Listen here. I have a problem with many people portraying the Phenom II lineup, including the Thubans, as being (my own quote) 'inadequate' for gaming. This is just a silly, false, and misguided fallacy.
There is reason to show that some games don't use more than two cores - everyone gets that.
There is reason to show that some games are CPU bound - everyone gets that.
There is also reason to show that some games are GPU bound - and everyone gets that.
What I don't get is running up charts and benchmarks that don't effectively portray the whole picture surrounding a game. Did the reviewer overclock anything? What about the CPU/NB if it was an Phenom II? What about real-world usage instead of benchmarks? Did they overclock via a BE multiplier or did they use HTT, or a combination of both? Are the systems completely
identical beyond differences in hardware?
My point is - I've played SC2, BFBC2, COD4, Oblivion, Just Cause 2, Batman AA, Crysis, Crysis Warhead, Crysis 2, BF3, MoH (2010), Brink, Defense Grid, AC, ACII, Metro 2033, Battleforge, LoL, Dota, SC:C and hosts more of other 'relevant' games that everyone
plays and never once has my Phenom II X3, X4, or X6 disappointed in performance. Of course all of the chips were pushed to their highest clocks and yet I still don't find my numbers matching what other people find in comparison to benchmarks. But even beyond my personal experiences there are several factors that come into play:* Player expectations
* Game performance expectations
* Actual performance
* Frame rate often dependent upon game
* Fluidity of motion to the individual playing
* Stability of an overclocked system
* Margins of error
On top of that you claim that "Thubans are pretty bad overall for gaming" when it simply isn't true. Now let's head to the beast in the room. Sure, Intel has been shown t outperform AMD in several games with different chips. In fact some of the Core2 chips scored better than some of the Thubans in some testing scenarios! Wow, so that Thuban must be a horrible horrible chip to contemplate getting because it failed some synthetic benchmarks, right
? Not so - everyone knows first and second gen i-Series processors have been out and around for some time, as have the Thubans, and everyone knows they are definitely superior. It doesn't make the Thubans trash for gaming.
But in reality - the person that bought the Thuban might not have wanted to switch full setups - perhaps they had an Athlon X2 or X3. Or a Phenom II 710. Perhaps it was a drop-in replacement instead of a complete platform upgrade. Sometimes that just makes sense. And they do perform. They're perfectly fine for gaming, multitasking, daily use, and otherwise
I mean here, if you want it
- here it is:
And here we go - lets really look at this:
So in conclusion, please advise me how an Thuban is 'pretty bad overall for gaming', when evidence would completely suggest otherwise?
And I'll note - the minimums are righteously close between the FX, 1100T, and the 2500K with a dip at 10 FPS towards the 980, in the second part of your quote, where the settings are on 'Medium'. The minimums on the top part - when the settings are at 'Ultra' show exactly the same kind of relation, FX, 1100T, 2500K all roughly the same, with a 10 FPS dip towards the 980. 10 whole frames...
That make make a difference for sure if you're jumping from 20 frames for a minimum to 30, but come on now. That's a horrible excerpt to be quoting on behalf of what you state. You having upgraded to a 2500K to solve your problem was your choice and no one including myself, is arguing against that.
Just looking some more - it's even more relevant to note - with a 6990, the world's 'fastest' video card, there is a mere 12 frames of difference in minimum FPS between the 2600K and the 980. 12 frames. If that doesn't tell you the game is much more GPU bound than CPU bound, noting that the X6 from Intel in that test shows only a single frame higher minimum than the Intel top quad, I don't know what will. (Me from this thread