Thread replies: 6
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
Anonymous
why prefere the 1600 over the 1500x? 2017-07-20 03:50:12 Post No. 384586294
[Report] Image search: [Google]
why prefere the 1600 over the 1500x? 2017-07-20 03:50:12 Post No. 384586294
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: P1010421.jpg (2MB, 2048x1536px) Image search:
[Google]
2MB, 2048x1536px
>30 €/$ cheper
>in games only 2-5 fps lesser
>sometimes even stronger than 1600 in games
>higher stock speed
>less watt usage
>less temperature
games wont use more cores before 2 years.
the only adventage I see is when you render a video or 3d moddeling, where you are faster with more cores
>>
>>384586294
they already do use more cores you faggot, its not 2012
why buy a quad core when the market is finally moving to more cores with decent ipc and games are also using more cores. my 4690k 4.5ghz runs at 100% usage in a few recent games and I have to lock the framerate to 60 to stop the stuttering.
>>
File: 4gkdpv.png (1MB, 1600x900px) Image search:
[Google]
1MB, 1600x900px
>>384586294
le ebin games dont use cores
>>
>>384586486
thank you for helping me in my decision , but you dont have to insult me
>>
>>384586294
30 dollars more is a great trade-off for 5 fps and the fact that it will be a lot more future proof.
>>
>>384586738
Sorry senpai, just hate people saying games don't use than 4 cores when literally all AAA 2016/2017 games do. Even older games like bf4, Asscreed unity, dying light, Crysis 3 do.
You pay a little extra and get alot more
Thread posts: 6
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2