Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by Arctucas, Jan 1, 2009.
Read the review
They should have compared the I7-940(2.93) to a Q9650(3.0) for better results since they the average same price point.
Comparing a 300$ cpu to a 1000$+ cpu is a no brainer. You lose $$$ big time for such a small FPS bump.
Did I miss what resolution they were using?
1920x1200 if they used the ATi 4870X2
1680x1050 if they used the nvidia GTX280
I wouldnt say so for one reason:
mobos for i7 are ridiculous right now, meanwhile i could find a board that will do a q9650 for $60.
Also interesting to see that the more threads there are dont make a difference, it would probably do better with a multiple application. Speaking of which, with the way CPU technology is going, I wonder when games will launch in multiple applications(threads)IE farcry2-1.exe, farcry2-2.exe, etc.. and they handle different aspects of processing. Im not ignorantly saying it would be easy, but it would be a step in the right direction for correct CPU utilization.
Really? That's odd for a CPU review.
You know you don't need multiple files to create different threads right? The current generation of games already is mostly multithreaded, though not as far as to be able to create 8 threads.
Separate names with a comma.