Intel ships 4.4 Ghz Westmere dual-cores.

[saaya]

I've seen you claim a lot of stuff like that about gaming. Quads don't help, overclocking is unnecessary, etc. According to your posts you don't need anything more than an E5300 for an optimal gaming experience.

where did i say quads dont help and overclocking is unneccessary?

i guess you refer to my comments that depending on what resolutions you play at with what vga a 2.4ghz chip is all you need?

i said i havent seen any games that notably scale with more than 2 cores...
why do you have to twist my words around and then make it personal? whats your problem?

Even in GTA4? Starcraft2?

oh well, gta4 was a horrible console port...
i think it got a 40% fps boost going from 2 to 4 cores at the same clocks or something... but there was more to it, it stuttered and had weird issues with dualcore chips which didnt show up in benchmarks...

so yeah, true... for gta4 more than 2 cores definitely make sense...

starcraft2... dont know what you mean...
sc2 is very cpu bound but doesnt make good use of cores...
860 vs 750, almost no difference
c2d vs c2q, cores dont matter, its all about clocks

Sayaa isn't a big gamer. It's not the first time that he has made a comment about how a fast cpu, or more cores don't make a difference with gaming

sigh... yeah, faster cpus, memory, ssds, vgas ALWAYS scale... there are no bottlenecks... your right...

I'm not going to list the games that do benefit from a quad but its no small list anymore and it is growing. You don't have to look too far to find some benchmarks to see that either. Pcgameshardware even mentions like ten games the benefit from a hexcore.

i never said no games benefit from quads of hex cores...
maybe thats why your so pssed off... go read my posts and relax...

IIII havent seen any (added: interesting) games that IIIII think benefit from more than 2 cores enough to justify a quad or even hex over a dualcore...
you say im wrong, quoting me incorrectly, attack me personally, and then dont provide any info to back up your statements... bravo!

But on intel quads when only a single thread is being used, it gets a turbo boost right?

I remember seeing some benchmarks were dual to quad made a huge impact in some games, I'll have a browse now and see what I can find.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,7...CPUs/Practice/
lots of "up to" and "in some situations"...
im curious how they tested and what the actual numbers are like...

Saaya, some games definitely DO benefit from more than two cores. I found Flight Sim X and Bad Company 2 almost unplayable on a dual core without overclocking the crap out of it.

fsx makes sense, yeah...
bc2... didnt know that... guess its cause its a console port as well :/

just wondering why you think they should of not put out the 1ghz p3 copperton or what ever it was called.I had one and it blew away the first gen p4s

you were lucky then... the first couple of batches were not stable at 1ghz and above... there was a 1.13ghz p3 that intel canceled cause they just couldnt get them stable, and then they relaunched them later i think...

i had a P3 700E with 100fsb... just had to up the fsb to 133 which board and mem supported, and voila, 933
didnt need more volts... i loved my P3... but when athlon thunderbird came out with DDR and 1ghz stock speed overclocking to 1.7+ on air... damn... that was a different world... what a massive speed boost...

Don't forget the Tualatin based Pentium 3s after that, and the Celerons too. I think a 1.3GHz Celeron came pretty close to a 1.3GHz s423 P4

yeah i built a few tualatin celeron 1.3ghz rigs running 1.8 on air...
loved those... they were fsb limited, otherwise i think they would have gone insanely high on ln2 and phase change...