deadseasquirrel
Golden Member
- Nov 20, 2001
- 1,736
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: MadBoris
I guess it's time to revisit AMD vs. Core2duo performance now so people can stop saying core2 duo doesn't do much in games cause it's GPU bound .
When looking at games being GPU-bound, it's not a matter of AMD vs. C2D-- it's a matter of resolution and settings. At higher resolutions (1600x1200 and above), CPU power has very little impact on gaming performance (see here).
At 1600x1200, we see a 3.47ghz C2D perform almost identical to a 1.86ghz C2D (considered similar in performance to many of the AMD chips), with the exception of Far Cry on the GTX, which shows a 20% increase from top to bottom at 16x12.
Until some other benches do more thorough testing, gamers shouldn't be worried about their current mid-range CPUs being able to push these new cards, if they play at 1600x1200 and above. At those settings, a $50 single-core A64 will likely give similar framerates as a $1000 X6800. Gamers on 1280x1024 LCDs look to still need a more balanced system with CPU-power (including dual-core for those titles coded for it) playing a bit of a larger role.