|
|
 |
Report this Comment
Use this form to report the
selected comment to the moderators. Reporting should generally
be used only if the comment breaks forum rules.
 |
| 17. |
Re: Steam Hardware Survey Results & Bug Fix |
Jul 26, 2012, 02:30 |
Jerykk |
|
|
jacobvandy wrote on Jul 25, 2012, 15:55: If you play Civilization a lot, upgrading from a dual-core processor to something like Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge will save you literally hours during a large scale, full length match. It cuts the waiting time between turns, while AI moves are being calculated, by more than half (I measured 50% decrease between i7-920 and Ivy Bridge, so I have to assume a dual-core would be even worse by comparison). Grand Theft Auto IV, and presumably any other game Rockstar puts out with the same engine, is VERY CPU dependant. In fact, I remember upgrading from Core 2 Duo to first-gen Core i7 increased my FPS a whole lot more than upgrading from an 8800 GTS to a GTX 275. Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3/NV and similar games on that engine also greatly benefit from a better CPU because of all the AI routines and other world simulation that goes on.
It's not necessarily about dual-core versus quad-core... Just that if you're still using a dual-core on a desktop, that is a very old CPU, and it's holding back all the games you're playing, albeit to varying degrees. Pairing a Core 2 Duo with any mid-range or better graphics card from the past couple generations is remarkably silly. Games that are poorly optimized are usually CPU-dependent and also usually only take advantage of two cores at most. Skyrim doesn't make full use of quad core CPUs, for example. Like 90% of the load is put on one core. In most cases, if a game is well-optimized, having a Dual Core clocked at 3.0 GHz or higher is fine because a well-optimized game is GPU dependent, not CPU dependent. |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
.. ..
Copyright © 1996-2013 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.