Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 10th Jan 2006 15:26 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 84361
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-11-12
The processor is fast enough for current games, and future CPU intensive games will be multithreaded. It offers 93% of Athlon 64 FX-57 single-threaded CPU performance, and almost twice CPU performance for future multicore optimized games. Also, the bottleneck for current games is the graphics card, not the CPU.
Certainly, but that doesn't stop "hard core" gamers going out and buying the absoloute top of the line gaming CPUs.
This is changing, in no small part due to the nature of the XBox 360 and PS3. Expect future engines that target consoles and PCs to make use of multithreading. There was also a recent Quake 4 patch that provided impressive gains on multicore processors.
Certainly, but the target audience of this CPU is "hard core" gamers who will buy top of the line now and top of the line again when it becomes neccesary. Atm. no major LAN tournament games need a multithreaded CPU (that's Counter Strike: Source, Age of Empires 3, .etc.).