Quote Originally Posted by gosh View Post
exactly! and that means that there is no 100% bottleneck by any hardware that participate in the rendering of a frame. Render thread (if they use one thread for this) needs to wait for gpu and other threads needs to synchronize with the render thread. More threads that sends data to the gpu and they all need to serialize data sent.

It is extremely difficult to do asynchronous development. One area where this is done is sending data over the internet (sockets).

if there is heavy threading and much memory use then AMD might work faster and thereby use less time. If you run on some way and mostly one thread is used, maybe less memory is used, no physics, then C2D is faster compared to AMD.
How the processor works for that game depends on what type of actions that is done in the game.
This is so incredible, even a moron could figure it out. The GPU renders the scene, the CPU calculates the physics, the AI, etc. etc. If the GPU finishes rendering a frame before the CPU finishes the subsequent calculations the next and subsequent frames, the GPU must wait until it has that information to start the next rendering. Conversely, if the CPU finishes it's calculations for the next frame before the GPU finishes rendering the scene, the CPU must wait. One will bottleneck the other... guaranteed.

When the result of to computational resources are inter-depending on one or the other two finish, there will always be a case where one limits the ability of the other.

Ooodles and oodles of data show this to be true ... the LegionHardware article shows the phenom bottlnecking a 4870 X2, severely.

I have shown lost planet, 3DMark data, company of heros, world in conflict ... the lost planet is a good one as it produces two different scenes one GPU limited, the other CPU limited... how hard is this to figure out .

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO with threads.... one thread or 4 threads, Intel is faster at producing a result, thus it will show better performance in the absence of a GPU limitiation... hence, a 4870 X2 (the fastest single card solution you can get) ends up FASTER on Intel -- this is clear from what i posted, this is clear from what LegionHardware showed. Company of Heros, Quake Enemy Territory, Crysis, Unreal 3, lost planet, ALL are MULTITRHEADED, ALL ARE FASTER ON AN INTEL + 4870 X2 than on a PHENOM + 4870 X2 (AT THE SAME FRIGGIN' clock meaning Intel is superior clock for clock, higher IPC). Heck, legion showed the Q6600 beating the 3.0 GHz OC Phenom in most cases.

If you use a 3870 ... even a medicroe dual core is fine, the GPU is so slow ... the CPU makes NO DIFFERENCE. Hence, the Phenom 'appears' to you to be equivalent to an Intel... this is not TRUE ... the GPU set the framerate at those resolutions.

How someone cannot poor over the data, all the links provided, and not understand this is incomprehensible.

It is not saying anything bad about AMD when one states the obvious, AMD has a weaker architecture and cannot clock as high. This does not make the Phenom a bad processor, but in a two horse race someone comes in second. For the past 2 years this has been AMD, the data is irrefutable.

Does it make a difference in the gaming experience ... nope, Phenom is completely capable of supporting the necessary frame rates to make a good gaming system, but that is not the same as comparing them then making some off the wall, illogical, and incorrect statement on the capability of the CPU when you show a GPU-limited data point.