Rekall Incorporated@lemm.ee to Hardware@lemmy.worldEnglish · edit-21 month agoIntel admits Core Ultra 9 285K will be slower than i9-14900K in gamingvideocardz.comexternal-linkmessage-square5fedilinkarrow-up130arrow-down12
arrow-up128arrow-down1external-linkIntel admits Core Ultra 9 285K will be slower than i9-14900K in gamingvideocardz.comRekall Incorporated@lemm.ee to Hardware@lemmy.worldEnglish · edit-21 month agomessage-square5fedilink
minus-squareNegativeInf@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up21·1 month agoBy 3 frames per second at over 260 fps for a savings of 80 watts. Spend your watts on a better graphics card babe.
minus-squareAlphane Moon@lemmy.worldMlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·1 month agoTo be honest, I don’t think that’s too bad of a trade-off, but I can see how this would be controversial in the context of desktop computing.
minus-squareVik@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·edit-21 month agoit’s bizarre how IHVs will absolutely crank power for such marnigal gains in average fps :( I’m happy ARL is taking this approach.
By 3 frames per second at over 260 fps for a savings of 80 watts.
Spend your watts on a better graphics card babe.
To be honest, I don’t think that’s too bad of a trade-off, but I can see how this would be controversial in the context of desktop computing.
it’s bizarre how IHVs will absolutely crank power for such marnigal gains in average fps :(
I’m happy ARL is taking this approach.