So basically, it's finally time for me to retire my Q6600?
So basically, it's finally time for me to retire my Q6600?
Except this chart is pretty much a joke. The minimum fps is barely any lower than the average fps, which doesn't correspond with pretty much anyone's beta experience.
Legendary processor but I'd say it's about time!
3 frames at minimum and 4 frames at average difference from a CPU that costs more is destroyed?
the $200 i5-4570 is getting 11 frames more than the $200 fx-8350.
the $200 i5-4570 is getting 11 frames more than the $200 fx-8350.
I'm pretty sure Intel will bring an 8PC CPU to market in 2014, at the latest. Otherwise gamers will think Intel's got a poor showing, feature-wise. Well, at least that's what I'm thinking right now.
Well they do have 8 core CPUs just not in their consumer line. Their consumer line tops out at 6 core/12 threads. Sandy Bridge Xeons top out at 8 core/16 threads. Ivy Bridge Xeons will have 10 core/20 threads and 12 core/24 threads variants as well. Consumer line still tops out at 6/12 though.I'm pretty sure Intel will bring an 8PC CPU to market in 2014, at the latest. Otherwise gamers will think Intel's got a poor showing, feature-wise. Well, at least that's what I'm thinking right now.
If we get 8 cores that match up with the per core performance of their current cream of the crop AND we get engines that scale properly across cores the way this specs list seems to point to, there is no reason not to be hyped for it right?
I absolutely do want to be forced to upgrade. The past few years were terribly boring in the CPU space.Held back is an interesting way to look at things. The fact that many games were created for consoles also allowed for much higher levels of image quality and performance. Games that really pushed PC hardware to its limits would ultimately force PC gamers to give up high framerates and great image quality. Is that what people want?
Definitely true. I really enjoy revisiting older PC games with much more powerful hardware down the line and this would definitely improve that end of it.It would have been nice if devs threw in future proof settings like how many samples motion blur/ambient occlusion use or resolution scaling options (internal rendering resolutions like Durante's fix for Dark Souls).
I'm not going to waste my time to search through all DICE quotes to find info about 6 cores utilization.I don't rememeber DICE talking about PS4 OS reservation. Please provide a link.
It's not obvious at all, especially when an actual PS4 developer said that all the evidence indicated less than 1 core reserved. So if you really want to talk about something real, let's wait until we have official info.
That new 8 core Haswell-E will definitely be as good in terms IPC as current Haswell processor.
Frostbite 3 will scale to 8 cores by default and Crytek said that they can make game in CryEngine 3.5 that easily scale up to 16 cores or more. UE 4 i think also scales up to at least 6 cores by default.
Good times ahead.
I absolutely do want to be forced to upgrade. The past few years were terribly boring in the CPU space.
Haswell-E will probably be more than good enough for everything for 6 years again.
People are in full panic mode, wth?
Edit: Most of the rigs that people are listing will run the game fine.
I doubt even the most hardcore of builds will max the game at 60 FPS 100% of the time
My last PC build was an i5-3570K. I guess i'm being remiss by not overclocking it?
It was my first jump to Intel, and just deciding what to buy was enough work at the time.
You'll just lose out on some free performance gains, that's all. You'd need a decent aftermarket cooler, though - the reference coolers aren't meant for OC.
People are in full panic mode, wth?
Edit: Most of the rigs that people are listing will run the game fine.
I doubt even the most hardcore of builds will max the game at 60 FPS 100% of the time
Its like frame rates below 60 or IQ settings below ultra don't exist.
People are surprised their rigs are mid range or low now. Peeps got used to destroying the recommended specs for many years that some have forgotten what it was like to just make it.People are in full panic mode, wth?
Edit: Most of the rigs that people are listing will run the game fine.
I doubt even the most hardcore of builds will max the game at 60 FPS 100% of the time
So what that it recommends 3GB? It recommends for settings higher than next-gen consoles.This is where I finally say don't listen to PC-GAF.
They told us 2GB of VRam will get through next gen fine - BF4 reccomends 3GB
Also, no one sober said this.They told us AMD Octocore CPU's were shit and that more than 4 cores wont be needed for next gen - Watch Dogs reccomends 8 core CPUs.
People are surprised their rigs are mid range or low now. Peeps got used to destroying the recommended specs for many years that some have forgotten what it was like to just make it.
This is where I finally say don't listen to PC-GAF.
They told us 2GB of VRam will get through next gen fine - BF4 reccomends 3GB
They told us AMD Octocore CPU's were shit and that more than 4 cores wont be needed for next gen - Watch Dogs reccomends 8 core CPUs.
And this is only the start of next-gen and these are just console ports.
The writing was on the wall though as soon as the PS4 specs were released.
512mb was enough for all of last gen games. You just had to play with a slightly better IQ than consoles.Yep. I'm not sure 3Gb GPU is going to be big enough. My next GPU will have 4Gb.
So basically, it's finally time for me to retire my Q6600?
I'm still using an i7 920 overclocked to 3.8Ghz as well. It has been very disconcerting that CPU requirements and utilization in games hasn't seen a significant improvement over the course of several years now. It appears that we're finally seeing significant changes, at the very least games will be fully optimized to take advantage of up to 8 threads. Even so, I expect our CPU to continue to stay moderately-strong for the immediate future. Perhaps Haswell-E or another followed micro-architecture (Broadwell?) will have the significant performance improvements to merit a full upgrade.
If Haswell-E is like the other E chips, won't the 8 core cost $700+?
The difference is that with Haswell-E there will be an 8 core and 6 core variants for the desktop, while with current E chips there are 6 and 4 core variants. As such, the 6 core variant should slot in lower than it does currently in terms of pricing. At least that's my hope.If Haswell-E is like the other E chips, won't the 8 core cost $700+?
I'm not going to waste my time to search through all DICE quotes to find info about 6 cores utilization.
And official info is from KZ:SF presentation and its states 1.6ghz and 6 cores.
You made that claim, not me. So you are supposed to provide a source.
That's not official info. It's just an assumption made on the presentation of the demo. That demo was running on alpha dev kits. Alpha kits didn't even have the Jaguar CPU. Assuming things like final clock speed and OS reservation from that presentation is not official info.
Indeed, but what I suggested goes beyond upgrading. There was a time in PC gaming where high-end games were SO high-end that the most powerful PCs on the planet could not operate them at high levels of performance.I absolutely do want to be forced to upgrade. The past few years were terribly boring in the CPU space.
Haswell-E will probably be more than good enough for everything for 6 years again.
So what is Your official info? And how those dev kits didnt have Jaguar CPUs?