Total FPS added
When performing the benchmarks, I had already noticed that it is a give and take and, depending on the game/engine, the Radeon and sometimes the Geforce could prevail.
Seen over all 17 games, both cards are unexpectedly close together and are virtually the same speed. The Geforce has a clear lead in older titles and engines with fierce Gameworks integration, while the Radeon can shine in newer games with the more modern APIs (DX12, Volcano). In principle, you don't do anything wrong with both cards and I would probably make the decision based on the results in the respective games. Personally, I rate the Radeon a little more future-proof and stronger, especially in terms of features.
Zocken instead of Benchen
Even more meaningful than short measurements are of course real gaming sessions. For the ultimate "fitness test" I sat down after the bench session and got an impression of the real world performance. I picked out three games and had the following experiences…
Red Dead Redemption 2 (Editing: 68.7 FPS)
No significant FPS drops and even in St. Denis despite partly 90% CPU utilization mostly over 60 FPS. Of course, the game doesn't look quite as bombastic in middle settings, but it's far from causing eye cancer. A flawless gaming experience, you can definitely enjoy this blockbuster on the budget system.
Monster Hunter World (Section: 63.7 FPS)
"Just" in the old forest to succumb to a Great Jagras. As a layman, this can take a few minutes. Without a fight and in less demanding locations, the FPS are a bit higher, but even in my challenging scenario it was acceptable. With slightly reduced details (played on the high preset) stable 60 FPS could probably be achieved in combat.
Destiny 2 (Section: 93.4 FPS)
Destiny 2 is also a game that doesn't work well. Personally, the game just doesn't agree with me, but it's popular and shouldn't be missing from my test. On the "farm" (meeting point where players gather) the FPS already fall neatly into the basement, but in the "missions" and the "dungeons" the budget PC has absolutely no problem with generating fluid frame rates at high details.
Conclusion
I'm really excited about the small budget system! None of my games could present the PC with an insoluble task and even sophisticated blockbusters are quite edible with smaller compromises. And by that I don't mean jerky 30 frames with hair-raising graphics, but actually stable 60+ frames with quite handsome details in Full HD. In terms of price-performance ratio, besides the perfomance, the processing also leaves little cause for criticism. The low-cost Raijintek housing makes a solid visual impression and with adapted fan curves, the PC is generally pleasantly cool and quiet.
Under load, of course, both tested graphics cards became audible, but somewhere you just have to make cuts. Overall, as a beginner, casual gamer and e-sportsman you can definitely be happy with the system and thanks to the ingenious upgrade path (see outlook) there is nothing to stop extensive upgrades.
Thanks to the flexible and future-proof platform, all Ryzen CPUs can be installed from the small Ryzen 3 1200 (4 cores without SMT) from the first generation to the latest flagship in the form of the Ryzen 9 3950X (16 cores and 32 threads). It is expected that even the Ryzen 4000 processors, which will be released at the end of 2020, will still be compatible with the motherboard. The powerful 500W power supply also leaves many options open for a stronger graphics card. I already have concrete components in mind that, if upgraded, would provide a decent boost in performance at a low price in the foreseeable future.
The budget system presented (but with the GTX 970 – the Radeon was only on loan) may play a role in future articles from me from time to time. For example, for game tests or for other "games"… For example, a second GTX 970 happened to fall into my fingers.
Kommentieren