Single Status Update
Let's try this again, since my 3 or 4 previous attempts to make this status update failed very epically for whatever reason.
These requirements are a big joke and a mess.
There is no universe where a 290X performs similarly to a GTX 960. If they wanted to show a 4GB card then they could have shown a GTX 1050Ti 4GB or a GTX 970.
Similarly, there is no universe where a Radeon VII performs similarly to a 2080Ti, nor is there one where a 9600K is an equivaent to a 3600. A 9600K is inferior in multi-thread, the same was a 9700K is worse in multi-thread than a 3700X.
I feel like for 4K ultra with or without ray tracing they should have recommended 32GB Dual Channel RAM.
And of course as I scribbled on the image, this is potentially for 60fps. If you want 120-144fps you'll need a time machine to travel to the future when 3090s are actually available cos you'll likely need both Zen3 or Rocket Lake core i9 and a 3090 for high framerates
I seriously hope to god that Ubisoft is using Anvil Next 2.0 on this instead of re-cycling Disrupt Engine for a 3rd time when it was shown both times to run badly.
- Show previous comments 3 more
Yep, gap has narrowed. Intel still has a clockspeed lead + lower core-core and RAM latencies that make more of an impact in most games than what AMD has to offer so they remain slightly ahead (and are best in class when you're talking 240Hz and higher, though that's obviously not the target for this kind of game). A 9600K is an Intel equivalent to the 3600 (as is the 10600K but I assume they thought more people had 9th/8th gen stuff so they went with that) both price and often pure gaming performance wise (again, most games do not performance scale very well past 4-6 threads or so) so that'd be why it's on the chart.