Re: Cpu does not have POPCNT! help

#dailycheck #removeSolved

---

@Sorenalike wrote:
everyone knows that CPU is not a GPU which jumps up to 200% performance speed up suddenly generation by generation... 

---

One generation of one brand did that. That is not average.

---

@Sorenalike wrote:

I am on intel side of the issue with q9650 4.3ghz OC .. i never had such issue in any game beside EA games ...

---

That particular desktop CPU is 43% slower for single core, 40% slower quad core, and is 70% slower in multi-core performance when compared to an average 2 year old mobile gaming CPU.

Ghz's aren't the only thing that matters. Otherwise a P4 would still be considered a good CPU to have.

Also, EA is just the publisher. You should probably learn the difference between them and the actual people who develop the game.

I like how you choose to read the parts that you prefer to ...
I am talking about the facts and you are talking about guesses and no it was not only one generation of the GPU (as i said UP TO 200%)... if you were right you could still play the same game on a 2008 GPU on high settings 60fps like you can on a quad core on a game like RE2 remake
This is my last response to you anyway since i don't like to deal with trolls anymore 🙂

@Sorenalike  

YOU are 100% correct. It's called Moores Law and cpu manufacturers have known this. The other law is the Law of Diminishing Return. Trolls apparently fail to understand that the real advancements in performance pretty much are from additional core/thread count. Even with higher core counts 4 cores is STILL the baseline for gaming.

The C2Q's were the beginning of the modern gaming era. With four cores particularly the Q9XXX series brought us extremely capable CPU's for years to come. Also, the later Intel 775 Chipsets introduced DDR3 to these motherboards resulting in a very capable system.

Lastly, the ONLY limiting factor for the C2Q was the FSB (Front Side Bus). The i series replaced the FSB which was a major improvement. However, besides that one area (FSB) the C2Q's easily play modern games with a good modern GPU.

Don't listen to trolls. Let the trolls know that any game they have can be thrown at my system with no problems.

MB: Asus P5Q
CPU: X3360 (same as Q9550)
GPU: GTX 1050ti
RAM: 8GB DDR 3
HD: SSD for OS
HD: 10000 RPM 1 TB Velociraptor for gaming

There is nothing it can't play on Med settings NO stutter and NO lag. Granted, it's not playing 4K on extreme settings but people like us dont care about that.

---

@Sorenalike wrote:

I am talking about the facts and you are talking about guesses and no it was not only one generation of the GPU (as i said UP TO 200%)... 

---

You mean like the fact that the C2Q you posted that you claim is more than enough is still slower than an average laptop CPU that isn't even that great?

I suppose the fact that the same C2Q is slower than a lower mid range mobile CPU from 6 years ago doesn't help either. I choose to respond to what I want, just like you choose to use a number that doesn't matter, and want to portray it as if it does. 

Yes, you chose to say 'up to 200%", but then you went with the averages on the CPUs... how convenient.  That'd be like comparing a base i7 from last gen to a i9 from the current. Oh, looky there, 200% gain. I guess from one generation to the next, CPUs too can be 'up to 200%' faster.

@Sorenalike   I'll end the debate here.  What Psyrecx is describing are benchmark % which are not based on real world applications.  I'll give you an example.  Lets take a Pentium Dual E2160 dual core based on the Core 2 Technology and compare it to the Pentium Extreme Edition 965 based on Netburst.  Here are specs and "scores" which Psyrecx likes to talk about.

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/721/Intel_Pentium_Dual-Core_E2160_vs_Intel_Pentium_Extreme_Edition_965.html

On the surface we would say these two CPU's are about the same and equally "terrible" in terms of scores.  However, the older NetBurst (Of which Psyrecx spoke about - P4 ) is able to play a game like Fortnite on 720p low settings where the newer architecture E2160 can't.  How do I know?  I have both cpu's and many computer builds which I test out and have tested out.  The reason the EE 965 plays it fine is because it has 4 threads where the E2160 only has 2.  The EE also has more L2 Cache. 

So what's my point?  My point is that benchmark % do not tell the story just like the example above.  Two cpu's with the same score means NOTHING.  Other factors including GHZ, Cache, IPC, number of threads, etc are not factored in these generic benches but have major real world importance on whether or not it can play games.

So if Psyrecx wants to address me I say lets do it.  I'll give him real world benchmarks in games showing the performance of the C2Qs on modern games and even compare it to the "i" series CPU's.

Again anyone that throws around "percentages" without any real world application or addressing IPC, Cache, GHZ, number of threads, and again "actual" video of real games being played on this architecture is just talking in the wind.

---

@NoSimpsAllowed wrote:

 I'll end the debate here. 

---

By making an assumption of what benchmarks I was referring to? Never used that page, so congrats on that fail.

It's funny when someone says something is 'not based on real world applications', when they don't even know what it's based on. 

I also find it hilarious that you keep mentioning threads in your 'real world application' spiel. Hmmm, how many threads do Core2s have again? Cores and threads are not the same thing. Perhaps you should learn the difference.

It's also not that hard to find videos showing the issues with the C2Qs and modern games. Heck a C2Q bottlenecked a 1050 with low settings on Fortnite. It ran, but caused massive framerate drops, sub 30s. 

Hmm, lets see, which is more CPU intensive... Apex or Fortnite... 

@Psyrecx  

Ok, you're about to get an education so sit back junior. I'll address your arguments one by one and show you that you should never try to debate someone with an education.

Point #1. I mentioned threads showing two different "dual core" cpu's. One has 2c/2t the other 2c/4t. My point is that games are multi threaded today and the addition of hyper threading has an impact today. I know the difference between physical and logical cores - Fail

Point #2. You stated, " By making an assumption of what benchmarks I was referring to? Never used that page, so congrats on that fail." At least I GAVE YOU A REFERENCE. You just spout off numbers with no evidence or any real world application. - Fail

Point #3. You stated, " It's also not that hard to find videos showing the issues with the C2Qs and modern games. Heck a C2Q bottlenecked a 1050 with low settings on Fortnite. It ran, but caused massive framerate drops, sub 30s. "

Here you go - Fail

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsDg403lFS8  - Epic settings

---

@NoSimpsAllowed wrote:

I'll address your arguments one by one and show you that you should never try to debate someone with an education.

---

When did I do that?

---

@NoSimpsAllowed wrote:

Point #1. I mentioned threads showing two different "dual core" cpu's. One has 2c/2t the other 2c/4t. My point is that games are multi threaded today and the addition of hyper threading has an impact today. I know the difference between physical and logical cores - Fail

---

You repeatedly mentioned how important threads are in defense of something that doesn't even have threads. Yes, it is a fail. 

---

@NoSimpsAllowed wrote:

At least I GAVE YOU A REFERENCE. You just spout off numbers with no evidence or any real world application. - Fail

---

You gave a reference based on your own assumption. It's called a straw man argument. A person with an education might know that.

---

@NoSimpsAllowed wrote:

Here you go - Fail

---

Here you go. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckoxVx-3Tko And that's even with a i7 several gens old.

Point #1.  You stated, "You repeatedly mentioned how important threads are in defense of something that doesn't even have threads. Yes, it is a fail."  My point was comparing cpu benchmarks is not an indication of whether the CPU can play a game or not.  The EE 965 does have HT , aka threads.  I compared two dual core CPU's with a similar benchmark score but with other factors which made the similar score irrelevant for gaming. - Fail

Point #2.  You stated, "you gave a reference based on your own assumption. It's called a straw man argument. A person with an education might know that."  Uh, no!  You gave percentages without any reference material.  That would be like writing a paper in school where the teacher needs 2 references for your writing assignment and you don't give any.  My point is at least I gave you a reference where you just make claims with no evidence. - Fail

Point #3.  You stated, "Here you go. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckoxVx-3Tko And that's even with a i7 several gens old."  Uh, that's a Q6600 he's using.  Who said anything about the "first" C2Q.  They don't even have SSE4 in the first place.  Everything I referenced was the Q9XXX series not the Q6XXX.  Again, I gave you evidence on youtube that the Q9XXX series play modern games fine - Fail

In that same video lets see what some of the commentors had to say.

You're losing the arguments bud.  I have no stutter with my Q9550. 

---

@NoSimpsAllowed wrote:

I compared two dual core CPU's with a similar benchmark score but with other factors which made the similar score irrelevant for gaming. - Fail

---

Thank you for confirming you made another strawman argument. Quite failed.

---

@NoSimpsAllowed wrote:

You gave percentages without any reference material.  That would be like writing a paper in school where the teacher needs 2 references for your writing assignment and you don't give any.  My point is at least I gave you a reference where you just make claims with no evidence. - Fail

---

Reference material wasn't needed to prove a point. Though, an ability to find the point might be needed in your case.

---

@NoSimpsAllowed wrote:

 Again, I gave you evidence on youtube that the Q9XXX series play modern games fine - Fail

---

Yes, it played a somewhat recent game at an extremely low resolution. Even then it had plenty of issues. Though, I'm sure you get used to the constant freezing. I guess that's what some consider 'fine'. What does the same GPU do on a recent i7? Does it show any sort of a bottleneck? Might it be a bottleneck of 200% or more?

Thank you for confirming what I said, congrats on that brilliance. 

I would really stop feeding the troll ... everyone knows who is right here..
its like saying DX12 is out ! so kill DX11 no game should run on it
.. its about compatibility not performance .. and it never was...
The game company that is making the game should know that... and EA is all being political about games .. and banning countries proves that... which should not be related to it..at all
its a filthy game.. and if its overrated devs decided to do so .. so be it.
Any sane person that does a little research will understand what is going on here ...
@NoSimpsAllowedyou can argue with this troll all day like .. i did the same thing but some ppl are just that way and you know it.. but hopefully seems like he now understands that its not performance issue..

@SorenalikeLOL!  The thing with trolls is they like to cause trouble for some odd enjoyment.  Initially I thought ok, I'll use logic and knowledge about computing but once you get a troll they just want to argue for the sake of arguing.  I think it has to be some attachment issue or insecurities.   

edit:weird now its back !

I have q9500 and its work s like a dream

@GgHAZeGg  Of course it does.  The best price per performance C2Q's out there are the Q9400 and Q9500.  Particularly the Q9400 seeing you can pick those up for under $15 U.S.  The Q9500, Q9550, X3360 can get pricey though.

---

@Sorenalike wrote:

edit:weird now its back !

---

Their forums were having issues for a short bit.