![]() My rig tends to perform really well on games that can use more then 4 CPU cores, and is a bit slower on older games that are optimised towards 1 core usage. So all in all I'm pretty much at the high end except the CPU, with a less "top of the line" single core performance. KSP1 vanilla never dips below 180FPS, IF I dont go overboard with mods or launch a 800 part Rocket that kills your CPU. Storage: 3x 3TB Samsung 980 PRO Nvme pcie 4.0 Monitor: 1x Gigabyte M32U, 1x Samsung generic UHD Curved 32" RAM: 64GB DDR4 3600 Corsair Vengeance RGB ![]() Upgraded my PC a month ago when I got myself a proper 144Hz 4K monitor. Not numbers going, "Oh, well you beat Mr.Johnson with his 3-way SLI 980s." Game benchmarks are measured in FPS and % of usage. So, again, using Cinebench or Timespy or whatever else that gives a score, is not good for gaming results at all. ![]() These may work." etcetera.Īlso also, folks still rocking SLI can get Score XXXXX, but in real world games, they have poor performance. ![]() Giving model names and numbers is the best way to say, "Hey, this works. I like to think of myself as fairly computer literate, but the model names and numbers leave me baffled sometimes, even within a manufacturer, let alone when comparing Nvidia with Radeon.īecause those are "Synthetic" benchmarks and they push the GPU and CPU to the very limit, which is a poor result for game benchmarking, because games almost never 100% either the CPU or GPU, and never at the same time, not unless you are working with old to very old hardware. A bit off topic, but why can't they use one of the benchmarking programs / sites, and say "your CPU needs a score of XXXX, your GPU needs a score of YYYY." rather than using model names and numbers? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |