By: Mark Roulo (nothanks.delete@this.xxx.com), May 14, 2013 5:37 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
RichardC (tich.delete@this.pobox.com) on May 14, 2013 12:09 pm wrote:
> Ricardo B (ricardo.b.delete@this.xxxxx.xx) on May 14, 2013 11:18 am wrote:
> > Actually, this question should be different.
> > If you're going to use FPS as the benchmark for games, does high end CPU
> > performance even matter or should you just go and get a faster GPU?
>
> The benchmarks I saw showed that 4C/4T vs 4C/8T at 3.8GHz was
> pretty equal; but 4C/4T 4.0GHz was significantly faster than 4C/4T 3.8GHz.
> That's quite strong evidence that cpu performance does make a difference,
> but that hyperthreading is not particularly helpful for current game engines.
Can you provide a link? Naively, I would expect a ~5% increase in clock speed to result in a ~5% increase in measured performance (frames per second, whatever). Maybe a bit less. And I wouldn't describe a 5% increase in performance as "significantly faster." It would be useful to see the actual numbers.
> Ricardo B (ricardo.b.delete@this.xxxxx.xx) on May 14, 2013 11:18 am wrote:
> > Actually, this question should be different.
> > If you're going to use FPS as the benchmark for games, does high end CPU
> > performance even matter or should you just go and get a faster GPU?
>
> The benchmarks I saw showed that 4C/4T vs 4C/8T at 3.8GHz was
> pretty equal; but 4C/4T 4.0GHz was significantly faster than 4C/4T 3.8GHz.
> That's quite strong evidence that cpu performance does make a difference,
> but that hyperthreading is not particularly helpful for current game engines.
Can you provide a link? Naively, I would expect a ~5% increase in clock speed to result in a ~5% increase in measured performance (frames per second, whatever). Maybe a bit less. And I wouldn't describe a 5% increase in performance as "significantly faster." It would be useful to see the actual numbers.
