![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
so you claiming that the 4 core is going to be better than the 6 core in BF3 is not guessing?
the irony, lol.
I didn't claim that at all. I simply called BS on YOUR 30% advantage claim. You really should know what you're replying to before running off at the mouth.
its not bs, its common sense.
if you think 2600k is a better cpu and more future proof than 970 then CPU's are not your field.
how is a 970 better for a gamer? yes it has 2 more core, but what game will use them?
its not bs, its common sense that it will be with certain games.
if you think 2600k is a better cpu and more future proof than 970 then CPU's are not your field.
It's not common sense at all beucase you have no idea how the game is going to scale. Much less make a specific performance claim. We'll find out who's right and wrong come release.
I also just told you I never said it was "better" apparently reading and comprehension is not your field.
BF3 and future upcoming games.
just like how Bad Company 2 runs much smoother with a quad core vs a dual core the same will fallow with six+ core vs quad core in BF3.
im a big BF fan and i did alot of reading and research about the upcoming Frostbite 2 engine in BF3.
too bad you arent so be quiet.
how many games do you think will be coming out in the next 2 years that will use more then 4 cores?
http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i5-2500k-and-core-i7-2600k-review/21
there is a bfbc2 benchmark. show me where the 5 and 6 core on the 1100t are doing something that the 970 isnt?
i was talking under task manager, ive seen it in many benchmark sites.
bc2 was scratching the extra cores, just because they didnt add extra frames it doesnt mean they weren't being used.
keep 970 vs 2600k .
Nice example of someone who has no clue how the Windows task scheduler works.
There's also no reason to keep AMD CPU's out of it as long as you're comparing a 6 core AMD to a 4 core AMD. The same concept of CPU scaling applies to AMD as it does to Intel. The game isn't going to decide not to use a 5th and 6th core just becuase it isn't an Intel one.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i5-2500k-and-core-i7-2600k-review/21
there is a bfbc2 benchmark. show me where the 5 and 6 core on the 1100t are doing something that the 970 isnt?
The 2500k is just as good in games, and in some games FASTER despite the clock speed disadvantage.
No idea why you would buy a 2600k for a gaming machine
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=287&i=47.48.49.50.60.61.62.129
(2500 has a 100mhz base and turbo disadvantage in above chart)
needmorecarnitine, thanks for destroying my competitor to shreds.
is there no one else?
And here is another piece on six core cpus:
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...already-benefit-from-six-cores-CPUs/Practice/
that is great. where is the test setups? where is the resolution? what gpu was used? and how come they provide no data but "10 percent compared to a quad core"? great benchmarking job.
I hope someone could enlighten me.
With the 2600k, wouldn't you have 8 cores due to HTT, if a game utilized them? Or how exactly does that work.
Also, I am still using a Q6700 at 3.4 ghz. I know I'm using an old processor and it seems like it's time to upgrade, but is the upgrade really worth it? These just don't seem that much faster.
I hope someone could enlighten me.
With the 2600k, wouldn't you have 8 cores due to HTT, if a game utilized them? Or how exactly does that work.
Also, I am still using a Q6700 at 3.4 ghz. I know I'm using an old processor and it seems like it's time to upgrade, but is the upgrade really worth it? These just don't seem that much faster.
I'm not a computer expert. Just what I've been told, and what I've seen in stores. I'm on the edge of upgrading, but maybe the Q6700 could hold me off for a while? I see your still using a Q6600 yourself Ramon, it that what you are waiting for?
I HIGHLY doubt BF3 is going to need more raw processing power than a 2600k is capable of. Even if it uses more than 4 threads, it doesn't matter, 2600k has HT and can handle 8. It won't be a problem.
ROFLMAOWell of course it will use more than 4 threads. Bad Company 2 uses dozens of threads. All games use dozens of threads.
Without threads you couldn't do things simultaneously and games have several things they need to do simultaneously.
ROFLMAO
Traditionally games only used one thread because it's much simpler and lower overheard (no worrying about locking etc) to do things one at a time and if you only have one core to actually run on there is no reason not to.
More modern games have tried to spread the work among multiple threads to take advantage of multiple cores. They have done this with varying degrees of success but there is a constant compromise between the benefits of using the extra cores and the overheads (both in terms of CPU time and programmer time) of multi-threading. In particular it's easy to end up with a situation where there are lots of small threads doing little bits of work but there is still a "main" thread doing a substantial percentage of the work than ends up being the limiting factor on overall performance.
those quake threads are meant for pure cpu cores, not HT.
HT is not designed for games.
sure, 6 cores would be sweet to say that u have them, but unless ur running 10 WOW accounts at once, u wont need it.