Hmm I don't think that would make much sense - if at least parts of the code are capable of running on more than 4 cores in parallel, they might as well use that capability. Clearly 6 cores won't give you 50% more performance than 4 cores, but in the end every bit is welcome. Whether it's worth paying for is another matter of course ;)

Oh man Buzz, I feel bad for you. You know the right thing, but you'll miss out on day 1 or 2 and however long it takes you to order. Crap. Unless someone from 1C comes around and enlightens us.

Well, the best I can say is that my good friend TX-Thunderbolt has an I7-920 for sure. I know he'll be up on day 1 and we've tested together before.

I know a guy over at ROF that has a Phenom II X6, and he's also tested with me. He was the guy that discovered ROF will only utilize 3 cores. I'll check and see if he's going to D/L CoD on day 1.

Actually, if a user observed the cores in the Performance Tab of Windows Task manager, while an application is under load, it should be enough to confirm load distribution - so it's not as if we'd have to benchmark for hours. Let me check with some friends over at ROF to confirm that the new Intel Hex cores have been observed with the same behavior.

When the new Hex's from both vendors first started to appear, several folks grabbed them over at ROF - only to find that their performance was the same as much lower priced quads. It was the dual-cores that had issues with ROF.

Anyway, hopefully Oleg will throw a line in this thread and you'll be good to go Buzz. Maybe they have a Hex in the shop, who knows. That Phenom II X6 (Black Edition) is about U.S. $200.00 and clocks to 4 Ghz easy. If however, like ROF the 4-5-6 cores don't add anything - well Quads are a lot cheaper.


Has anyone here ever observed core utilization in DCS:A10 or DCS:BS?

S!

Gunny

Thats funny your weak amd X6 is faster than your 2500K in this benchmark, and the regular phenom II is beating the I5 hum what was it you said above??

The AMD is 6 cores and more expensive than the 2500K and yet barely beats it. So yes i would also say AMD is way behind at present.

As for the phenom (a buck or two cheaper than 2500K) vs i5, does any sane person even consider buying i5 today (not Sandy Bridge)?


Dont get me wrong, the same aplies to the i5 and i7`s also, SB beats them all on performance vs prize. Anyone even considering buying a i7 970/975 (twize the prize)instead of a 2500K/2600K should have their heads examined.

Bulldozer ...

"AMD FX-series central processing unit (CPUs) powered by the Bulldozer micro-architecture will be fully able to rival Core i7 2600-series chips."

It will be interesting to see what these chips will do.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...Bulldozer.html

We talking performance here and yes thanks for confirming that the amd x6 beats the 2500K as well as the other uber intel cpu's. Oh wait that means amd is uber too then..

Well, somewhere else here (don't remember which tread) Oleg stated that the CoD engine will have sound and resource loading on separate threads so 2-3 cores will be of use, no more. Kind of like the DCS A10 engine then... Not that unexpected even though some non-programmers will naturally whine.

In this test, yes. I still wouldn't buy it over a SB 2500K any more than i would buy a i7 970 over a 2500K. For the same reasons i wouldn't buy a 5970 over a 6970 or a 580


But thats just me. ;)

Nice post Gunslinger, do you think the win7 program..Windows Experience Index tells you anything concrete or is it more of a suggestion? I am 7.4,7.4,7.5,6.9 (and 5.9 HD )

dual core and a 512meg card...you should be at high setting's, i had a single core (2,4ghz) and a x1650 card with 256 and i was medium to high settings.