Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyD
I wouldn’t agree with this, purely because ‘game stations’ due not require bleeding-edge processors to function correctly, merely adequate ones. The cpu forms only one part of a good gaming rig, and should be balanced with the other components – if your desire is quad graphics, you’ll require an overclocked 990x to get the full benefit of the all those cards; for a single or even dual cards, a Phenom-II is way fast enough. My current system is a bit quicker than my son’s i5 2500k machine because my 6970 is a bit quicker than his 5870, although the difference is hardly noticeable. There are a few games that need fast processors, but these are the exception, and even then the difference is largely academic. Most modern games don’t even require a quad-core cpu to work correctly, although more are starting to take advantage of them. (hopefully CloD in the not too distant future  )
Edit: Having recently built a Llano –based system, I can confirm that you can game on one – hardly an ‘Entry-level budget desktop’. |
I understand what you're saying, a good CPU is definitely only one part of a good rig, and an Phenom II is fast enough for many games.
I was just making a simple CPU hierarchy chart in regrades of those
CPU's gaming performance, if I was talking about multitasking then the Phenom II x4/x6 would definitely have been higher up.
You are right when you said. "‘game stations’ due not require bleeding-edge processors to function correctly, merely adequate ones."
I guess I meant to say, that if you want to play CPU demanding games at the highest settings and resolution, you'll need an i5/i7.
A phenom II is definitely "adequate" to play most games at high settings, but I was talking about playing CPU demanding games (CloD?) at the highest settings ect.
I'm sorry I didn't make that part clear in my last post.
Edit. I Edited my other post to clarify what I meant to be talking about.