whats the point of fast cpu

[nawfal]

i think new processors are a waste in a way, games dont really need anything above an amd 3500, all this core 2, x2, and speeds of 5000 are kinda irrelevant, at any decent resolution. i play games at 1920x1400, and i didnt notice any change in fps in moving from amd 3200 to x2 4400 @ 2.7ghz


and definately, the general office user, doesnt need any processor above amd 2800 or p4 2.8ghz, so where are amd and intel going to go from here?

i think thats why they both bought their graphics card companies, because they realise they arent going to make any money from their high end processors, as there is no demand, and they have no benefit. the best money is spent, in buying better graphics card. i bought x1900xtx, and the difference was huge.

i mean these new x4 processors are out, whats the point. even dual core has no advantage at any decent resolution.


anyways, im thinking anything around the amd 3200, or equivalent p4, is enough to play games, if youre gonna play at an res over 1024x1028 with AA, and AF

 

[SciFiMan]

While I tend to agree with you, I think that the low end X2 3800+ should be the minimum processor these days. It would last a business user a good long time. Dual core is the trend and app's will all make use of that. Buy a fast CPU and your PC has a longer life cycle. I usually shoot for High End - 1 for the best value. I'm moving to PCI-e in the spring (up from my Athlon 2500+) and I'll probably aim for the 4600+ class of CPU. That should last 4 years with one GPU upgrade in between.

 

[nawfal]

i agree with you in that we are going towards dual core, but it still is of minor benefit, especially when playing at high res, aa, af, soft shadows etc, any modenish computer is graphics limited, rather than processor limited.

if i had an amd 3000, and had 300bux to spend, i would get a new graphics card, and then SLI before i upgrade my processor, dual core or not.

because you get more benefits from the gfx card

i think any modernish processor will be able to play a game with 60fps.

 

[Sheepish]

You're only thinking about gaming.
Take a look at cpu benchmarks and you might notice that there are other non-gaming tasks that benefit from faster processing.

 

[nawfal]

oh yeah im talking strictly gaming

i know encoding etc, dual core has some good benefits.

but i think it is relevant, because the majority of high end cpu users are gamers.

 

[dasickninja]

Not true.

 

[jaguarskx]

oh yeah im talking strictly gaming

i know encoding etc, dual core has some good benefits.

but i think it is relevant, because the majority of high end cpu users are gamers.

Nah, I'm not much of a gamer. I use my overclocked E6600 for surfing the net.

 

[bydesign]

Apparently you aren't around PC that work for a living. If they had 8 cores I could max them out.

 

[Sheepish]

oh yeah im talking strictly gaming

i know encoding etc, dual core has some good benefits.

but i think it is relevant, because the majority of high end cpu users are gamers.

Thats completely contradictory
Gamers dont need to be high end cpu users as you correctly stated in your first post... so maybe the majority of high end cpu gamers are stupid? hehe.
Or maybe its actually that they do need the high end cpu for multi tasking and other non gaming tasks. Not everyone treats their pc as just a games console.

 

[nukemaster]

For most users this is true...

But there is nothing like Rendering 3dsmax or Maya projects in 1/4(1/2 for dual core) the time

and video encoding is another area......

Your right....current games are not CPU bound....but the extra CPU(or 3) will help you multi task better while you game....In the future more and more games will take advantage of multi core....then you will get to see your boost from that 4400

Not everyone treats their pc as just a games console

WHAT......you mean people use computers for other things......

 

[Doughbuy]

Psh, wrong all of you..

The only reason to get a faster CPU is to say to your friends... my E-Penis > yours

Or is that only me...

 

[muffin]

The people who are benefitting from dual core and now quad core are the ones who use the software that has been written to leverage the power of multiple processors for years. Content creation - video, 3d modelling, audio processing and and such has been using multiple processors for years, and is the first segment to really benefit from the cost reduction of the current generations of multiple core chips. Gaming has not benefitted as much from this transition yet, although it will in the reasonably near future. Gaming is a spare time endeavor and hasn't had the impetus of money to leverage multiple processors. Work time costs money, rendering time costs money. Cut the time to produce a given amount of work and your costs go down for performing that work. Gaming has traditionally been viewed as cake - the things people use their computers for when they get home from work and aren't costing suits money. Content creation etc. is steak and potatoes because people are being paid for their time by the aforementioned suits. Programming for multiple prcessors costs time and therefore money as well. Some of the big money cost for "serious" programs that have always been written to make use of multiple cores is due to the effort required in writing such programs - Adobe Premiere for example is an expensive program to buy because it is used to make money by utilizing relatively expensive equipment and expensive people efficiently. People playing games are paying to play games, not being paid to play those games (yes, there are exceptions - but too few to skew the model.)

 

[burn-e86]

are you kidding?!? have you played HL2? it requires a hell of alot of CPU power, my 3500 OC'ed to 3.45 max's out completely. and besides the resilution is more to do with the Grfx card then the CPU. also what game? o could say that having a K7 1000 thunderbird is gives me an amazing fps, doesnt mean anything cause it could be any game. try running a game with full rag doll effects, such as HL2 with garys mod, after around 20 to 30 characters, it slows to less then 1 fps

 

[muffin]

I see my points have been made by people who can type (and think) waaaay faster then I can - lol. Damn coffee hasn't kicked in yet, I guess.

 

[Doughbuy]

Oh yeah, let me add something thats actually a bit helpful... FPS games don't really benefit that much more from a faster CPU, but RTS games do. All the thinking the AI does in RTS games and turn-based strategy... you think the gpu is doing those calculations?

There has been talk of an AI chip to help unload some of that process off the cpu... wondering if this will take off... matrix anyone?

 

[Hawkeye22]

Most of the software out there just needs a chance to catch up to today's processors. Sure, there aren't a lot of games/apps out there that are mult-threaded, but the hardware will allow software designers to innovate and come up with ways to utilize the extra cores.

As for games, Valve is working hard to get a multithreaded Source engine out.

Just give the software industry some time.

 

[Frozen_Fallout]

i think new processors are a waste in a way, games dont really need anything above an amd 3500, all this core 2, x2, and speeds of 5000 are kinda irrelevant, at any decent resolution. i play games at 1920x1400, and i didnt notice any change in fps in moving from amd 3200 to x2 4400 @ 2.7ghz


and definately, the general office user, doesnt need any processor above amd 2800 or p4 2.8ghz, so where are amd and intel going to go from here?

i think thats why they both bought their graphics card companies, because they realise they arent going to make any money from their high end processors, as there is no demand, and they have no benefit. the best money is spent, in buying better graphics card. i bought x1900xtx, and the difference was huge.

i mean these new x4 processors are out, whats the point. even dual core has no advantage at any decent resolution.


anyways, im thinking anything around the amd 3200, or equivalent p4, is enough to play games, if youre gonna play at an res over 1024x1028 with AA, and AF

I completely disagree

 

[muffin]

You may have a bigger E-penis, but I have more E-rhythm and better E-stripshow choreography...I've got way more E-money stuffed in my E-thong .

 

[JMecc]

Like the others have said here, there are many other things than games to use computers for. I don't game, but I spend my days making programs to help analyze brain tumors for my MSc thesis. Most long running ones are on Matlab and can take a few hours to run on my C2D E6600 (& 1.5x - 6x longer on my AthlonXP 2800). This is a nice time saving (makes debugging less frustrating) even though the version of matlab I have does not really use 2 cores. It maximizes on 1 core while I can still post on these forums, get email...
Jo

 

[dasickninja]

........

 

[Frozen_Fallout]

Now the thing is if you do any multi tasking as a user (I know I do way too much for my poor 2400+ and I would love to have a dual core right now) You want to have a dual core. A dual core has allot of little advantages over a single core processors. When it comes to gaming you are right that it doesn't help that much with this gen of games however if you would want to future proof at all when building a new computer you are going to want to have a dual core with newer gen games.

I agree that a gfx is way more important in gaming but that doesn't make the dual core useless. They do give a performance benefit and the ability to multi task makes them very useful for the very day user and gamer. As well as faster load time. I am very happy with the way things are going for processors and cant wait to get my hands on a C2D seeing how powerful these things are and would settle for no less then a E6300 or equal processor for a person building right now.

 

[muffin]

Sorry Ninja....darn flashbacks. Just say no, man. Just say no.

 

[dasickninja]

 

[Frozen_Fallout]

You always come up with the best pics : :twisted:

 

[muffin]

Pass the test? Man, I helped write it!