Jump to content
7 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

huh?

what do you mean?

 

cpu bottleneckin' the gpu ?!?

 

with latest indirect acceleration technologies, cpu isn't used that much to "draw" images

if a game is heavy in graphics and it's clearly too heavy for your gpu.. having a 32 cores cpu will not help,

ATM cpus are not the bottleneck in videogames anymore

current bottlenecks can be, RAM, HDD...

not a QUADCORE man

The processor will be a bottleneck if it's slow, but not a core 2 duo or a fast amd. The Q6600 is fine. It's just not ideal for pure gaming. (quad-core has more benefits in multithreaded apps)

 

But hey! It's a great processor.

Don't believe in processor bottlenecks so much except for physics which is one area that is calculated by the CPU and might require some processing power (for example GRAW) but that is about to change when drivers start o offload the physics calculations to "assistant" graphics cards in the system.

Besides the new Opterons, I don't feel that there are any really Quad cores that are worth it. Intel has no REAL quad core cpus out yet. They are fast though, but they still aren't at their full potentional. I think we need to go through steps to get good quad cores, just like the first steps taken with Dual cores. Pentium Ds, then the Core duos, then core 2 duos, and now more than 2 cores.

 

ATM cpus are not the bottleneck in videogames anymore

current bottlenecks can be, RAM, HDD...

Pentium D bottlenecks it

Pentium 4

Not really much of a bottleneck, but any dual core AMD cpu still holds back a single GTX.

And core 2 duo clocked under 2.3 ghz.

You won't see the bottleneck if you're running it at a high enough resolution, where as lower resolutions bottleneck.

 

If you want a cheap dual core that won't bottleneck it, grab either an e4300, or e6300, and OC it.

×
×
  • Create New...