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
It might helpful website that show you good time to upgrade it.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html
NOTED: this is not compare CPU.
Stock clock are okay with Battlefield 3 and Crysis 3 for now. Didn't have to overclock that higher.
I'm familiar with that. I went up 5 levels on this new computer. Old E7500 Core 2 Dual to a i5 4670k.
True, but OC potential does give you a certain level of future proofing.
The ugly part about the PC market is that the high end stuff is still largely overpowered for what people use it for. The old first gen i7s are still extremely powerful comparatively.
I just dont understand why people think LGA 2011 is so overpriced. Comparing a 4820k plus decent motherboard (Lets say, P9X79LE) and a 4770k with a decent motherboard (ASUS Z87-PRO) is only around a $40 difference, so I dont think they are that bad at all, if you weigh in the advantages of X79.
People are already saying the i7's are overpriced and to get a i5 for gaming instead...
I don't agree with "only $40 difference" either because the cheapest X79 boards I can find are like $180 and they are crappy small micro-ATX boards mostly. Meanwhile you can pick up a full ATX Z87 board for $100~ for a nice Biostar board with plenty of VRM (10 phase heatsinked I think) for overclocking, Crossfire support but no SLI support as the only downside. So right there is $80 difference plus whatever CPU price difference plus like I said people are already saying i7's are overpriced and so you could get a Z87 with a i5-4670K and save over $200 (total cost $300-$350). That $200 saved is worth it to a lot of people because of the speed with which technology progresses and the potential for a sooner upgrade.
Also look at the price jumps AFTER the i7-4820K, double price, then double price again, no where near double performance and then double performance again though.
By their pricing scheme the i7-4960x should be 2 times as fast as the i7-4930K and 4 times as fast as the i7-4820K. It's simply not the case.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/01/20/which-cpu-to-buy/
Ya well if you do that then the numbers say whatever you want.
Also where is the 16 core i7-4960x? Not there, 4 times the price of a i7-4820K but not 4 times the cores or performance. They could have at very least made it a 10-12 core CPU but they didn't and they still charge such a crazy premium. There are 10 core Xeon's though and maybe 12 or 16 also.
People say intel is better simply because THEY ARE.
amd is fine on a budget but a performance based pc will be built on an intel platform.
check benchmarks and watch some youtube comparisons where they compare FPS differences testing cpus not gpus meaning running the games on low settlings as well as several other benchmarks.
intel cpus dominate.
its not being a fanboy its just being realistic.
Yeah, I agree. But AMD in my opinion is still more bang for your buck, I'm doing video editing quite a bit, and for the same price of an FX 6300, the i3 gets stomped on by the 6300. And it still does everything I want for the price of 100 bucks... I should of mentioned that I ment not only for gaming, but most people eventually want to start editing, and to already have the 6300 is a big deal for those with a small budget.
A friend of mine is running the 6300 @4.6GHz together with a GTX 670, so it's all about preference I guess. So wouldn't the AMD FX 8 be a much better choice for him? If he eventually starts video editing he won't have a problem with that 6-8 core (difference isn't that big of a deal in games today, but say in 1-2 years wouldn't it be better to grab an AMD)? As it stomps Intel, for the same price. I still think AMD's processor are a much better choice for future proofing.
Even IF Intel is better in benchmark tests, you still won't run into problems with an AMD...