run FX-9590 on 600W Thermaltake PSU, it's not exactly high quality PSU.
In my opinion the Fx 9590 is an Awsome cpu but it schould cost $140 tops. I really cannot tell the diffrence between my old Fx 9370 and my currect Fx 6300- all my games play exactly the same. Even the A10 7850K 4 core felt the same.I think its time I made the switch to Intel myself. Ive been messing around with AMD for far too long.
What do you guys think? Should I keep my CPU and upgrade to an GTX 970?
Your CPU would bottleneck about 15-20% of GTX 970 performance.
AC Unity has some really beefy requirements, recommended CPU is i7 and minimum requirement i5 or FX-8350, your current CPU is weaker then FX-8350.
Your current graphics card meets the minimum requirements, recommended is GTX 970 or R9 290X.
So If I want to upgrade to the GTX 970, I would also need to upgrade my CPU? Will my 600W PSU handle it if I were to run i7 4790k and the GTX 970?
Yes, Intel CPUs dont take as much power as AMD CPUs and GTX 970 takes less power then R9 280X.
Yes, I'd prefer to upgrade either my GPU alone or my CPU and motherboard, since upgrading both cost around $800.
http://www.microcenter.com/site/stores/
if so, i5 4690k /w z97 board can cost around $300 after tax
ex.
Intel Core i5-4690K = $200
http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0434177
MSI Z97 PC Mate $110 - $40 combo = $70 and $10 rebate
http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0433127
Subtotal $269.98
Tax $19.65
Grand Total $289.63
upgrading from your r9 280x probably isnt worth it
but you could add a 2nd 280x, but the 600w psu will not be ehough
or maybe get a bigger power supply while at it
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/DXzWyc
Personally I advise boycott that game till they post realistic specs and maybe even then do.
From the reviews players tend to agree with me. With specs like that it's obviously either still in development, lacking development which will never occur OR gods gift to gamers from on high. Guess what? I'm Atheist...
Here's some examples of what graphics cards are actually capable of if used properly. You know that new resolution, 4K, that has everyone on the internet writing about it? All the people saying "you need a R9 295x2 or a GTX Titan Z to game in 4K?" well maybe if the games are really poorly made.
Lets take the actual cold mathematical facts though:
4K=3840*2160 pixels = 8294400 pixels. 4K @ 60 Hz / FPS = 8294400*60=497664000 pixels per second or 497.664 MP/s (Mega Pixels per second).
Even a cheap $25~ HD 5450 can do 2.6 GP/s which is over 5 times more than needed to run 4K at 60 Hz. Of course that card is not even listed as having 4K support which is funny. Maybe because 4K was not out at the time it was released?
Your R9 280X can do 27.2 GP/s which is over 50 times more than needed simply to run 4K at 60 Hz or 25 times more than needed for 4K at 120 Hz which is something I have not even seen available currently. R9 280X is at least listed as 4K support.
Anyhow if the hardware is used correctly by the program that should certainly bust the myth about 4K requiring $1000+ in graphics cards.
What is high pixel fillrate good for? Multiple monitors, video editing, streaming and maybe more.
Now texel fillrate, that does 3D rendering, that you do need a OK graphics card for. Still your R9 280X is not top but it hasn't been doubled by any other single GPU card out yet though the GTX 780 ti does come close.
GFLOPS are also important as they show GPGPU computing power which can be used for all sorts of things like 3D geometry again for rendering or physics calculations.
Anyways this goes a little off topic but what I'm saying is you've already got a sweet system and so far I'm not that impressed with what I've seen out of the games that are requiring such high requirements like Assassin's Creed Unity. It just doesn't make sense.
Also read the ACU reviews, so far mostly negative.