Fun fact ryzen 7 9800x3d is for 720p users and i3 14100f for the 4k users.
I suppose most 4k gamers who bought the R7 9800X3D are also waiting for the 5090.
Crazy how some people have 0 understanding but talk like gurus 😂😂
It's hard to accept but it's the truth, you don't need to spend so much money on a processor to play 4k Thanks!! for this beautiful video, I like to see more in 1440p which is already becoming a basic resolution.
The GPU must be considered first, 4K😊
the thing is, pretty much any modern processor is enough to play most games at 60Hz or even a bit more, but for people that wants no compromises high refresh, and dial down or use upscaling to hit the desire fps, the X3D CPUs are the best by far
I'm just here the appreciate how well that little i3 runs games regardless of comperative performance.
wow that was actually a smaller difference than i expected, ik that in 4K CPU doesn't matter that much, but even in a pretty CPU dependent game like CS2 the difference was only 10%
Same performance, cheaper and better power draw on 14100F, if you are gaming at 4K, it's an easy choice.
700$ 14900KS vs 80$ Ryzen 3600 at 4K now pls 😆
I don't understand why people are confused by these results. it's 4k ultra graphics settings, you will be gpu bottlenecked in every game you play.
As a gamer who has always bought top-of-the-line video cards to play at the highest resolution possible, I've known for a long time that the bottleneck is almost always the GPU and not the processor. I've said this in the past and I've always been called ignorant or crazy for suggesting that at 4K it is possible to use a weaker processor paired with a high-end graphics card, as I always have. However, I must confess that I didn't expect an i3-14100F to perform so well in CPU-heavy games, as is the case with Starfield. But be careful! Don't assume this is always the case. Some games (such as Skyrim and older versions of Minecraft) can become a real nightmare for the processor when the draw calls (independent graphic elements) in the game are too high, as is the case with the use of some mods.
Very indicative - once again confirms that top processors are essentially not needed for games: 95% of regular mid-range processors will suffice
Test in 1440p, 2560 x 1440 resolution next?
1440p and 2160p tests like this are necessary because 1440p is becoming more and more popular. RTX 4090 + 1080p low settings can be used as a CPU comparison (gaming only), but that's not actual usage conditions. No one uses the 4090 for 1080p low or medium settings, and for PC, CPUs aren't just for gaming. Comparing tasks, software and workloads (single core, multi core) is necessary, to avoid normal users being fooled by the numbers.
Core i3 14100f and Ryzen 7 9800x3d are almost same☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️
No, a big part of the problem is the ray tracing. The gpu companies are handling ray tracing by putting in dedicated hardware which plummets a game's fps and makes it much harder to see the difference between cpus in the process. It's much less intensive to have the game developers handle it using a software approach like they do in Unreal Engine 5. Yes, gpus bottleneck any cpu at 4k, but the way ray tracing is handled is a huge part of it too. And the amount of ray tracing hardware in each gpu as well as the kind of hardware has an impact on benchmarks as well. So until the hardware and game industries pulls their heads out of their butts, please show the benchmarks for each game with and without ray tracing in your future videos. Thanks.
Awesome work there! You've shown 4K gaming with a low-end CPU can be almost as good as a high-end one, coz GPU is the bottleneck, and any modern CPU gets us 60+ fps when the GPU is up to the task. Of course, those who want the highest framerate with the smoothest gameplay can go spend many more times the amount of money on a flagship CPU.
It's a good channel, it's been subscribed to for a long time, for 2 years now, but you should update Starfield to the current version 1.14.70, and in general everything will be great! 😀
@TestingGames