Originally Posted by Mutant
It is very important to have a good enough CPU but once you cross that threshold GPU is king.
|
That depends on the game, and in some cases, even how you play it. Skyrim doesn't have a significant multiplayer component or stuff blowing up ALL the time (like we would expect of PS2), it's built much more for eye-candy and pretty scenery, so it tends to be more taxing on the GPU than just about any other game.
WoW on the other hand, has pretty rudimentary graphics, not the least because it was originally released back in 2004. But it IS an MMO, which means the CPU has a lot more work to do tracking all the players' actions (which aren't scripted, so have to be done real-time), and is a lot more taxing on the CPU. You could have a GTX 690, but if you've got a Celeron, you're still going to be stuck at med-high settings and 40 FPS in a raid.
BF3 has both of those put together, which is why it requires such a high-end system to run it well.
We're expecting PS2 to be taking both of those issues out of proportion. The textures that they've showed us so far look
GORGEOUS. And because it's a game that is truly
massively multiplayer, you're going to have at least hundreds of people fighting within drawing distance. The high-level physics, ballistics, and logistical tracking HAVE to be done by the CPU, outright. AND the textures are incredibly high-detail, as is the geometry. So to play on ultra settings, you're going to need cutting edge of both GPU and CPU here. "Good enough" will not apply to PS2 like it does to WoW.
|
Bulldozer looks more favorable (though in general still behind intel) when you look at modern game engines designed to use all the cores. BF3 and DE:HR for example. I would hope PS2 can use more than 4 cores well.
|
Bulldozer isn't slow because it has too many cores, it's slow because its architecture is simply inefficient at getting data from point A to point B. If cores were everything, BD would have been better than SB-E. And is it?