Don't think turbo would be relevant here though.
Battlefield 3 announced
- Thread starter Dresden
- Start date
Don't think turbo would be relevant here though.
Probably a small factor, true, but it helps with amdahl portions of workloads
Probably a small factor, true, but it helps with amdahl portions of workloads
I didn't think the turbo mode was that nimble (i.e. I thought it took some ms to change multipliers), but searched around and apparently it is indeed.
Yeah I think the cache is playing a big part in this. The i3 does have the smallest amount of cache of all the dual core chips. It seems as though multiple threads won't help much if you don't have enough cache (hence why the e8400 and X2 550 are faster than the i3.
Interesting that the Athlon 2 X4 still outperforms the i3 though given it has less cache overall and an equal number of threads. Perhaps it's the case that the threads themselves use too much of the chips resources for 2 to run on a single core at once without issues. Hence the i3's being hurt doubly by it's lack of cores and it's lack of cache.
Note too that they have been saying get a quad core all along. That's hardly a budget stretch these days and I imagine a lot of people will be upgrading for BF3
Yeah I'd rather see the extra power of quads being used at the expense of dual core performance than those extra cores going wasted. Still seems like a risky decision from a business point of view though. I don't see that this would have happened if it wasn't for the necessity of moving this work to the CPU's in the consoles. As a side note I wonder how similar the workload is on the console CPU's and how well they cope given their limited cache. PC performance on a Tri-core would be interesting to see.
More or less risky than requiring DX10?
I dunno, hard to say without knowing the workloads. They're already keeping the GPU pretty busy with compute for shading anyways. And don't be fooled - there are still lots of algorithms that are unsuitable for GPUs. You want to keep running stuff where it's the most efficient and sometimes there are more efficient but more complex algorithms that are simply not suitable for current GPU architectures.
Yeah those numbers are more in line with my understanding of the sales.
More or less risky than requiring DX10?
Good point, once you take into account the requirement for both DX10 hardware and DX10 capable OS, then balance that off against the fact that dual core games can play the game, it just won't be very fast, then the two probably balance out.
BF3 just seems to generally be a forward looking game - which is definately a good thing. I guess I'd just be a bit miffed if I had a 3Ghz i3 (likely including Sandybridge based i3's) that couldn't cope with it. In theory they are seriously fast chips sporting 4 threads so it seems like a bit of a waste of potential.
Nevertheless, the sooner all gaming PC's go quad core the better. I'm certainly glad I upgraded from by C2D E6600 now!
Judging from most of the videos I've seen from people playing the alpha, reality is going to hit a lot of newcomers to the series like a ton of bricks. I've seen BOATLOADS of individuals whoring rockets against infantry and ignoring objectives, rather thinking the game is a deathmatch and stacking kills. I guess it's the price a seasoned BF franchise veteran pays when the latest addition has the graphics 3 is boasting. Little do they know, one of the beautiful things about the BF series is you could potentially be the most valuable asset to a team without even killing a single enemy, rather emphasizing the importance of whatever class you're playing's abilities, or focusing on objectives.
I think I'll stick to hardcore servers like I did with BC2. Albeit, that's not exactly an answer to my woes, those game modes did have a tendency to filter a lot of the aforementioned riff raff on normal servers.
I think I'll stick to hardcore servers like I did with BC2. Albeit, that's not exactly an answer to my woes, those game modes did have a tendency to filter a lot of the aforementioned riff raff on normal servers.
Svensk Viking
Regular
Is there something going on in DX10.1 that's absent from DX10? I just find it odd that Nvidia's weaker GPUs perform so darn close to AMD's better ones(GTS 250 vs HD4870, GTX 260 vs HD4890), and some of them even beating them(GTX 260 beating HD4870, and GTX 260 216 cores beating HD4890)
I'm definitely glad I got a quad core though
I'm definitely glad I got a quad core though
Wot? You mean my k/d ratio doesn't define me as a human being?
I agree wholeheartedly with that statement. It is one of those things that kind of made me stop playing my favorite servers and maps in the original BF and then BF2 because people were all about just kills and nothing else. I always tried to keep a balance but kept the team objectives in mind. It did not matter to most people that the team lost as long as they had the highest # of kills.
Was it not the other way around with Assassin's Creed or something when they released the DX 10.1 patch for it? ATI was being more performant than Nvidia IIRC. I am glad I have a quad core too...scratch that a hexacore cpu!
In Wolf: ET which is even more objective-driven than BF2, on some servers you would be voted off if you completed an objective. That plus a few other problems drove me away from the game.
Unfortunately, that's the mindset of most FPS players. Whenever I mention a good BC2 match to my friends, the first thing out of their mouths is generally "what was your K/D ratio?"
Really? I destroyed every MCOM station and my medical prowess is sometimes confused for miracles. Literally. I shoot stimpacks from my fingertips and make it rain morphine.
suryad said:
Throughout the years, the playerbase of the BF franchise has changed significantly, and we all know why. Each title boasts bigger graphics, better gameplay and so on. So a lot of people have migrated from other titles to the franchise, and having played since 1942, I've seen almost every kind of player. My prayers will be answered if BF3 is anyone near BF2, in terms of ability/skill level of other players.
More or less risky than requiring DX10?
Definitely more risky than requiring DX10. DX9 hasn't been relevant for a while now, but plenty of gamers still have dual core CPUs. They are still being sold today even (though you'd be crazy as a gamer to buy one).
But I have a feeling the release version will run better on dual core CPUs than the alpha. Dual core being 1/6 the speed of a quad doesn't make sense.
On a side note I'd like to see Valve release more data from the survey. Specifically I'd like to know how many systems there are out there with hardware capable to run BF3, but still stuck on WinXP. I'd guess (and so does DICE apparently) that group is beyond irrelevant by now.
If you're worried about lack of teamwork, just play with RobertR1. He'll bust your balls for not working as a team to attack the objective. LOL!
I believe he and I are going to join you PC boys for BF3, so there's two more team players in the mix.
All this dual core performance whining is funny coming from people who routinely tout PC hardware superiority. Upgrade already! LOL!
On a serious note, is it worth it to get a 6-core CPU versus a quad-core? I have to get a new PC anyway, so I can go either way.
I believe he and I are going to join you PC boys for BF3, so there's two more team players in the mix.
All this dual core performance whining is funny coming from people who routinely tout PC hardware superiority. Upgrade already! LOL!
On a serious note, is it worth it to get a 6-core CPU versus a quad-core? I have to get a new PC anyway, so I can go either way.
If you don't pipe down, I may plug in my wired 360 controller into my PC and own you.
It's not so much the fact that it runs poorly on dual cores, that's good if it means the game is pushing the power of high end PC's. What's strange though is the HUGE difference between the dual and quad cores which can't be accounted for by core count alone.
Cache size could play a candidate as well as multiple threads on a single core causing contention with each other. I'd definately like to see more results around this to confirm though.
It would also be interesting to see if the workload on PC low settings is higher than the console versions since Xenon can't come close to the overall power of an i3 530 and yet that's unable to achieve playable framerates on the PC.
The extra cores certainly make a difference to the Phenom 2. But then a quad Nehalem based i5 is already faster so a Sandybridge i5/i7 would blow it away. The big question though is will a 6 core Nehalem beat a 4 core Sandybridge (not that it would be worth the extra cost anyway unless you're rich!)
