Cheat Engine

Zarr · Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:48 pm Post subject:

Well, quad cores aren't necessarily worse than dual cores in terms of gaming. If you had a quad core running at 3GHz and a dual core running at 3GHz, you wouldn't see much of a difference at all. Which core is better for gaming is all about how much balls you have to overclock your processor.

Besides, when more games can support 4+ cores, you'll be sorry you hadn't bought a quad over a duo.

Tofu · Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:49 am Post subject:

Psy · Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 2:07 am Post subject:

Dude get a life, stop wasting time believing your own press hey?!

The guy wanted info on what would be a better choice, why don't you go play outside with your friends after school....

Zarr, thats getting more and more true, with more apps supporting the features offered by the more recent CPU's.

Tofu · Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 2:55 am Post subject:

hcavolsdsadgadsg · Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:20 am Post subject:

The AMD64's got the majority of their speed from the fact that the memory controller was on the cpu die.

HyperTransfer or not, you're going to end up going through a bridge along the line either way.

Psy · Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:45 am Post subject:

Thankyou slovach Wink

And adding on to that, this is why certain/most intel boards could take both DDR & DDR2 RAM because it was down to the board makers to add the support. Whereas AMD with their AM2 CPU's had the memory controller on them, which is why you are limited to DDR2 only. Not a problem really just another thing Wink

Missi0n · Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:11 pm Post subject:

my duel core intel comp is running at 20 degrees Celsius.

Cool

skam8 · Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:23 pm Post subject:

This might seem stupid(very stupid) but if dual cores are better for the now, but quad is the future, can I disable 2 core to get a dual or I would just en up with a crappy dualcore?

superweapons · Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:25 pm Post subject:

Not a good idea to disable cores. I think you'll just lose some "horsepower". Dual cores only have a >5 FPS advantage, but that might be just what's needed to separate playable from unplayable. It's mostly because of things like FSB, cache size (just pointing out; Q6600 has 8MB, more than most dual cores - I think), die size (nanometers), and SSE command lengths. But you can easily make it up by an overclock (Q6600 can hit 3.0GHz on stock voltage).

Nehalem (32nm) should have an integrated memory controller, from the technical images I've seen. That means no Front Side Bus.

skam8 · Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 6:21 pm Post subject:

hcavolsdsadgadsg · Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 10:40 pm Post subject:

superweapons · Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 6:56 am Post subject:

I meant in games that only support two cores. If you are doing video editing, and multi threading is supported, then you'll see a big increase in performance because of the extra cores that are supported/used.

hcavolsdsadgadsg · Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 4:34 pm Post subject:

Sure, you can have gains like that in games. There almost was a flat out doubling of FPS in most cases when the Doom3 engine got support for it.

Also, I'd like to introduce you to ray tracing, which may or may not be the future of games.

Tofu · Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:52 am Post subject:

Zarr · Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:42 am Post subject: