Jump to content

Zi6iX

Member
  • Posts

    56
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards

This user doesn't have any awards

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

861 profile views
  1. I do believe that the low performance in gaming is due to some intel optimization. I mean look at cinebench, CPU-Z, 3d mark, and all of those neutral test they're pretty much on par with intel. We also know that the ipc about 6% lower than sky/kabylake.
  2. I don't care about features i will not use: i don't need quad channel ddr4, i don't need 40 pci lanes. I just need to play games and occasionally stream and a 6/12 260 usd cpu is all i need. If you don't like the product don't buy it, no one is making you
  3. Well Intel had no competition for like 10 years giving them the chance to charge a lot for their superior product. Now AMD needs to gain back a lot of ground and it needs to release Ryzen at a lower price with similar performance. Quite simple honestly. P.S. Quoting the fact that AMD released the 9590 at 800 USD is dumb argument. Don't you think they learned from past mistakes?
  4. Yeah not bad at all if this is true i'm gonna grab that 6 core
  5. i quite like that pink it would match my kb/m combo right now
  6. It's not the cpu (i think) it could be the power supply, my nephew had a problem similar to this it fixed by replacing his old PSU
  7. I wrote that for the other guy, forgot to quote him. No problem that's how i play
  8. No, 42% its for bf1 beta don't spread misinformation. 100 its the native resolution in bf4. I would advise everything on low except for texture quality, texture filtering(high or ultra) and mesh (high), you could get the scailing to 120% and don't use AA
  9. why is this on the news section? Just properly reinstall the drivers...
  10. Running a CX600 here 1100Mhz core 1600Mhz vram
×