I was indeed assuming that most games do not use 4 cores, and it was probably better (for games only), to have 2 fastest cores that 4 (a little bit) slower.
Of course the better is to have 4 fastests cores but well, money does not flow from the sky
new pc ordered
Well in fact I do not plan to play and render at the same time, even with a killing machine from outta space
I was indeed assuming that most games do not use 4 cores, and it was probably better (for games only), to have 2 fastest cores that 4 (a little bit) slower.
Of course the better is to have 4 fastests cores but well, money does not flow from the sky
I was indeed assuming that most games do not use 4 cores, and it was probably better (for games only), to have 2 fastest cores that 4 (a little bit) slower.
Of course the better is to have 4 fastests cores but well, money does not flow from the sky
-
deltaepsylon
- Posts: 417
- Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 11:50 pm
Stur: You have found the reason I have yet to upgrade my pc. They have been stuck at 2 to 3 ghz for years now and I refuse to pay for anything less than 4ghz on one core. For all the programs that could care less about dual core or dual gpu I would rather only ever have one gpu and one cpu. But I guess it was easier to add more cores for more performance instead of actually making a new creation that was much faster.
Didn't they say Moore's Law would be running out soon? After all, performance can't keep doubling forever....can it? This multi core stuff sounds like a shortcut to me, avoiding the problem of having reached the brick wall of performance.
Add to that sloppy developed games, for example, that run worse than last generations while not looking or playing any better. Maybe our performance answer is actually in optimizations and more efficient coding rather than raw power.
Did anything ever happen with hidden surface removal?
Didn't they say Moore's Law would be running out soon? After all, performance can't keep doubling forever....can it? This multi core stuff sounds like a shortcut to me, avoiding the problem of having reached the brick wall of performance.
Add to that sloppy developed games, for example, that run worse than last generations while not looking or playing any better. Maybe our performance answer is actually in optimizations and more efficient coding rather than raw power.
Did anything ever happen with hidden surface removal?
Content contained in my posts is for informational purposes only and is used at your own risk.
Remember that the PS3 has 7 or 8 cores (I think the Cell has 8 + 1 to control those, but to improve yield one is deactivated since there are only very few where all 8 cores are working), so game devs are already learning how to use 8 CPUs. I think so at least 
@Wedge: A modern 3 GHz Core 2 Duo CPU should be way faster than a 3 GHz P4, even when one of the cores is deactivated. AMDs used to be way more efficient than the P4, and the Core 2 Duo should be more effective than the AMDs.
@Wedge: A modern 3 GHz Core 2 Duo CPU should be way faster than a 3 GHz P4, even when one of the cores is deactivated. AMDs used to be way more efficient than the P4, and the Core 2 Duo should be more effective than the AMDs.
i've got a vista oriented PC and i had to delete vista because the lack of OpenGL support (at least is bugged on ATI x1650)
Blender was slow as a 386 (even with the trick of not using GL .dll)
MapZone texturing doesn't run on it
Indigo crashed a lot
Probably it was my sucking card, but now im running XP (and Gentoo for 64bit as linux OS) and everything is better, i think i have to wait until the ms pack at the end of 07' !
Blender was slow as a 386 (even with the trick of not using GL .dll)
MapZone texturing doesn't run on it
Indigo crashed a lot
Probably it was my sucking card, but now im running XP (and Gentoo for 64bit as linux OS) and everything is better, i think i have to wait until the ms pack at the end of 07' !
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 97 guests