IN underline - lesser again - but would be perfectly fine for FM.įootball Manager is a CPU-intensive simulation game that relies heavily on processor performance, especially for in-game simulations and processing large amounts of data. In italic - lesser by a smidgen - but similar performance, I don't think you'd know the difference in FM Good performance for everyday tasks and light workloads Good performance for everyday tasks and light to moderate workloads High performance, especially for multi-threaded tasks High performance, especially for tasks that can take advantage of multiple cores/threads, such as video editing, 3D rendering, and scientific simulations I've put together this for a general guide for everyone You can edit it to show processors for desktops and also those that are considered 'archived' via the restriction options. In regards to best processors, as a general guide we tend to suggest using the following comparison site as a good gauge of the performance capabilities - īasic rule of thumb is the higher it is on the list, the better it is. Similar sort of thing with shortlisting the more / leagues players you have loaded the more benefits you can potentially see with more cores, however this is probably more than offset by the general slowdown from having more stuff loading as there's still a large portion of the game which is single threaded. If you use detail level to set more stuff to full match you'll start seeing betters gains for more cores, but of course will still be slower than by just not having the league loaded, or having it at a low detail level. I've been blown away with how fast it is and the lack of fan hasn't hindered performance one bit.įor how the game uses threads - it will create as many threads for playing matches and shortlisting as you have cores (including hyperthreads).īut the performance you see varies on the setup for example with matches - Quick Matches for instance (so for loaded but non-managed in leagues) it's are so fast anyway it gets to the point where it doesn't make that much more difference having more cores. Ended up plumping for the M1 Air with 16GB RAM and 1TB SSD. I think it's very expensive when getting a bit more RAM or more storage space. You should be aiming for at least 6 years and maximum 10 years usage. This is the best way to futureproof your device for longevity.Īs it's a lot of money to spend on a product. It all depends on budget - if you can afford it - get the best that you can possibly afford in this order Is that right can anyone else confirm this?ĥ12gb Storage + 16gb RAM up to €3,799.00 for basic model of the best processorĥ12gb Storage + 16gb RAM for the basic model. *edit* wait what? This is cheaper than the M2 MacBook Air? The 13 inch MacBook Pro only comes with M2 chipĥ12gb Storage + 16gb RAM you're looking at €2,089.00 If you want a larger screen you'll have to stump up for the Mac Book Pro.įor me - the 16 inch screen is probably the best for FM.īut as you can imagine - the price goes up by screen size - massively goes up. You can actually save yourself €420 by going M1 chip instead (for the Macbook Air)īut of course if you can afford the M2 by all means go for it. You can see this on the Benchmark Spreadsheet run by Ben The only difference being M2 chip - and the gains are not enough for any noticeable difference for FM. Macbook Air M2 with 512 gb Storage + 16gb RAM = €2,109.00 Macbook Air M1 with 512gb Storage + 16gb RAM = €1,689.00 The screens are tiny - only 13.6 inches or something. So the best option is to go for the M1 and get a minimum of 16gb of RAM. The M2 processor is not a significant upgrade in processor power. Yes - once you buy a Mac you're stuck with what you buy - there's no way to upgrade components, SSD, RAM - like you can in some (most) PC Laptops. Go for more RAM and go to the M1 processor.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |