I was reading this http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3320&p=8 and was surprised to see performance increases at 3.4Ghz that was USEFUL in this game. The new gpus cards coming out will surely stomp these cards, and if games get even more cpu demanding, will we see some bottlenecks?
I was reading this http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3320&p=8 and was surprised to see performance increases at 3.4Ghz that was USEFUL in this game. The new gpus cards coming out will surely stomp these cards, and if games get even more cpu demanding, will we see some bottlenecks?
When the new cards do come out, and we finally see Crysis being played at decent fps, I think we may see some real bottlenecking without some serios ocing. Thats today. What about this fall? when the games come out?
---------------
Every artist is a cannibal,every poet is a thief,they all kill their inspiration then sing about their grief
If AC sees usable gains, and soon the new cards come out, and we have a more demanding game/s, it looks like we may need Nehalem quickly
There will always be new and improved technologies. Of course, you will see improvements but it does not mean that today's cpus (like core 2 quad over 3 ghz) will cause so slow that you will not play nicely in a year from now. You can play well with those cpus for sure. But, it is no dobut that Nehalem with 4870 or Gx280 will beat today's high end setup for sure. But, this is not the case. In short, you will be able to play game nicely for a year from now.
Message edited by htoonthura on 06-02-2008 at 06:57:21 PM
Did you read the article? 60 fps is always what a gamer shoots for. It cant be had on those current cpus at stock. And we arent talking Crysis here. I think this is a developing situation, where we will see it more and more
Did you read the article? 60 fps is always what a gamer shoots for. It cant be had on those current cpus at stock. And we arent talking Crysis here. I think this is a developing situation, where we will see it more and more
I did not say stock. did i? well... my point is not to argue with you.
I mean not to argue, sorry if I did or came across that way. This is average framerates, showing with an oc of 3.4 you still get 8% better fps in a playable resolution, using soon to be old archetecture. The next games out will undoubtadly have greater demands, pushing those cards. If the cpus cant bring average fps to 60 in this game, let alone minimum fps, then what will we see from the greater demands put on the cpus? I think its a worthy question. And its reasonable as well. Currently, we see the old K8s being a bottleneck in some situations. I have a feeling the "old" C2D willl be doing this as well
---------------
Every artist is a cannibal,every poet is a thief,they all kill their inspiration then sing about their grief
To answer the subject, I would say the current trend will continue. Where you have some games that require a lot of CPU some that ask for lots of GPU. Besides no one can give you a for sure answer without lieing.
True. Theres not one answer anyways as you put it anyhow. But there is a trend starting to show up. Im somewhat forward looking, but I believe this is going to show up sooner than most people think
---------------
Every artist is a cannibal,every poet is a thief,they all kill their inspiration then sing about their grief
I would seriously question any premise derived from that article, especially noting that cpu utilization on the q6600 never rose above 50% (and not even arguing about a console game ported to a PC). And then there's this ....
Quote :
Reading between the lines, it seems clear that NVIDIA and Ubisoft reached some sort of agreement where DirectX 10.1 support was pulled with the patch. ATI obviously can't come out and rip on Ubisoft for this decision, because they need to maintain their business relationship. We on the other hand have no such qualms. Money might not have changed hands directly, but as part of NVIDIA's "The Way It's Meant to Be Played" program, it's a safe bet that NVIDIA wasn't happy about seeing DirectX 10.1 support in the game -- particularly when that support caused ATI's hardware to significantly outperform NVIDIA's hardware in certain situations.
Ubisoft needs to show that they are not being pressured into removing DX 10.1 support by NVIDIA, and frankly the only way they can do that is to put the support backing in a future patch. It was there once, and it worked well as far as we could determine; bring it back
The basis for your arguement is a single core 3400+ (Venice) @ 2.2 GHz, AsRock s939 ULI 1695 chipset, three different vendor ram sticks with different timings (run at 166 MHz x2), an 120gb ATA 100 8mb cache IDE hard drive, with AGP versions of PCIe video cards with DX10 and Vista Ultimate ???
A system so unstable ... it could not be overclocked !
I was actually reffering to this "If you're looking to get performance above 60 FPS, it's obvious that the first step is going to be purchasing the fastest CPU you can find. AC definitely supports dual-core processors, and even quad-core may be beneficial in certain situations. However, quad-core CPU usage often stays below 50% of the total CPU potential. Thus, an overclocked dual-core processor appears to be the best choice for maximizing AC performance.
During initial testing, we were a bit surprised to find that SLI didn't seem to improve performance. As this is a "The Way It's Meant to Be Played" game, that would have been another serious blow to NVIDIA's credibility. At the time, we were testing with a stock-clocked Q6600 at 1680x1050 and various graphics settings in order to utilize anti-aliasing. It was only when we began overclocking that we discovered the real culprit was CPU performance. There's CPU overhead associated with CrossFire and SLI, so with slower CPUs at moderate resolutions SLI and CrossFire will actually reduce performance in AC.
With an appropriately fast CPU -- at least 3.0 GHz would be our recommendation -- and running at 2560x1600, SLI and CrossFire are able to show substantial performance benefits. SLI and CrossFire both improve performance by 56%, but we still appear to be at least somewhat CPU limited. Increasing the CPU clock speed to 3.42 GHz on the X38 system (the maximum stable result for this particular system) further improves CrossFire scaling to 62%."
---------------
Every artist is a cannibal,every poet is a thief,they all kill their inspiration then sing about their grief
