[QUOTE="beatzfreak69"][QUOTE="hockeyruler12"]

[QUOTE="stereointegrity"][QUOTE="pminooei"]isn't intel building a 16 core CPU lol? i guess intel is first palce agianDreams-Visions

AMD is still a step behind Intel, those AMD Phenom Quad core CPU's are JUNK

AMD have the only true quad cores. Intel's are basically two dual cores glued together. :o

Doesn't matter. The reality is that AMD gave intel a good run in the early 2000's, but no longer. Intel re-established itself with Centrino, then Core Duo and never looked back.

AMD is barely hanging on again.

I know, and that's only relevant in that this thread is about the number of cores. :P

I do like though that the 9850 is actually pretty much on par with the q6600.

[QUOTE="stereointegrity"][QUOTE="pminooei"]isn't intel building a 16 core CPU lol? i guess intel is first palce agianhockeyruler12

AMD is still a step behind Intel, those AMD Phenom Quad core CPU's are JUNK

AMD have the only true quad cores. Intel's are basically two dual cores glued together. :o

[quote="Blitz"]

Another thing, DDR3 has much higher latencies than DDR2... ;)

VoodooGamer

It depends on how high it's clocked and what architecture your RAM is built off of. Right now the Patriot DDR3 is pretty good.

Let me know when DDR3 with a 3 latency comes out...

[quote="Blitz"]

The ram being unified does not make it harder for the gpu to use it, hence being unified.

VoodooGamer

I never said it made it harder. I said the RAM was split between the CPU and GPU. When the GPU needs more it will take some from the CPU, so it bottlenecks and vice versa. It's not a pro.

I never said DDR3 was faster, but 2gigs of it won't be 8gigs of DDR2.

Blitz

That part was an exaggeration to show that DDR3 is tons faster than DDR2 because it can be clocked much higher and has a higher native core clock.

And the practice what you preach line was in tresponse to your ignorance quote, but i guess you couldn't figure that out...;)

Blitz

Well you guessed wrong titz. You guessed wrong. ;)

When the PS3 takes ram from the CPU it doesn't bottleneck it? That's amazing! I know it was an exaggeration, but you used it not me. *shrugs* Obviously i guessed right...ignorance is bliss after all.

[QUOTE="VoodooGamer"][QUOTE="Someguy"]

How is having unified memory a bad thing, except that it can be allocated anyway the developer wants without penalites? Wait that's a positive.

VoodooGamer

That's the way ALL RAM works. Theres no limitation to how RAM can be used. However, Unified RAM(Shared memory) is split between the CPU and the GPU and if the CPU needs MORE RAM, it bottlenecks the GPU. Causes lag, hang-up, freezes, ect. Mass Effect and Gears of War are good examples of what happens when there isn't enough.

Link to 2gigs of DDR3 being better than 8gigs of DDR2?

OP

Unless you don't know, DDR3 is faster than DDR2. Speed affects how much information can be cached and released per interval whereas quantity affects how much can be cached. Evidentally, they're both just as important to each other but more speed equals greater performance.

Maybe you should practice what you preach...

OP

You can't practice RAM so I suggest you find a phrase that isn't arbritrary. ;)

Another thing, DDR3 has much higher latencies than DDR2... ;)

[QUOTE="samiup"]

[QUOTE="yellowandmushy"]Well, the PC version has insane requirements because Ubi sucks at optimizing, but if you can run it, I would get that version.Kevin-V

i dont think se, here are benchmarks, it does not look insane to me, it is a very regular game when it comes to sys requirements,

LINK:

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,637474/Test/Benchmark/Assassins_Creed_im_PCGH-Test_DX10_schneller_als_DX9_-_aber_nur_mit_minimalen_Details/&page=2

its in german but the figures are clear...

Assassin's Creed is the first game to require a dual core processor; its CPU requirements are noticeably higher than those of Crysis (for example, Crysis's minimum dual core chip runs at 2.0 GHz; for AC, it is 2.6 GHz), and for ATI card owners, its requirements are more stringent than those of Crysis (AC doesn't support the X800 series; Crysis does).

I think those are stringent requirements in any reasonable person's book, particularly for a console-to-pc port.

That's odd, I can play assassin's creed on max no problem, but can only get to medium-high on crysis....

[QUOTE="samiup"]

[QUOTE="yellowandmushy"]Well, the PC version has insane requirements because Ubi sucks at optimizing, but if you can run it, I would get that version.Kevin-V

i dont think se, here are benchmarks, it does not look insane to me, it is a very regular game when it comes to sys requirements,

LINK:

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,637474/Test/Benchmark/Assassins_Creed_im_PCGH-Test_DX10_schneller_als_DX9_-_aber_nur_mit_minimalen_Details/&page=2

its in german but the figures are clear...

That's odd, I can play assassin's creed on max no problem, but can only get to medium-high on crysis....

Assassin's Creed is the first game to require a dual core processor; its CPU requirements are noticeably higher than those of Crysis (for example, Crysis's minimum dual core chip runs at 2.0 GHz; for AC, it is 2.6 GHz), and for ATI card owners, its requirements are more stringent than those of Crysis (AC doesn't support the X800 series; Crysis does).

I think those are stringent requirements in any reasonable person's book, particularly for a console-to-pc port.

[QUOTE="VoodooGamer"][QUOTE="Someguy"]

How is having unified memory a bad thing, except that it can be allocated anyway the developer wants without penalites? Wait that's a positive.

VoodooGamer

That's the way ALL RAM works. Theres no limitation to how RAM can be used. However, Unified RAM(Shared memory) is split between the CPU and the GPU and if the CPU needs MORE RAM, it bottlenecks the GPU. Causes lag, hang-up, freezes, ect. Mass Effect and Gears of War are good examples of what happens when there isn't enough.

Link to 2gigs of DDR3 being better than 8gigs of DDR2?

OP

Unless you don't know, DDR3 is faster than DDR2. Speed affects how much information can be cached and released per interval whereas quantity affects how much can be cached. Evidentally, they're both just as important to each other but more speed equals greater performance.

Maybe you should practice what you preach...

OP

You can't practice RAM so I suggest you find a phrase that isn't arbritrary. ;)

The ram being unified does not make it harder for the gpu to use it, hence being unified. I never said DDR3 was faster, but 2gigs of it won't be 8gigs of DDR2. And the practice what you preach line was in tresponse to your ignorance quote, but i guess you couldn't figure that out...;)

[QUOTE="Floppy_Jim"]

The PS3 has the same amount of RAM, it just isn't unified. But apparently it's a lot faster than the 360's RAM. It does indeed have an inferior GPU, but the Cell chip somehow works with the GPU to produce better graphics than the 360, eg Uncharted, GT5 etc..

I have a fairly basic understanding of all this, but I think that's all correct.

VoodooGamer

Unified memory=crap. Ok maybe that was a bit harsh but the 360 shares it's RAM with the GPU and CPU which is a huge limitation for games.

As for the PS3 having faster RAM, speed has little to do with its performance, its all about quanity, and the 360 is able to allocate the RAM where its needed much better.

Topic Post

Um, speed is performance. Also, speed is a ALOT more important than quantity. You can have 8 gigs of DDR2 RAM but it won't stand a chance against 2g of DD3.

I think you should learn a bit more about technology before making yourself look like an ignorant fool.

How is having unified memory a bad thing, except that it can be allocated anyway the developer wants without penalites? Wait that's a positive. Link to 2gigs of DDR3 being better than 8gigs of DDR2?

Maybe you should practice what you preach...