(10-10-2012, 02:14 PM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]They're both too slow for most games. Therefore they both belong in the slow category.
I guess it depends on what each person feels is "slow". I mean, I feel 40fps is decently playable honestly, but perhaps that's still considered "slow" in this chart?
Which games? Most games do not run very well on an athlon 64 x2 (are you still using that rig?).
Yes, I'm still using that rig. I said that I managed to hit 40fps in F-Zero GX with my rig, though that was a MAX. I would be happy to do more specific in-depth testing for you if you'd like.
Also, I just realized - the Athlon II CPUs commonly ran around 3GHz. Wouldn't that at least put them on part with a low to mid-range Core 2 Duo?
Quote:Wouldn't that at least put them on part with a low to mid-range Core 2 Duo?
Yes. But the average is still lower.
Quote:Yes, I'm still using that rig. I said that I managed to hit 40fps in F-Zero GX of all games with my rig, though that was a MAX. I would be happy to do some testing for you if you want.
What other GC/Wii games do you have?
(10-10-2012, 02:26 PM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]Yes. But the average is still lower.
Is it because of the smaller L2 cache? I ask this because the A6 series is clocked slower than the A4 and yet you list the A6 two tiers above the A4 (A4 = 512KB L2; A6 = 1MB L2)
(10-10-2012, 02:26 PM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]What other GC/Wii games do you have?
Quite a decent amount actually, and I've ripped them all via CleanRip already. It'll take me a few minutes to assemble a list...
Quote:Is it because of the smaller L2 cache? I ask this because the A6 series is clocked slower than the A4 and yet you list the A6 two tiers above the A4 (A4 = 512KB L2; A6 = 1MB L2)
Yeah. 512KB per core is painfully small in this day and age. And that's all each core gets because there is no shared L3.
I did not realize however that the A4s were clocked higher.
(10-10-2012, 02:37 PM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah. 512KB per core is painfully small in this day and age. And that's all each core gets because there is no shared L3.
Ok, then what about the Athlon II x2? Not including the lower-clocked 25w TDP models, only 3 models have 512KB L2 - all the rest have 1MB L2.
There was nothing I could do about that other than put them in two different tiers, which would add confusion. I just picked the category that most models belong in.
Uh... so putting "Athlon II x3/x4" and "Athlon II x2" in two different tiers would cause confusion? You have "high-end" and "mid-range" Core 2 Duos in 2 separate tiers...
Some athlon II x2 have 512KB L2s and some have 1 MB L2s like you just said. So I would need athlon II X2 1MB L2 (512KB x 2), athlon II X2 2MB L2 (1MB x 2), and athlon II X3/X4 as three separate entities if I was ranking them by performance. But I'm not ranking them by specific performance, I'm ranking them by user experience. Even if they have different performance they may be close enough to each other where they end up in the same tier.
I suppose I could differentiate them by cache, but then I would have to do that with every other cpu and that would turn the whole thing into one big mess.