Numbers don't lie my friend.
Quote:A cheaper dual-core CPU that barely has any reviews, can perform as good as identically with A quad-core CPU that is on full load, more expensive, is backed up by 100's of reviews and has 4.5 or 5 stars for performance anywhere.
Popularity and age have nothing to do with performance. I would also disagree with "barely any reviews", just do a google search. Pretty much every major site that has reviewed the K10/K11 architectures has reviewed the sandy bridge pentium models by now.
Quote: I think you people are in A dual-core dreamworld or something, because you are the only people saying this.
Lots of people say this, you're just refusing to listen. Also even if we were the only ones telling you this popularity of opinion does not make something true.
Quote:GL playing Crysis 2 on A dual-core CPU, or GTA4 or BFBC2 which are all very popular games.
Lots of people do this. Dual core sandy bridge cpus can easily handle all three of those with framerates over 80 fps. The only game I can think of off the top of my head that's out right now that would have problems with that cpu is BF3.
Quote: Roughly half of the games coming out benefit from quad-core CPUs: 1. smoother gameplay 2. faster gameplay.
Yes but HOW MUCH? If you have to choose between two faster cores or 4 slower cores the microprocessor with 4 slower cores will only run faster if the software being run makes extensive use of all 4 cores, and MOST games don't, even new games.
I should also point out that if one cpu is capable of running a game at 90 fps average (with a minimum framerate of 60fps) and the other is capable of 120 fps average both cpus are good enough since the gpu or api will likely bottleneck the game when you turn up the settings.
I'm telling you, if you want to get into emulation you need a cpu with good per-thread performance, not a cpu with a lot of cores. Intels low end cpus will provide better performance to you for the same price for the types of applications that you are planning to run. If you were planning on running heavily multithreaded applications such as video encoders or 3D rendering software then I would recommend the phenom II X4 as these types of applications will make extensive use of that architectures advantages.
Quote:And 4.0GHz is very do-able, my friend has the phenom II X4 965 since it came out and keeps it @ that exact number: 4.0, on A STOCK heatsink.
Yes, 4.0GHz is do-able, which I said. 4.5GHz on the other hand is not good for long term use.
Quote:Like I said, keep checking your hardware and nothing will happen.
Not true. It's impossible to measure transitor decay from voltage without an electron microscope. Entire doctorate thesis papers have been written on this subject. Current system stability and temperatures are not the only two observable variables that make an overclock safe.
Quote:The only game I can think of off the top of my head that's out right now that would have problems with that cpu is BF3
It won't struggle until you take it high enough that you need a GTX580 to keep it there. In fact from my investigations an ancient Pentium D @3.2GHz is adequate if you are going with lowish settings (not that that old thing would be any good for emulation).
I honestly would not bother with a AMD processor,especially if your main use will be emulation
(03-31-2012, 06:05 PM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]Numbers don't lie my friend.
Quote:A cheaper dual-core CPU that barely has any reviews, can perform as good as identically with A quad-core CPU that is on full load, more expensive, is backed up by 100's of reviews and has 4.5 or 5 stars for performance anywhere.
Popularity and age have nothing to do with performance. I would also disagree with "barely any reviews", just do a google search. Pretty much every major site that has reviewed the K10/K11 architectures has reviewed the sandy bridge pentium models by now.
Quote: I think you people are in A dual-core dreamworld or something, because you are the only people saying this.
Lots of people say this, you're just refusing to listen. Also even if we were the only ones telling you this popularity of opinion does not make something true.
Quote:GL playing Crysis 2 on A dual-core CPU, or GTA4 or BFBC2 which are all very popular games.
Lots of people do this. Dual core sandy bridge cpus can easily handle all three of those with framerates over 80 fps. The only game I can think of off the top of my head that's out right now that would have problems with that cpu is BF3.
Quote: Roughly half of the games coming out benefit from quad-core CPUs: 1. smoother gameplay 2. faster gameplay.
Yes but HOW MUCH? If you have to choose between two faster cores or 4 slower cores the microprocessor with 4 slower cores will only run faster if the software being run makes extensive use of all 4 cores, and MOST games don't, even new games.
I should also point out that if one cpu is capable of running a game at 90 fps average (with a minimum framerate of 60fps) and the other is capable of 120 fps average both cpus are good enough since the gpu or api will likely bottleneck the game when you turn up the settings.
I'm telling you, if you want to get into emulation you need a cpu with good per-thread performance, not a cpu with a lot of cores. Intels low end cpus will provide better performance to you for the same price for the types of applications that you are planning to run. If you were planning on running heavily multithreaded applications such as video encoders or 3D rendering software then I would recommend the phenom II X4 as these types of applications will make extensive use of that architectures advantages.
Quote:And 4.0GHz is very do-able, my friend has the phenom II X4 965 since it came out and keeps it @ that exact number: 4.0, on A STOCK heatsink.
Yes, 4.0GHz is do-able, which I said. 4.5GHz on the other hand is not good for long term use.
Quote:Like I said, keep checking your hardware and nothing will happen.
Not true. It's impossible to measure transitor decay from voltage without an electron microscope. Entire doctorate thesis papers have been written on this subject. Current system stability and temperatures are not the only two observable variables that make an overclock safe.
In the end I would rather want A strong quad-core, for A low price. Games will eventually make use of more cores, and then your dual-core becomes no good. In the forum I usually post at there are tons of people complaining about their dual-cores not being able to run games that run multiple cores, I'm not going to be one of them.
BTW the PC is going to be made for work aswell, Dolphin is just A bonus.
Which you won't really get.
We're only giving suggestions, the choice is all up to you
(03-31-2012, 06:05 PM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]Numbers don't lie my friend.
Quote:A cheaper dual-core CPU that barely has any reviews, can perform as good as identically with A quad-core CPU that is on full load, more expensive, is backed up by 100's of reviews and has 4.5 or 5 stars for performance anywhere.
Popularity and age have nothing to do with performance. I would also disagree with "barely any reviews", just do a google search. Pretty much every major site that has reviewed the K10/K11 architectures has reviewed the sandy bridge pentium models by now.
Quote: I think you people are in A dual-core dreamworld or something, because you are the only people saying this.
Lots of people say this, you're just refusing to listen. Also even if we were the only ones telling you this popularity of opinion does not make something true.
Quote:GL playing Crysis 2 on A dual-core CPU, or GTA4 or BFBC2 which are all very popular games.
Lots of people do this. Dual core sandy bridge cpus can easily handle all three of those with framerates over 80 fps. The only game I can think of off the top of my head that's out right now that would have problems with that cpu is BF3.
Quote: Roughly half of the games coming out benefit from quad-core CPUs: 1. smoother gameplay 2. faster gameplay.
Yes but HOW MUCH? If you have to choose between two faster cores or 4 slower cores the microprocessor with 4 slower cores will only run faster if the software being run makes extensive use of all 4 cores, and MOST games don't, even new games.
I should also point out that if one cpu is capable of running a game at 90 fps average (with a minimum framerate of 60fps) and the other is capable of 120 fps average both cpus are good enough since the gpu or api will likely bottleneck the game when you turn up the settings.
I'm telling you, if you want to get into emulation you need a cpu with good per-thread performance, not a cpu with a lot of cores. Intels low end cpus will provide better performance to you for the same price for the types of applications that you are planning to run. If you were planning on running heavily multithreaded applications such as video encoders or 3D rendering software then I would recommend the phenom II X4 as these types of applications will make extensive use of that architectures advantages.
Quote:And 4.0GHz is very do-able, my friend has the phenom II X4 965 since it came out and keeps it @ that exact number: 4.0, on A STOCK heatsink.
Yes, 4.0GHz is do-able, which I said. 4.5GHz on the other hand is not good for long term use.
Quote:Like I said, keep checking your hardware and nothing will happen.
Not true. It's impossible to measure transitor decay from voltage without an electron microscope. Entire doctorate thesis papers have been written on this subject. Current system stability and temperatures are not the only two observable variables that make an overclock safe.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2468/6
Here you will find anything you want to know about CPU overclocking, there's no other I can do next to good CPU cooling/good airflow/checking my stats to have the best chance of non-failure. In the end you can read this sentence, which is 100% true: ''In any case, the underlying principles are the same - overclocking is never without risk. And just like life, taking calculated risks can sometimes be the right choice.''
....I'm confused, how does that contradict what I said in any way shape or form?
YAY same question new fourm... SO i have a asus G73jh and im looking for a new lappy CPU to replace my awsome i7 quad core because it DOESNT hold up to the heat dolphin can toss at it. Even though it is a QUAD core clocked at 3.2 it CANT handle dolphin. So im looking for a dual core i can toss in here. i mean i can run most games fine but i want this to be a portable
gaming pc/Wii/PS2/Linux/XBMC
Advice?
And i know all the mumbojumbo about desktops i just want something portable and would rather spend the 350 on a new CPU to process EVERYTHING
than build a new PC for ~4-500 for the dolphin/ps2 emu alone
(04-03-2012, 05:52 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]....I'm confused, how does that contradict what I said in any way shape or form?
It doesn't, it simply shows you that OCing is an option. It was your mistake assuming I don't know the risks of OCing, without asking.
@ Asus G73JH-TZ034V comment, wow your laptop went from 1.6 GHZ to 3.2 GHZ, that is pretty amazing
. Feed your lies to people that don't know anything about computers please. BTW that laptop is the most overpriced piece of garbage in the entire planet, so have fun with your hotbox haha.
Edit: here's A post you've made yourself:
g73jh
So i have an asus G73jh
Processor Name Intel Core i7-740QM
Operating System Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium
Processor Speed 1.73 GHz
RAM 8 GB
Weight 8.2 lb
Screen Size 17.3 inches
Screen Size Type Widescreen
Graphics Card ATI Radeon HD 5870
Graphics Memory 512
Storage Capacity (as Tested) 640 GB
Rotation Speed 5400 rpm--------- Installing new SSD
Networking Options 802.11n
Primary Optical Drive Dual-Layer DVD+/-RW
Battery Type 75 Whr (Watt hours)
I like the processor speed