With age comes experience. Although I did refer people over to Haswell i3s over FX 6300 and FX 8xx0 builds as recently as August . . . but they were on budgets looking to spend under 600.
My last computer was a mid-high end PC I built for around $1200 that had a Quad Core in 2009.
That's over 5 years ago.
True, but a modern day Core i3 processor with just 2 processor cores should be able to mop the floor with that quad core processor from 2009.
It sounds like the developers should release a patch to get around this issue, as it's an artificial performance limitation.
After having spent the weekend emersed in FarCry4, I can attest that it is $60 well spent. I love open world games, and Far Cry 3 was amazing for me. So 'reskinned Far Cry 3' is a great thing, imho.
I would have easily paid $100 for it. Bargain bin game it is not, at least in my experience.
I havent owned a dualcore since forever. They were released in 2005, smartphones didnt even exist back then & if told someone we'd hace phones as powerful as computers back then they'd look at u like u were from mars. Technologically speaking it was a whole other era. Time to move.
so?
quad cores are from 2006,
and 2005 vs 2013/2014 dual core
http://anandtech.com/bench/product/93?vs=1256
I just wouldn't buy a dual core period, if I want to save a buck, I'd go with the AMD FM2+ A10 7850K or Athlon X4 (the 860K is the latest) with an R7 265 or R9 270 GPU.
I am a developer, and modern programs are written to use threads not cores. And even a single core CPU can support a program with dozens of threads. A modern OS schedules threads across the core(s) and gives them time slices to work in.
A dual-core running at 3.2 GHz can do the same work as a similar processor with 4 cores running at 1.6 GHz.
Listing a requirement of X cores at any speed instead of a certain amount of CPU power is lazy, and refusing to run on Y faster cores because "we needs more cores!" is worse.
This is just like the ridiculous 'core wars' on phones right now.
'OMFG, I have an octo-core phone! Dude! Your computer at home is just an i5 4C machine, my phone is 2x the speed!'
so?
quad cores are from 2006,
and 2005 vs 2013/2014 dual core
http://anandtech.com/bench/product/93?vs=1256
But always before, the i3 dual core matched if not beat the AMD four core. I don't think anyone cares if in a particular game the results reverse and AMD comes out on top; most of us like an underdog success story. The issue here is that it's an artificial constraint.At the end of the day, people are defending the recommendation of cheap CPU's for high end gaming.
It's a backwards proposition to begin with. If you want cheap, you buy AMD, and you get more than two cores. That's been the case for a few years. Multi-core gaming is finally going to catch on, thanks to the current console generation, and in spite of how FC4 implements it. There is no defense for this type of recommendation.
Same issue - nobody is insisting that we need dual cores, just objecting to them being knocked out just because they are dual core when a non-hyper-threaded, significantly slower quad core is acceptable.lol ok. U win. Thank u for coming on an enthusiast forum & supporting we need to have dual cores for gaming in 2014. Nevermind that my Samsung Note3 smartphone has an octacore CPU, we need dual cores for desktops to continue accommodating last decades hardware.
There's also the laptop issue -- only the Q version of the i7 is quad core. The lower end i7 and i5 CPUs are dual core.
I can fire off eleventy worker threads on a single-core CPU, so it's hard for me to buy that an engine or function needs to be hard-coded to use 4-5 cores instead of Y amount of total CPU power. 4-5 threads running interleaved on 1, 2 or 3 fast cores will finish the work just as fast as 4-5 threads in parallel on 4-5 slow cores.
But always before, the i3 dual core matched if not beat the AMD four core. I don't think anyone cares if in a particular game the results reverse and AMD comes out on top; most of us like an underdog success story. The issue here is that it's an artificial constraint.
This point doesn't really need to be stated. We've had threaded computing for decades before we had dual core processors. Multithreading is required if you want programs that appear to function correctly.Correction. MOST programs are compiled to use threads instead of physical cores. That is the lazy way, let the os handle it. Game developers are trying to squeeze out the cpu bottlenecks by programming in parallel. Your industry has more cpu power than it needs I bet.
void load_page(string[] urls) {
foreach (string url in urls) {
download_content(url);
display_content(url);
}
}