CPUs & Real-World Gameplay Scaling

[chopchop]

Good article,

Its excellent that they include a min fps score in their results, ive been trying to tell people all along that a faster more expensive processor be it single or dual core WILL NOT give you any real world gains in gaming fps what so ever,, You see an fx60 may well have an average framerate of 80fps and a max of 120fps or whatever but it will always drop to the same MINIMUM framerate say 20fps as a cheaper 3200+ processor would at the same intensive points in your game. To put it simple, a faster processor will only giver you more fps where you dont need it and will not benefit from it at the top end of the range..

?? i found when moving to my 146 that it stopped my fps from dipping so low in action packed scenes.

 

[ajgoodfellow]

Having a better CPU often can make a bigger difference to your minimum FPS than your maximum FPS

 

[chopchop]

Having a better CPU often can make a bigger difference to your minimum FPS than your maximum FPS

yea just as i said above, i used the same gfx card and same settings as the previous cpu and my min fps went from 40 all the way to 80 and avg'ing 100 nearly all the time.

 

[turtle3]

Having a better CPU often can make a bigger difference to your minimum FPS than your maximum FPS

The results in the OP link say otherwise. Take a closer look at the graphs, below them is the minimum, average and max fps on each processor. Compare the COD2 on asus board results between a FX60 and a 3800+ £200 processor does the same speed as a £600 processor.

 

[chopchop]

The results in the OP link say otherwise. Take a closer look at the graphs, below them is the minimum, average and max fps on each processor. Compare the COD2 on asus board results between a FX60 and a 3800+ £200 processor does the same speed as a £600 processor.

they have the gfx detail cranked up quite high tho