» Login to reply to this

crazipper (2)   Apr 26, 2008 - 07:40 pm

The purpose of 640x480 is to better isolate processor performance. Naturally, most gamers play at higher resolutions, so we include 12x10 and 16x12 as well. By the time you get to 16x12, most games demonstrate a graphics bottleneck. Anything higher than that and you can count on being GPU-limited. » Login to reply to this  cordas (14)   Apr 29, 2008 - 06:43 am Yeah I get that, but still how about giving us a wide screen res as well at the top end.... Also using a better GPU is gonna make a huge difference... the 8800GT is a good card no doubting that but its a good step down from the best, when testing CPUs you should use the fastest GPU setup you can get to give the CPU the room to shine. Doing a test at 640x480 just doesn't cut the mustard. » Login to reply to this  doomtrooper (741)    Apr 30, 2008 - 07:19 am Running high resolution tests will only demonstrate the power of the video card. Low resolution tests demonstrate the power of the processor. Since the review is about a processor, you only need a basic video card to run the various apps and provide compatibility. Higher res tests have shown many times that the CPU will not cause a bottleneck. There will be slight changes in performance due to different clocks, architecture and number of cores of each proc, but overall the video card is the limiting factor. The lowest resolution is used in order to remove the bottleneck and determine the best processor. » Login to reply to this

» Login to reply to this

Yoshi (2227)    Apr 23, 2008 - 08:49 pm

Not really since these will be put mostly in bugget computers. If they can offer a good CPU for surfing the internet, checking email and running Word 92% of computer users will be happy. Guess what? This is a chip that makes those users happy. Clearly it blows the multi threaded socks off any CPU Intel would have for these prices. Come on I am waiting for you to prove me wrong that this is a bad computer for the avarage home user who cares about running email and surfing the net more than running Crysis. » Login to reply to this  deimos47 (434)   Apr 23, 2008 - 08:57 pm Surfing/email/Word we had something for things like that on campus - they are called "P3 eMachine PC". I swear, one time, I was typing so fast, CPU utilization almost hit 30%! On Pentium3, only common Office problem is crazy intense scrolling/resizing and massive spreadsheets. » Login to reply to this  mr.wielder (1394)    Apr 24, 2008 - 09:43 am If that computer had been running Vista, I bet you woulda wished for a better proc =] Ok shady logic but you see my point! » Login to reply to this

» Login to reply to this

» Login to reply to this

» Login to reply to this

Yoshi (2227)    Apr 23, 2008 - 02:46 pm

As multi threaded apps become common the speed diffrence will become less and less. Also most of the benchmarks are not showing a major diffrence. For example a quad core would be faster in a game like Crysis than a dual core because of the way the game was writen. Though the diffrence between an Intel and an AMD chip in Crysis is only like 2fps. Also the top of the line Intel chip will probably be outdated at the same time frame as a AMD 3X. So do you want to pay $179 or do you want to pay $1000? » Login to reply to this  deimos47 (434)   Apr 23, 2008 - 08:51 pm » Crysis does not benefit from quads please check page6 of review again: 3.0Ghz E8400 - 95fps 2.4Ghz Q6600 - 77fps Quad wins by **almost** 1fps at GPU limited rez - do you really want to pay hundreds $$$ extra for that?? » Login to reply to this

» Note: You need to be logged in to write a comment!