Okedokey
Well-Known Member
Your calling me a fanboy? I prefer fanman lol, anyway......there is little chance that bulldozer will beat sandybridge, but i'm still rooting for them to beat it.
What games are programmed for more than 2 cores? There are some of course, but not many. If its not the CPU then what is it Jonny? So im a fan boy hey? Well on one thread i show how the i3 is better than the 1100t, and everyone says, "only in games" now you are saying the opposite? What is it? To the OP, you could test your system with Crysis and see if you get a performance boost due to the extra cores, but that really doesn't get you anywhere. 40fps btw isnt that bad, but clearly no where near what a 6950 should be getting at that resolution.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/12/07/amd-phenom-ii-x6-1100t-review/8Gaming also proved to be a disappointment for the 1100T BE - its minimum frame rate of 22fps in Crysis put it near the bottom of our performance table despite having six cores running at 3.3GHz. We saw impressive improvements after our overclocking efforts, though, with the minimum frame rate in Crysis jumping from a jerky 22fps to a smooth 30fps. Again, even this improvement wasn’t enough for the 1100T BEto catch the competing Intel CPUs when they were overclocked.
The point here is,
Its not lack of ram
Its not lack of gpu power
Its not lack of PSU power
The chipset drivers have been updated?
What else is there? The logical deduction is that the CPU is being bottlenecked on 1 or 2 core programmed games thereby limiting the bandwidth of processing power. Even in multithreaded games, the efficiency of this cpu is not great (clock for clock). Even on crysis (which is multithreaded) many quads and slower cpus beat it. Secondly, the old i5 750 (which is faster than the 1100t in games) is beaten by the i3 2100. http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/...core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/20
Last edited: