Only until your "not so fast" video card requires dlss/fsr + fg to be enabled, which will render at about 50% of the original resolution.
I can drop to 1440p and the gpu will still be largely the main limiting factor. Of course it depends on the games, yes if I try valorant and cs go my cpu is the bottleneck. But then again I'm getting around 600 fps in valorant with that outdated cpu I got so I'm not sure I need more.
No, the entire original post was about high end fast chips that can also play games decently. The 285k does that while being the most efficient, by far.
So the whole argument is about saving $6 a year when it will cost $1000 to upgrade a system to a 285K... 👌
Yeap, that's exactly the argument. Gets too boring to talk to amd fans man. I've been drooled in tears about intels inefficiency the last 2 years and suddenly it's just 6$ after all. Good to know.
Yet I'm comparing it to the 14900K... Not everyone is silly enough to have an allegiance to a specific company, which, has no allegiance to you or them...
That's because the difference now is 6 dollars but before when you were getting lambasted about AMD efficiency it was more like 15-30 dollars depending on how much your kWH is.
Not sure if you are serious or just joking honestly. Please tell me you are joking 😁
But it doesn't because the 7950X3D is still slower than the 7800X3D in everyone's benchmarks. If everything was actually working properly that wouldn't be the case since the boost clock is higher. Now this might be because of the two CCDs causing random issues in general, but it doesn't change the fact that the 7800X3D provides higher performance across the board.
I think it's more reviewers not bothering / not knowing. In the ocing community where people know what the heck they are doing I've never seen the 7800x 3d being faster than the 7950x 3d
If that's the case then that means AMD's premium platform is the problem and to get power savings you have to sacrifice connectivity.
Maybe you do a lot of CPU MT tasks for work; 12900k full load stock vs 5950x full load stock is ~300W vs ~180W. (~120W x 10 hours x 365 days) / 1000 = 438 x 0.43 cents per kWH = 188.34 dollars / 12 = 15.70 dollars a month in extra electricity costs.
Show some data to back that up then rather than making arbitrary claims. Let's say Alan Wake 2 since that's a title where dual CCD chips seem to underperform period.
I'm not running the 12900k at 300 watts, but how is the above relevant to the discussion?Maybe you do a lot of CPU MT tasks for work; 12900k full load stock vs 5950x full load stock is ~300W vs ~180W. (~120W x 10 hours x 365 days) / 1000 = 438 x 0.43 cents per kWH = 188.34 dollars / 12 = 15.70 dollars a month in extra electricity costs.
In all seriousness energy efficiency matters, but to the extent that I cling to it as a crutch for AMD is nonsense.
Source for the above graph.
I have some tests on TLOU and cyberpunk. , nobody really tests Alan Wake. I can ask, but I don't think anyone will care. Is it cpu intensive? I finished the game and as usual, gpu was pegged to a crawl.
AW2 depends on the area because it's like CP2077 in that it's very graphically demanding but also has very heavy CPU areas.
Well if you manually make sure the amd driver - xbox game bar works properly, is that considering "user intervention"?
No. You made up your mind and are just posing.
I never said you were running the 12900k at 300w. If you are lost in the discussion I suggest going through it again.
No, I have NOT, in any way, made up my mind.
Cool more claims without data and you're also on your standard "all reviewers are wrong" nonsense.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram