• 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.

QX9650 performance...

mrthingyx

mrthingyx

mrthingyx

Man of Honour
Joined
3 Apr 2003
Posts
15,682
Location
Cambridge
Hmmm... the review of the QX9650 on Guru3D seems to suggest that - brutal encoding, etc. performance notwithstanding - the new Penryn makes no difference whatsoever in games like FEAR/GRAW/Crysis at resolutions above 1280x1024.

In fact, the only significant differences between an Athlon FX-62 and the new Penryn was at 1024x768 in most of the gaming benchmarks.

That's something of a disappointment and not what I'd expected, to be honest.
 
Most games are fairly 'easy' on the cpu, however with dual and quad cpu's becoming the norm, it opens the door for games developers to greatly enhance the physics and AI engines in their games, making much more use of multicore processors.

Future games will be a lot more advanced and benifit greatly from high powered cpus. However you might not notice much of a FPS difference even then, as a well designed game would probably simpliy the physics/ai on a system which couldnt cope.

At high resolutions even with high end cards like the 8800GTX, most games are still GPU limited. Thats why cpu's normally only seem to make improvements at low resolutions.
 
I agree. I just think it's somewhat ironic with all of the eulogies being sung about Core2Due and how Yorkfield is going to tear pretty much everything a new one... and then even at 4Ghz, Penryn doesn't add much, if anythin.

I suppose it's just that point in time where new engines have come out that bring current hardware to its knees...
 
I just pointed at the thread for reference, for most games GFX card is what you need for games at MAX, not the CPU.
 
i think over anything i will be buying the penryn for it running much cooler (can just stick a freezer pro on it and overclock) and the great power consumption, it will still be a decent jump up for those of us on X2 systems or lower :)
 
Play supreme commander with lots of AI and it will use your uber CPU. Other than this an Crysis though there aint much and even then I don't think Crysis will max out the CPU most of the time.

I have a E2160 at the moment and could get a Q6600 but I am waiting for Penryn, it aint like the new lot of graphics cards with be out till the end of Feb/March anyway so until you have the GPU, no point in getting an uber CPU. If I had an 8800 maybe I would get a Q6600 but with my 7900GTX at 1200 on a 24" screen it aint the CPU that is the problem.

Roll on cheap Penryns. Yarrr.
 
I thought that it was pretty obvious that a top of the range CPU isn't goinng to make a significant or indeed much of a difference for gaming at low resolutions.

What were you expecting?
 
weescott said:
I thought that it was pretty obvious that a top of the range CPU isn't goinng to make a significant or indeed much of a difference for gaming at low resolutions.

What were you expecting?
Click to expand...

With all of the willy-waving in anticipation, I was expecting something more than a 1fps boost going from a stock Athlon FX-62 to a 4GHz Yorkfield at 1600x1200 in games like Doom 3, Fear, GRAW and Crysis...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom