i've read a lot of places that the 800 fsb proscs with a 1mb cache perform almost aswel as one with a 4mb cache, just 50-70 quid cheaper.
a lot of people have been making exscuses for quad cores, especially since the release of the crysis demo, they don't perform nearly aswel as they were hyped to, so i'm curious...
is the "cache" thing, one of the problems yet to be ironed out in future driver releases? or is it a game compatibility thing. I mean, you don't have to know all you can know bout PCs to know more cache = better, but the reviews, graphs, and general discussions about the conroes prove a single mb cache is way faster then a amd x2, and only slightly weaker then a 4mb prosc.
so currently, what justifies the extra spent money? quads been out what, 1.5 years now? as they suck almost as much now as they did then. Obviously Quads>Duals, but considering what 2 cores offer, you'd think an extra 2 would own frame rates. Or is it just a simple case of too much hype, killed the quads and they're about as good as they'll ever get, along with 4MBs cache.
a lot of people have been making exscuses for quad cores, especially since the release of the crysis demo, they don't perform nearly aswel as they were hyped to, so i'm curious...
is the "cache" thing, one of the problems yet to be ironed out in future driver releases? or is it a game compatibility thing. I mean, you don't have to know all you can know bout PCs to know more cache = better, but the reviews, graphs, and general discussions about the conroes prove a single mb cache is way faster then a amd x2, and only slightly weaker then a 4mb prosc.
so currently, what justifies the extra spent money? quads been out what, 1.5 years now? as they suck almost as much now as they did then. Obviously Quads>Duals, but considering what 2 cores offer, you'd think an extra 2 would own frame rates. Or is it just a simple case of too much hype, killed the quads and they're about as good as they'll ever get, along with 4MBs cache.
Last edited: