1440p civilization v backgrounds 1080p#
1440p civilization v backgrounds series#

It's time to nudge your audience towards higher gaming echelons. 4K is still too high for most GPU's to handle, meaning that QHD fills a good middle ground at the end of the day, beating HD at higher image quality. (Typically 2560x1440).Tom's explicitly stated in the past that QHD is the best area for gaming given that screens today with G/Fsync/144hz+ options cost less than $500 and are very affordable in general, today. Yes, game results at HD are less GPU bound, but it only paints Intel in a good picture while hiding a rather shocking truth - that AMD is incredibly gaming competitive at the world's sweet spot for gaming resolutions. I find it downright shocking to see that popular hardware review sites such as Tom's are still harping so much on HD gaming results. Way better than the typical casting AMD CPUs in bad light, for example where Toms put the 3400G ($159) against the Intel 9700k($379.00). Pretty fair way of presenting the information.

1440p civilization v backgrounds 1080p#

AMD would show even better in games and anything that was memory intensive.ġ440p gaming would be more relevant! I do realize it doesn't make for good looking graphs but 1080p is not the typical use case for this CPU and comparable GPU. I realize that both AMD and Intel systems are overclocked but the AMD systems seem to do better with memory tuning, maybe instead of just using PBO (a one click solution), take the same time you use for the Intel processors and put that into the memory. AMD seems to do better with anything that takes more time. Look at the shorter tests, the Intel systems seems to do better until their turbo runs out. Wow that's high power consumption! Good thing you are running liquid cooling! Compare that to the AMD 3700X at half the power! Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation on Intel Core i7-10700K

Overclocking rights that slight disparity, though, as the 10700K takes second to the 10900K. The disparity likely comes as a result of the time taken to transition to the boost clock and the efficacy of Turbo Boost Max 3.0 thread scheduling, which can vary based on its ability to identify and schedule threads to the fastest cores. The Core i7-10700K lands behind the 9900K running at 5.0 GHz despite its dual-core 5.1 GHz boost at stock settings. Chips without hyper-threading usually fare the best in this title, but the 10700K's 5.1 GHz boost clock propels it above the 9700K's 4.9 GHz. The Ryzen 9 3900X is also impressive in this test, especially in light of its new lower pricing at retail.Ĭivilization VI's AI engine values per-core performance, which benefits Intel's higher clock rates. The Core i7-10700K lands near the bottom of the chart but beats the Core i9-9900K at stock settings.

It isn't surprising to see the Ryzen 9 3950X take the lead, but its 16 cores and 32 threads set the benchmark for the highest-end of the mainstream X570 platform, and also the highest pricing at $740. Stockfish, an open-source chess engine, is designed to extract the utmost performance from many-core chips by scaling well up to 512 cores.

1440p civilization v backgrounds series#

Given the Core i7-10700K's similar eight-core 16-thread design and much lower pricing, it's clear Intel has moved quite a bit forward on the value front as a response to the Ryzen 3000 series processors.

The Core i7-10700K's high clock speeds pay dividends in this benchmark, and we see what will become a familiar trend: The Core i7-10700K is faster than the Core i9-9900K that retails for $488 (MSRP, current street prices higher). VRMark's test values per-core performance (a mixture of frequency and IPC), and it obviously prefers physical cores and lots of 元 cache. That's important to keep in mind, as recent deep price cuts find the 3990X hovering at the ~$410 price point. However, the Ryzen 9 3900X steps in with a lead in both tests, even beating the overclocked 10700K. Meanwhile, the 10700K's sixteen threads respond more readily in the Time Spy benchmark as it distances itself from the Ryzen 7 models, and overclocking expands the lead. Surprisingly, the ever-so-slightly-faster $329 Ryzen 7 3800X trails both of those contenders by roughly 500 points. The $387 (MSRP, current street prices higher) Core i7-10700K falls into the bottom portion of the Fire Strike test results, grappling with the $300 Ryzen 7 3700X.