Toms Hardware "How Many Cpu Cores Do You Need?"

Prodigy146

Fully Optimized
Messages
1,751
Excerpt from end of review:


As far as games go, we see a huge 60% performance jump from going single-core to dual-core, and a further 25% leap from dual- to triple-core. Quad cores offer no benefits in the sampling of games we tested. While more games might change the landscape a little, we think the triple-core Phenom II X3s are looking good as a low-cost gaming option.

i thought that was kind of interesting.. i wonder if amd knew that all along


Source: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/multi-core-cpu,2280.html
 
^^:D sweet:D ^^

They might not have known but due to their CPU architecture the're built differentlt to Intel chips and haven't they always been pretty good CPU's for gaming rigs?
 
Yup, I've never had any problems gaming with AMD processors. Hell, that's all I have ever used in the 19 or so years that I've been building computers. They perform well and are cheaper on average than their Intel counterparts.
 
CPU's aren't necessarily built for games though. Many programs will utilise 4 cores or more
 
CPU's aren't necessarily built for games though. Many programs will utilise 4 cores or more


But you see your looking at this wrong. The benifits from quad cores in other applications could be seen as superflous when compared to a three core i.e: waiting 30 seconds to a minute for a dvd to be done encoding, cs4 to load up, etc. But when it come to fps (something that decides how you experience a game) going to three core to quad core is basically no difference. What im trying to say is that this review kinda shows that spending $140 for a II 720 X3 is basically just as good as a II 955 X4 $255 if you dont mind waiting an extra minute for your video to be done encoding

But idk its just my opinon..
 
Still, I'd much prefer to be future proofed quite a bit. I get what you mean though.
 
But you see your looking at this wrong. The benifits from quad cores in other applications could be seen as superflous when compared to a three core i.e: waiting 30 seconds to a minute for a dvd to be done encoding, cs4 to load up, etc. But when it come to fps (something that decides how you experience a game) going to three core to quad core is basically no difference. What im trying to say is that this review kinda shows that spending $140 for a II 720 X3 is basically just as good as a II 955 X4 $255 if you dont mind waiting an extra minute for your video to be done encoding

But idk its just my opinon..

That minute adds up quickly IMO so thats why I skipped the 720 and went right to the 955 BE...:D:D:D

Not really why I bought it but oh well. I just want to OC it to 4.3 Ghz and see how my FPS's are....:D:D
 
i thought that was kind of interesting.. i wonder if amd knew that all along


most games dont support more then 3 cores because there designed for xbox then ported to pc and upgraded..... (xbox = 3core)
amds 3 core im pretty sure are just defective 4 cores with one core shut off
wait till games start to take advantage of the mulit cores
then ull see the pc side of gaming take off dramatically graphics wise compared to xbox/ps3
 
You can tell when a game is ported. Hardly any real PC games are ported. Not even Mass Effect which was originally intended to be Xbox exclusive was ported to PC.
 
Back
Top Bottom