|
|
 |
| [Jan 21, 2013, 09:32 am ET] - Share - Viewing Comments |
Post Comment
Enter the details of the comment
you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at
the bottom of the form.
 |
| 17. |
Re: Morning Consolidation |
Jan 21, 2013, 15:34 |
jdreyer |
|
|
Creston wrote on Jan 21, 2013, 10:51:
Speedy CPU? An eight core 1.6 Ghz? We're calling that speedy? I call it fucking stupid. Few, if any game developers, will use all 8 cores (even on the PC we're just seeing games start to use 4), but the SLOOOOOOW clock speed is going to hamper this thing like nobody's business. Come on, Sony, MS, use a quad core 2.6 or 3.0 Ghz. Stop fucking putting all these shitty-ass components in your boxes... 
Creston
First, I'd say that the GPU is usually the limiting factor in a game. CPUs have been long able to feed the GPU regardless of speed for many years now. I'd say this is even moreso the case in console gaming. The only games that really give CPUs a workout these days are ones with huge AI algorithms like Skyrim.
Second, keeping the MHz low will mean low heat output, quieter cooling, and longer life. Everyone is scared of repeating the RRoD debacle that MS suffered through.
Third, I'm sure this proc will have a burst mode that will overclock it to some higher MHz level like 2.4 or even 3.0. Since 1.6 is so low, I'm sure there's lots of overhead built in, and the system will ramp up accordingly. Intel has had a couple of generations of this now, and is getting very good at boosting the proc when it's needed.
Fourth, a lower default clock will suck less juice when using it for non-gaming purposes, like watching movies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Man is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness from which he emerges and the infinity in which he is engulfed. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
.. ..
Copyright © 1996-2013 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.
Twitter 
