Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

473 "They call it a Royale with cheese"


About Smurf

  • Rank


  • Biography
    Former printer and graphic designer with over 20 years' experience in the field.

About Me

  • About Me
    Full Time Graphic Designer


  • Interests
    Graphic Design/Computers/Football Manager

Favourite Team

  • Favourite Team

Currently Managing

  • Currently Managing
    Anyone that will have me.

Recent Profile Visitors

9,877 profile views
  1. That's very decent. I take it you're buying in the US? If so, I don't know where to buy in the US or if you're getting a good deal. Specs look good though. The 2nd one is better.
  2. Each model number tells the story. Of course a 3rd gen i7 would be smashed by an i3 of this year, - there's no denying that - except there are cases where a 3rd gen i7 would be better than newer i3 processor in many regards. You can't rely on i3, i5, or i7 as a binding guide - it comes to the breakdown of the number after this. Your 3rd gen i7 would be i7-3xxx? and a newer i3 would i3-10xxx Where the bold numbers indicate the generation date - which are 3rd and 10th. So a processor from 7 years ago would not be as good as a new processor - there's that possibilty. But you'd need the model numbers to compare.
  3. Absolutely rubbish! What are you talking about! It's not just branding. They are guides to general performance. Certain i3 and i7 processors support hyperthreading - i5 processors do not support hyperthreading. Rumour is that hyperthreading may be dropped for all processors except i9 processors. i3 processors do not support turbo boost, but the i5 and i7 have turbo boost. The other relevance of i3 vs i5 vs i7 is the Cache sizes: i3 have usually 3mb cache i5 between 3 and 6mb cache i7 between 4 and 8mb cache And a general guide to performance is i3 = fairly basic computer performace (although they are very capable i3 processors for FM) i5 = intermediate peformace (although some i3's can outperform an i5 or even an i7 processor depending on models) i7 = performance users (good for FM as it's a processor heavy task). However, the caveat here is that processors are model specific designed for specific types of users, like portability, longer battery lasting, performance, higher cache levels, etc. It's certainly not just branding - they are dividing their range into different branches of users.
  4. Might have answered your own question then.. There's a few things you could try
  5. We'd need the links to these. And also your budget - if your budget is below £550 then it's going to be a crapshoot. You're better off not buying anything, hold onto the money - and save up more to get you over the £550 price - and then you can get a semi-decent laptop for FM.
  6. Demo only gives 1 league for 6 months, hardly a comparitive to someone who does maybe 5 leagues/30 divisions and plays 10 year career saves etc. Only thing I think you'd get from that is that it installs and runs. After then it's a crapshoot
  7. Yeh you won't get that - and the in-star game ratings for performance is not accurate, it's a general guide. See the link in the post above, that lists all the processors in order of best to worst. But other factors - come into play - RAM Is important 8gb is plenty, but there are some small gains for going 16gb - but 32gb is an absolute waste. Graphics card - the game isn't graphically inclined, so you should be ok with something basic like a GTX 1050. But typically, off the shelf builds won't pair a high end processor with a mid range graphics card due to bottlenecking. If you're buying a high end processor as your machine - then it will come with higher end motherboards, graphics cards, etc. ----typically.
  8. I know this doesn't answer the RAM query - but the processor is the most important thing for FM. This is from Nov 2017. Got an answer on this from Neil Brock
  9. Exactly what I was going to say. I was never a fan of Norton.
  10. I don't know if it's a lot better. Certainly haven't been on the market long enough to be tested, and FM is different to other games, so processing is a big deal. I'm not sure how well for example the Ryzen handles single core processes, vs multi-core, as FM relies heavily on single core processing for some elements of the gaming experience. And I don't know how well the Ryzen would hold up under pressure from processing. Intel though, I would be confident of it's performance, and handling single thread processing vs multi-thread etc. It's one of those - we won't know until it's tried. And then everyone has a different setup for FM. One would swear one is better over the other - but one would run 5 leagues and a small database for 10 seasons, and the other runs 50 leagues with large database for 100 seasons. All I can I can do is go on *empirical data - and that is that the Ryzen on this occassion has better specs in key areas for FM. But like I said, I don't know how that holds up under different playing scenarios. It's an educated guess.
  • Create New...