Core i7 4790K, Ultra Settings, No HairWorks 1080p Low/Avg FPS 1440p Low/Avg FPS
Radeon R9 290 4GB [?] 33.0 / 46.6 24.0 / 35.3
Radeon R9 290X 4GB [?] 34.0 / 50.5 26.0 / 38.2
GeForce GTX 970 4GB [?] 41.0 / 56.0 30.0 / 39.2
GeForce GTX 980 4GB [?] 49.0 / 65.8 36.0 / 47.5
GeForce GTX 980 Ti [?] 64.0 / 82.6 48.0 / 61.7
GeForce Titan X 12GB [?] 65.0 / 84.4 50.0 / 63.3
Sure,cause if you are going to buy a $1100 vga you gonna pair it with an 6300 or i3...
And what, a whopping 7 fps difference for low fps between the two of them?
From your link,so you will need at least an GTX970 to not bottleneck an i3 ,how is that bad?
Sure,cause if you are going to buy a $1100 vga you gonna pair it with an 6300 or i3...
And what, a whopping 7 fps difference for low fps between the two of them?
From your link,so you will need at least an GTX970 to not bottleneck an i3 ,how is that bad?
The overclocked pentium in the article linked above gets a *minimum* of 27 fps, while the PS4 seems locked at 30. So I dont see how that can be called "dipping heavily". I am playing the game with an i5 and a HD7770, and I get less than 30 fps *average* on low settings, and the game *is* playable. And certainly an i3 is even better.
Now I am not advocating a Pentium, or even an i3 for that matter. But I agree with Critical who said we need to keep things in perspective. This game seems to me to be quite playable on even a Pentium as are most current games with a few exceptions like GTA V. Is it ideal, no. But I dont consider upper 20s mimimum and 40s average unplayable at all. To call a dual core, especially a hyperthreaded one, rubbish is a bit of an overstatement. In fact in many games, an i3 will be faster than an FX.
And I do. If I don't game at 50FPS+ consistently its upgrade time. Low settings and sub 30 is just as poor as substandard "next-gen" consoles. Its dipping heavily because in the wilds you get over 50 and as soon as NPCs and AI is pumped up FPS die.