The extent of the difference depends on your specific configuration, but generally, it can vary significantly.
The extent of the difference depends on your specific configuration, but generally, it can vary significantly.
Are you sure? I was fluctuating, with the GPU running about 70-80% and the CPU at 13-16%.
It’s mainly CPU intensive, but it should still deliver better FPS even with lower usage. Still, it’s mostly CPU dependent. To boost performance further, high-end Intel is the best option. I’m not suggesting you switch platforms, just pointing out that AMD won’t cut it if you’re aiming for 300+ FPS.
It seems like the issue might be related to memory or a more powerful GPU/CPU.
Userbenchmark performs poorly... skip using it. It still relies heavily on CPU power. Just because the usage is low doesn’t mean it’s not a CPU constraint. The Ryzen isn’t quick enough to supply the GPU with sufficient data at once, which is why a 5+ghz 10900k will significantly improve performance for “high FPS” gaming. A difference of roughly 280 to 320-340 FPS (based on estimates) likely doesn’t matter. Probably not... but if it does, Intel is the choice. For most users, this isn’t a strong reason to go that way.
I haven’t really relied on user benchmark due to the reports of their questionable behavior.
Are you okay? I just don’t want low frame rates messing up other games, which is my worry.
It contributes a solid presence in FPS due to the improved GPU performance.
He's improving in performance thanks to a better GPU, CPU, and RAM.