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
16 
举报此帖
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-ultra-9-285k/22.html
Only in BL4 did the 7800X3D perform slightly worse in fluidity, it's not a knock, just reporting facts for what I have observed.
Those aggregate sites aren't accurate. You really should look at real benchmarks instead.
There is a reason I'll suggest 9000 series but wouldn't previous gens, they simply offer an inferior gaming experience overall, 9000 still has more frequent drops in any game play you can go look at, but it's no where near as bad.
That is far from the best source provided period. Also what does mouse polling rate have to do with any of this?
That source sucks.
You are sounding exactly like audiophiles. Ignoring facts and scientific data and substituting it with emotions is meaningless.
When what you claim cant be measured and proven its because you're wrong.
People don't always realize that worse CPUs may have better built-in graphics.
yeah but BL4 is not known to be an optimized game
kind of like Starfield, they seem to run better on Intel cpus for some strange reason while all the other newer games run better on AMDs X3D cpus
its impossible to see cpu bottlenecks when the gpu is the limiting factor
You may have a very powerful CPU that renders content amazingly, great single-core & multi-core performance, but it's just bad at graphics because that's not where the chip's design focus is. Integrated graphics are generally made for basic use, streaming videos (2D). They're not made for 3D rendering and games.
And because integrated graphics are not so much focused on, they can be better in a chip that has worse performance for those tasks CPUs are typically used for.
I mean why would chip manufacturers even focus so much on integrated graphics when most computer users are going to have dedicated graphics cards anyway?
It's viewable in most open world game plays online you can go watch, all systems will have drops, it's just something that has existed since ryzen was released due to the way the architecture works.
As to needing to think Intel is better or amd, I don't care who makes the chip I use or recommend, I always and for longer than some have been alive I suspect, suggest the option that gives the best experience for the individual use case, for a long time that was clearly Intel, with the 9000 series amd have taken the lead and their one weakness is drastically reduced.
See, unlike you fanboys I can accept and recognise flaws in the various options regardless of who makes it.
I mean I am such an Intel fanboy that I tell 99.9% of people to buy amd over Intel, but recognising a flaw in your beloved brand seems to be hiretical to some of you.
If you have never noticed it and don't care, that's fine, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen any more than people saying their Intel chips didn't degrade doesn't mean they don't because it was a flaw in the design, only with ryzen over 5 generations and a decade they have polished it enough that it's barely there and the upsides outweigh the one (now small) negative.
The only ones who seem to cope are those who put their head in the sand and pretend amd never had lattency and stutter issues, these companies don't care about you, it's OK to admit that things have flaws, heck, I only have my current setup due to a convuluted series of circumstances, if I was building from scratch I'd of gone with a 9800x3d myself, but I have a 14900ks and slightly smoother game play for it, all be it at a lower fps.