:::::A bit off topic:::::
I think I'll RMA my GTX 460 and get something that's with AT LEAST 1GB and perform better than my current GTX 460 768MB... I still can't run a stable 60 fps+ that stupid game called Zone of the Enders: 2nd Runner on the PCSX2. Even at 1024x768 resolution, ZOE2 required 4GB of RAM (especially at the beginning of the game, tons of particles and stuff flying around everywhere), and something better than a GTX 460, or is it my outdated Core 2 E6300 that is the issue?
(01-11-2011, 09:04 AM)tuanming Wrote: [ -> ]:::::A bit off topic:::::
I think I'll RMA my GTX 460 and get something that's with AT LEAST 1GB and perform better than my current GTX 460 768MB... I still can't run a stable 60 fps+ that stupid game called Zone of the Enders: 2nd Runner on the PCSX2. Even at 1024x768 resolution, ZOE2 required 4GB of RAM (especially at the beginning of the game, tons of particles and stuff flying around everywhere), and something better than a GTX 460, or is it my outdated Core 2 E6300 that is the issue?
GTX 460 is a good card, it runs any new game at 1080p and full settings except metro 2033. Though emulators need so much different resources it could be alot of things.
We should say which win7/vista/xp we are using, and how much ram, that could be a determining factor with the emulators. I don't know how or what processes they are using. But with any game you don't need more than 4gb of ram, though an emulator could be different.
Dolphin doesn't use very much memory. 200-600MB depending on the game. 2GB is enough even with vista/7. And in this particular circumstance cpu bottlenecks are clearly not very much of a concern.
(01-11-2011, 11:23 AM)caliblue15 Wrote: [ -> ]GTX 460 is a good card, it runs any new game at 1080p and full settings except metro 2033. Though emulators need so much different resources it could be alot of things.
We should say which win7/vista/xp we are using, and how much ram, that could be a determining factor with the emulators. I don't know how or what processes they are using. But with any game you don't need more than 4gb of ram, though an emulator could be different.
There's a big difference these days between dual and quadcore CPUs in games. My guess is that if i switch to 4 core, then I will see a huge difference.
GTA 4 PC edition is tough to get 60 fps @1080p res and 768mb is simply not enough for max setting (viewing distant and other enhancements).
Quote:There's a big difference these days between dual and quadcore CPUs in games. My guess is that if i switch to 4 core, then I will see a huge difference.
I would have to disagree on this. Being a fairly hardcore/enthusiast gamer myself I have poured over many cpu game benchmark projects done by various review sites like anandtech, guru3d, tomshardware, etc. over the last few years, including a few published last year. And out of all of these even in the year 2010 their are hardly any games where a quad is necessary to achieve framerates >60 fps or reduce stuttering (3 or 4 TOTAL). In 99% of modern pc games even a high clocked core 2 duo is overkill. GTA4 and BFBC2 are two examples of the few games where their is actually any benefit to having a quad core cpu.
I'm comparing the Core 2 series to the Core i7 series, which has many useful enhancements over the Core 2 quad or Core 2 Duo series. Heck, you can basically gain 10-15+ fps just by using one of those modern quad core CPU like a Core i7. Of course, a dual core CPU can get 60 fps with ease, but that's not the point here.
Actually if you compare core 2 quad vs. core i7 for gaming their is even less of a difference/need. Their is only one pc game on the market excluding rts games at the moment that I know of that would have any benefit from a core i7 over a high end core 2 quad, mafia II. Heavier rts games like starcraft II will benefit when their are many many units moving around.
Quote:Of course, a dual core CPU can get 60 fps with ease, but that's not the point here.
?
Consider the following as an average scenario for one of the few games that actually does use more than 2 threads
Core 2 duo @ 3.0GHz: 150 fps
Core 2 quad@3.0GHz: 200 fps
Core i7 @ 3.0GHz: 210 fps
Would you honestly recommend that a person spend money to upgrade from a core 2 duo/quad given that their gpu will likely bottleneck them to framerates below 60 fps and their screen can't refresh faster than 60hz? Since they will essentially get the exact same actual framerate with all three it makes no sense to do this for gaming, it's just throwing money away.
In fact anyone who has been looking at cpu reviews for the last 3-4 years knows that ever since core 2 the one type of benchmark you can expect all modern cpus to perform the same on are gaming benchmarks in any cpu review. Even the recent tomshardware sandy bridge review shows no difference in any game between sandy bridge vs. bloomfield vs. lyynfield vs. clarksdale vs. deneb vs. thuban vs. propus vs. agena vs. wolfdale vs. kentsfield vs. yorkfield vs. conroe
If I were to do a upgrade, I would not pick a Core 2 quad for a quad core system. Most likely, I'd go with Sandy Bridge build. Your fixed example isn't really what I would call a comparison, and I don't even know whether or not you made it up or it came from somewhere. Also, most people with a Core i7 don't usually have a GPU that can't do 60+ fps in PC games.
A Core 2 Quad is basically 2 Core 2 CPUs stack on top of each other or side-by-side, this is why you won't see much difference between dual and quad because architecturally, they're the same . But with a more modern day CPU architecture (Core i7 or Sandy Bridge), this change the "game/story".
Some sources from a quick google search:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2832/16
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=225178
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-versus-i7,2360-10.html
http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i5-750-core-i7-860-870-processor-review-test/18
A phenom II can be used as a substitute for a core 2 quad since they have nearly the exact same performance. Unfortunately it's hard to find good core 2 duo vs. core 2 quad benchmarks that aren't several years out of date. But if you start looking through various review sites and hardware forums you'll see that I'm not making this up. RTS games are practically the only games that have any benefit from a quad core. And the few non rts games that benefit from a quad core can all be run at framerates >60 fps on a core 2 quad or phenom II. Their is simply no reason to upgrade from a high end core 2 duo or low end core 2 quad to an i3/i5/i7 setup just for games (other than a few). It got so bad that anandtech started hand picking games for their benchmarks that actually showed a difference between the different cpus (mostly rts).
Quote:A Core 2 Quad is basically 2 Core 2 CPUs stack on top of each other or side-by-side, this is why you won't see much difference between dual and quad. But with a more modern day CPU architecture (Core i7 or Sandy Bridge), this changes "game".
If you start looking up benchmarks on google, exact opposite. Big difference in some modern games between core 2 duo and core 2 quad, almost impossible to find a game with a significant benefit between core 2 quad and core i7.
For someone with a medium end core 2 duo or lower that plays a lot of cpu heavy games like rts it might be worth it. But for anyone like me that already has a core 2 quad/phenom II, it would be a pointless upgrade if done just for gaming.
Anyways I'm going to end with this post since I'm beginning to derail the thread with this.