EggXpert

reiththestud:

Crysis on Very High settings with a Phenom 9550 at 2.32ghz? Doesn't sound like a performance problem to me. IMO

That's not too special, especially since Crysis is extremely dependent on the video card's power. I've got a dual core E6600 overclocked and at 3.33GHz I was able to run Crysis at very high settings, all settings completely maxed out, at 1600x1200 with 2xAA with perfectly playable framerates.

Webster:

Because they can't compete with Intel at their current prices.

agreed

RjBass:

Interesting, everything I have seen about Crysis says it's much more CPU dependant.  Maybe we look at different benchmarks though. 

Here's the one I looked at:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with-quad-core-processors/9

The benchmarks GmsCool ran while artificially disabling two of the cores on his quad core processor reflected these same results.

RjBass:

Interesting, everything I have seen about Crysis says it's much more CPU dependant.  Maybe we look at different benchmarks though. 

The problem is that they were running the CPU Benchmark from crysis, instead of actually playing the game. The only way you can get a real-world benchmark playing a game ......................... is to actually play it. Thats why I'm doing my thread the way I am.

I've actually played Crysis with F@H running, as well as a scan by SuperAntiSpyware doing a full scan, it had no effect in game.

---

By the looks, it seems like AMD is almost ready to relese the Deneb processors . I doubt this has anything to do with Intel's compeition though, bc they did the exact same thing when they released their 45nm processors -_-

Yet i cant figure out how you guys can say AMD cant compete when their prcoessors have been almost half the price of Intels for some time now...

Dragonfire2008:

By the looks, it seems like AMD is almost ready to relese the Deneb processors . I doubt this has anything to do with Intel's compeition though, bc they did the exact same thing when they released their 45nm processors -_-

Yet i cant figure out how you guys can say AMD cant compete when their prcoessors have been almost half the price of Intels for some time now...

Yeah, and half the performance too.

Last I checked, my 2 year old E6600 at 3.33GHz even outperformed the slowest Phenom X4 in 3DMark06 CPU score, which fully utilizes all CPU cores. 

reiththestud:

I could be wrong about this, so don't jump down my throat if I am, I'm pretty sure 3dmark06 isn't multithreaded. It might be dualthreaded, but not multithreaded. Also, my computer doesn't perform that well on 3dmark06 either, but it still smokes all the newest games out there. 3dmark06 seems outdated to me and insignificant in producing accurate performance scores.

It is insignificant in producing accurate performance scores, but the CPU benchmark part does utilize all 4 cores. Benchmarks reflect that as well. The overall score is a horrible gauge of performance though. 

Dragonfire2008:

I dont like using benchmarks to show performance, to me its a bunch of numbers, if you want to show me performance, list what you can run until your PC hits 100% load

The better question is, how many applications can you use simultaneously until your PC hits 100% load?

A lot. 

This was 2 years ago back when I lived with roommates.

I did make that wallpaper myself BTW. 

Dragonfire2008:

By the looks, it seems like AMD is almost ready to relese the Deneb processors . I doubt this has anything to do with Intel's compeition though, bc they did the exact same thing when they released their 45nm processors -_-

Yet i cant figure out how you guys can say AMD cant compete when their prcoessors have been almost half the price of Intels for some time now...

AMD has a history of not really trying to compete, they just seem to like being "the less expensive alternative"  They have had there moments though, like the dual core CPUs when they first came out.

---

GmsCool:

Dragonfire2008:

By the looks, it seems like AMD is almost ready to relese the Deneb processors . I doubt this has anything to do with Intel's compeition though, bc they did the exact same thing when they released their 45nm processors -_-

Yet i cant figure out how you guys can say AMD cant compete when their prcoessors have been almost half the price of Intels for some time now...

AMD has a history of not really trying to compete, they just seem to like being "the less expensive alternative"  They have had there moments though, like the dual core CPUs when they first came out.

And the FX series single cores. Those kicked a** back in the day. 

Very clean looking, except for the smattering of different monitors. Did you clean up for the pictures or is that your normal state of tidiness? My desktop is always a cluttered mess of pop cans, mail, papers, and receipts.

For that picture, I actually cleaned up a bit. On a 8x3 foot desk, I had moments where I could only see 10% of the actual surface of the desk, lol. That was back in the day. Now I'm back to 2 LCD monitors; the same ones in the picture. 4 monitors was a hell of a lot of fun though.

Haha, we should Revive the Post pics of your desk thread and post up.

Hey wait you can actually see parts of your desk? you some kinda neat freak?

(O wait, I did revive it, hahaha, Whats your desktop? Here is mine)

---