cbn
Lifer
- Mar 27, 2009
- 12,968
- 221
- 106
well those are all fast cpus so what did you expect? the lone dual core cpu in there is giving up nearly 50% compared to the quad core cpus.
"You see where all of our quadcore CPUs record nearly identical frame rates while the 3.16GHz Core 2 dual core CPU falls behind. It is obvious that even at this high resolution there are CPU multithreading benefits to this game. Our quadcore CPUs are GPU-limited. They have hit the wall in what they can accomplish as the GeForce GTX 280 is standing in their way."
Well a 161% advantage shrinks to only 41% when we compare the two CPUs at what I believe is close to mainstream resolution.
At the moment I use two monitors for multi-tasking (but game on only one of them). Eventually I would like to use triple monitors for multi-tasking as well as gaming. This is why I don't really concern myself with CPUs as much as GPUs. I don't do any video encoding either.
EDIT: At higher resolutions like 5760 x1080 limited VRAM/memory bandwidth is probably a more important consideration than how well a quad core scales over a dual core right? *****Someone correct me if I am wrong about this*****
Last edited: