Possibles fuites sur la performance des nouveaux processeurs de génération prochaine.
Possibles fuites sur la performance des nouveaux processeurs de génération prochaine.
If they adjust the 5950x to align with the Intel model, I’m likely to receive a 5950x. This would mean I’d just need to replace the MB and CPU cooler, but I’d still require a different waterblock because the EK-supremacy EVO didn’t have any compatible brackets for AM4 systems. Since AM1 was only recently released at that time, it’s unlikely to fit.
This often misunderstood topic relates mainly to gaming development rather than the importance of consoles for PC play. There are limits imposed by consoles regarding frame rates, but PCs consistently surpass those bounds. The notion that most games have poor console versions is no longer accurate. Today’s titles may share a similar quality standard across platforms, yet performance varies greatly depending on hardware. The core issue lies in reduced emphasis on parallel processing. Games don’t fully leverage multiple cores by splitting tasks efficiently; instead, they tend to distribute work unevenly—like assigning only one core to physics and another to sound. This limits real gains. Performance drops quickly when parallelism isn’t present. Beyond consoles, similar problems exist with different PC configurations. The main challenge is that optimization for parallelism demands significant effort and stability, and it usually targets lower-end systems to attract a broader audience.
Maybe "limited" wasn't the best word. What I meant is that if your CPU IPC matches or exceeds what current consoles offer, you won't need significantly more to run games at similar quality. Right now, it refers to running Zen2 at 3.5ghz. The 8700k already goes beyond that, so I don't expect to need more than that for the next five years to achieve solid performance. You can aim higher, but by then it'll be hard to find games designed for more than what the PS5 can handle. Developers probably won't create titles requiring more power than the latest console can deliver until the platform transitions. Like CP2077, it's a transitional phase—PC hardware will clearly highlight the gap between today's systems and older FX tech. By then, we'll be well into the era after Alder Lake.
The demand for fast-paced gaming is growing, but back then no one expected high refresh rates or smooth frames on consoles. People didn’t imagine playing on a screen instead of a TV. If interest is strong, there’s a chance to meet it. Consoles must keep up with PC trends, not the other way around. What feels great depends on the situation. For most titles, 60 frames per second is outdated and uncomfortable, especially when motion blur and input lag become noticeable. On consoles, added artificial blur can make performance feel worse, unless the game doesn’t rely on smooth visuals. (like chess or strategy games.) I’m okay with around 100fps. Going to 120 or 144 fps for consoles could help, and maybe 240 for competitive shooters later. Beyond that, gains slow down and it’s less enjoyable for most. On PC, performance keeps improving, so upgrades happen regularly—usually every five years for CPUs, even with powerful hardware. For example, a chip from the 900 series moves to the 2000 series, then to the 4000 series.
Align with me on 60fps – if you're using a monitor then 100fps works well for me. The positive side of PCs is you can usually lower graphics settings manually to boost performance while sacrificing quality. From afar, 60fps is acceptable. I think it's best to skip the 12th generation and hold off on second-gen DDR5 systems; it might be a more stable choice overall.