Hey everyone! I'm looking to upgrade my desktop and laptop this holiday since I love playing strategy games like Stellaris and EU4, sims like Factorio, as well as titles like Elder Scrolls Online and Civilization (even though the recent ones haven't impressed me much). I thought AMD's x3D chips would be the best for these types of games, but after watching a YouTube video comparing laptop CPUs, it seemed like Intel performed better in terms of turn times for Civilization. This got me thinking! I know benchmarking these games can be tricky due to their random events and the need for player input, but some people have recommended using synthetic benchmarks as a reliable measure of gaming performance in these genres. However, I'm curious if that still applies with the new 3D chips. Do games like RTS, simulations, and MMOs benefit more from larger cache sizes, or do core clock speeds play a bigger role in games with significant AI processing like Civilization? Any thoughts? Thanks in advance!
3 Answers
It's not just about whether x3D chips are always better; it’s more about whether the extra cache benefits outweigh the slower clock speeds. From what I found, x3D chips tend to perform better for desktop setups, but in laptops, the difference isn’t that significant.
For games like HOI4 and probably EU4, it seems that raw single-core clock speed is more important than cache size. My Intel 11700K feels noticeably faster in late-game compared to my wife’s 5700X3D.
I’ve noticed a stark difference in performance on higher-pop simulations like Cities: Skylines. My newer setup is almost twice as fast compared to the 7800X3D in terms of end-turn times in Total War: Warhammer too. Looks like for those games, focusing on core speed benchmarks might be the way to go.
Related Questions
Lenovo Thinkpad Stuck In Update Loop Install FilterDriverU2_Reload