• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

***Official*** 9800GX2 thread (reviews and benches inside)

easyrider said:
Willhub seems to think that upping the res will make gains smaller.

This is not the case.

Hence why they use that low res in the testing.
Click to expand...

Willhub is right, the reason reviewers test CPU's at low resolutions is because this is where you see biggest difference, this is where your typically CPU limited with high end graphics cards, however when you increase the resolution and also enable settings like AA/AF the bottleneck mores over the GPU and the benefit from a faster CPU in this situation will be greatly reduced or even nullified.
 
ebilcake said:
Willhub is right, the reason reviewers test CPU's at low resolutions is because this is where you see biggest difference, this is where your typically CPU limited with high end graphics cards, however when you increase the resolution and also enable settings like AA/AF the bottleneck mores over the GPU and the benefit from a faster CPU in this situation will be greatly reduced or even nullified.
Click to expand...

Have you actually read this thread.:rolleyes:
 
once again ladies, put your handbags away...

this is about the 9800GX2 and not quad vs dual core.

back on topic, to those who own a GX2, how does it compare to former hardware (eg GTX/G92)? any noticeable increases over a single GTX? apart from Crysis i am struggling to find a game that really hurts my 2900 WITHOUT AA...but there again a single GT/GTS may remove this AA problem. Does it require 400 quid to run todays games on max with AA engaged or is this just made to "be the fastest"?!
 
J0hnb0y said:
how does it compare to former hardware?
Click to expand...

Much better than my 7800GS :D

But in all seriousness, If I was running a GTX or a new gen GT/S then I dont think it would be worth the dosh.

Bopught mine as I needed a new card to go with my new build, so I thought, why not get the best.
 
mattyfez said:
Much better than my 7800GS :D

But in all seriousness, If I was running a GTX or a new gen GT/S then I dont think it would be worth the dosh.

Bopught mine as I needed a new card to go with my new build, so I thought, why not get the best.
Click to expand...

If you wanted the best then why did you not get 2x8800GTX's?.
 
straxusii said:
It's nowhere near as simple as that.

Wolfdale dual compared to q6600, the dual on average will clock way higher and clock for clock will be 15% faster. Most games will not be at all cpu limited by an o/c wolfdale.
Click to expand...
it's still ONLY 2 cores.

show me your CineBench scores and let's compare the multi-processor speed-up factor?
a game is the same, the more core, the better.

in fact, benchmarks have shown that any Core2 beyond 2.2Ghz will not bottleneck most games. including Crysis.

puff, only 4Ghz with your Penryn? i can get 3.8Ghz on my quad core
 
wuyanxu said:
it's still ONLY 2 cores.

show me your CineBench scores and let's compare the multi-processor speed-up factor?
a game is the same, the more core, the better.

in fact, benchmarks have shown that any Core2 beyond 2.2Ghz will not bottleneck most games. including Crysis.

puff, only 4Ghz with your Penryn? i can get 3.8Ghz on my quad core
Click to expand...

Last time I knew CineBench was a benchmark, most games DONT take advantage of quad core, look at crysis, you think that takes advantage of quads? Go look at the benchmarks, most games I have and own dont take advantage of dual core, and unless I plan on playing Supcom 24/7 I'm not going to get a very power hungry Q6600.

4Ghz+ on a penryn + 15% faster, and most games are not taking advantage of quad core so go figure.
 
crysis takes full advantage of quad core. just have a try on the Physic maps. you'd see more than 60% usage total, thus more than what dual core can have.

im not saying you should buy quad core. im just saying dual core is enough now. but if you want the best, quad core is the way forward.
 
wuyanxu said:
crysis takes full advantage of quad core. just have a try on the Physic maps. you'd see more than 60% usage total, thus more than what dual core can have.

im not saying you should buy quad core. im just saying dual core is enough now. but if you want the best, quad core is the way forward.
Click to expand...

I've played through the whole game and my CPU usage never went over 80%, and taking a look at the benchmarks a quad core does nothing for framerate.

At this time if someone has a dual core intel its not even worth getting a quad for gaming, not at all.
 
willhub said:
I've played through the whole game and my CPU usage never went over 80%, and taking a look at the benchmarks a quad core does nothing for framerate.

At this time if someone has a dual core intel its not even worth getting a quad for gaming, not at all.
Click to expand...
did you mean if someone has a good dual core. (eg, Core2)

the single player is dumbed down, with most objects not as physically destruct-able as advertised.
and when i say 60% on my quad core, i meant 1 core was near 100%, while others were about 50%. is that not enough to say Crysis runs in threads? meaning the more core the better, the more core the less hardware stack juggling.
 
You'd think so, but as I've said, look at the benchmarks, does nothing for frame rate, and either way, a quad is not worth it if people have a c2d at this time.
 
willhub said:
You'd think so, but as I've said, look at the benchmarks, does nothing for frame rate, and either way, a quad is not worth it if people have a c2d at this time.
Click to expand...
no need to repeat yourself. i agree with you on C2D's.

but benchmarks doesn't mean real world experience.
 
Err GX2 THREAD?

All this dualcore vs quad has been discussed SO many times people... it was the same with dual vs single core.
And i'm sure it will happen again next year with quad vs octocore.

I have a quad, but i admit a lot of games dont make use of quad, for most games at this point in time a higher clocked dualcore would be better, especially considering theres thousands of old games that will only use a single core. But then i dont just use my PC for gaming so dual dont cut it for me.
 
Last edited:
Not only is most of this discussion in the wrong thread it's in the wrong forum too, CPU's are that way ->
Keep it nearer the topic all:)
 
Anyone know if theres gonna be some GX2 replacement heatsink/fans ?

Sorry to dig thru 10 pages but hows the general noise anyhow?

Silent in 2D/windows but noisy in 3d ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom