Hexus.net benchmarks Nehalem - page 4

153 answers Last reply
  1. Yeah that's what i'm refering to, Epsilon.

    This is it in a nutshell:

    They are "faking" the score providing a Cinebench10 version with Cinema4d 11.0 Render engine and call it a usual Cinebench10 score. Pretty lame


    I'm sure we'll have an announcment claiming it was a misprint, and that this was indeed actually Cinema4d 11.0 all along, or something....
    Have to wait and see I suppose.
  2. spud said:
    Word. As much as Valve as a company annoys me they have built a fantastic engine. That can do some impressive effects the only real difference is ID3 and Unreal3 support a more "advanced" shader model but finding genuine visual effect is somewhat moot. Source in my honest opinion is more developer "friendly" that either ID's and Epics engines its sad their developer support is lack luster is comparison to Carmack on site and Sweeny's interesting open source consordium.

    But thats not to say the other engines dont benifit from a faster CPU's, memory subsystem either its just I saw Jimmy's post figured I would word it up :lol: .

    Oh ya Crysis sucks *lights DVD on fire*

    Word, Playa.

    Oh I wasn't saying a game engine doesn't benefit from a faster CPU. By all means it does as its pushing the data faster but the effect on it is normally only the minimum FPS and not by a big enough margin to ever worry about. Its why when people ask if they should upgrade from a Q6600 to a Q9550 we can alwasy say no ask their GPU and see if that would benefit them even more because most of the time the CPU will not limit what the GPU can do.

    I just use Source as a example since it scales beautifully over all kinds of hardware and still has the ability to push some of the newer machines.

    As to why VALVe annoys you I am not sure why. I love VALVe since they are very PC oriented and thats what I think PC gamers need.

    Yes Crysis does suck and its very horribly optimized. It doesn't use much of the CPU given to it even thogh its supposed to be multi-threaded and even the best hardware out today is challenged by it.

    Not only that but the gameplay itself is boring and mundane. The graphics are impressive (although some older games like HL2 have certain better aspects) and the physics impressive but the story is bland and the overall "free open" game play is not as open as you would think. Heck I played through the part where you are being chased down the river to the waterfall 3 or 4 times and no matter what way I went enemies were showing up even if when I went the other way they didn't come. Crysis is just FarCry with better graphics. Thats all.
  3. Read an interesting comment about this in a different forum. Someone found it interesting this could finally be done with AMDs chips, now that Intel has come out with an IMC too. Not sure what it means, but there is some implications
  4. Well Nehalem is basically Intels server chip and allow the increase of cores in the future. So I am not worried about it's gaming results. They are good enought to play mine sweeper ;-)

    Seriously, games has not been real multicore aplications until these days. The importance of cores will increase a little by little, so the advantage of Nehalem (and even Phenom) increases in time. But if you have a good Core2 you don't need this CPU for many years...
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Performance Nehalem Memory Product