Originally Posted by almighty15
1. Clocking the FX to 5Ghz and leaving the 2500k at 4.6Ghz would not change anything so stop with the patheic excuses and reasons.
2. 6 years old? Who cares, some of the best games are the old ones, or are you trying to say that we can't use old games because they show the FX's weakness?
3. I know the latest engine is much better in regards to CPU usage but that doesn't take away the results above.
4. There's loads of popular games that show similar results to what I've shown above but let me guess, they're more then a year old now and don't count right?
1. Technically, yes it would change the results though not enough to change to final outcome.
2. I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that you already knew the Intel CPU was going to win on a game that old. None of the older games know how to properly use 8 cores.
3. So what do your results prove? That an old game that came out before 8 core desktop CPUs were commercially available doesn't know what to do with 8 cores? Or just that Intel is great for single threaded applications? We already know that.
4. Refer to my response to point 2. Many of the newest games would also yield the same results, however, more and more games are starting to be programmed to make use of as many cores as a processor has available as opposed to using only 2 or 4 cores.
I'm not really sure why you made this thread. Was it just to gloat about Intel being better at running an old single threaded game? Everything you've shown here with your results is well known information.Edited by Tman5293 - 7/21/13 at 11:57am