Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

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: 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...


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.
Avatar 22024
Live long, and prosper.
Login Email   Password Remember Me
If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.


Blue's News logo