Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

If you read that article carefuly, you will notice that barring a few exceptions (such as Half Life 2), the only resolutions where CPU scaling is evident is 1024x768 and lower. Once you go up to 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 there is virutally no CPU scaling at all. Even for Half Life 2, it's only the 3000+ that holds it back slightly at 1280, anything above 3500+ is great. At 1600, even the 3000+ does well.

 

Look carefully at the graphs. A lot of them seem to be at 800x600 resolutions! Way to go, firingsquad! However, there are a lot of meaningful graphs as well. Look at Doom 3's results. That game stresses the GPU's shaders and memory bandwidth like no other, and I believe is very representative of near-future games.

 

FX-55 becoming a bottleneck? Sure, if you're playing Quake 3 at 300 frames per second. Give me any modern game running at an Image Quality level that results in 60 frames per second on a 7800GTX SLI-or-not, and show me that an FX-55 is a bottleneck. I'll eat my GTX.

 

Let me give you my definition of a CPU bottleneck: When the highest IQ setting that can give you a smooth 60 fps (substitute with your favorite fps) is constrained by your CPU, you have a CPU bottleneck. If your favorite fps is close to 300, you'll likely run into CPU bottlenecks all the time.

Posted

Although it looks a fast ship (You've never heard of the Millennium Falcon?), there is no benefit for multitasking in games, yet.

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Posted

I believe my CPU is a 60 Watter!

 

And it doesn't even give off light energy like my lightbulb does, so it must be even warmer :shifty:

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...