this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2024
502 points (97.0% liked)

Technology

59593 readers
3041 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s
[email protected]
[email protected]
L4s
enu
502
AMD’s new CPU hits 132fps in Fortnite without a graphics card (www.pcgamesn.com)
submitted 9 months ago by L4s to c/technology
94 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

AMD’s new CPU hits 132fps in Fortnite without a graphics card::Also get 49fps in BG3, 119fps in CS2, and 41fps in Cyberpunk 2077 using the new AMD Ryzen 8700G, all without the need for an extra CPU cooler.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 18 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Hell yeah, I want EVERYONE to make dope ass shit. I’ve made machines with both sides, and I hate tribal…ness. My current machine is a 9900k that’s getting to be… five years old?! I’d make an AMD machine today if I needed a new machine. AMD/Intel rivalry is so good for us all. Intel slacked so hard after the 9000-series. I hope they come back.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Intel has slacked hard since the 2000-series. One shitty 4 core release after another, until AMD kicked things into gear with Ryzen.

And during that time you couldn't buy Intel due to security flaws (Meltdown, Spectre, ..).

Even now they are slacking, just look at the power consumption. The way they currently produce CPUs isn't sustainable (AMD pays way less per chip with the chiplet design and is far more flexible).

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

Ayyyy the 9900k was best in class when it was released.

Otherwise I fully absolutely agree with you.

I only went Intel because the benchmarks were amazing.

[–] T156 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

In fairness, computers have aged a lot better than they did 20 years ago, in the far-off year of 2000.

My computer is a desktop from 2013 or so (With an i7-4770) , and other than some upgrades to the RAM (8 -> 16 GB) and the graphics (GT640 -> RX570), it's still fairly solid, and will run most things fairly decently.

By comparison, trying to use a computer from 2005 in 2015 was a much tougher ask, since it struggled a lot more with even just bare Windows 10.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

My guest machine is a 4670k/16GB/1070! It still runs most games perfectly. Amazing processor series.

Edit: my Crysis machine I built when it came out was pretty rough after like three years. Athlon 64x2 4400+, 4GB, 2x7900GT SLI. It’s insane how much longer computers last now. SSDs help a tonnnnn