Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Orange Wizard]

Back with 40d an overclocked single-core P4 was running DF better than dual and quad cores within a couple years of 40d's release.

That doesn't sound right at all.

Random i7, single thread performance rating of 1987 (at 3.0 GHz), and Pentium 4, performance rating of 184 (4.o GHz), which at a glance makes the i7 ten times better.
Admittedly this is just armchair science and I can't be bothered going in to too much depth, but really there's not much to be mistaken about here. People put too much importance on clockrate without realising there's a lot more to CPU architecture.

I've no idea where BigD got that from but there's no way that's right.

[Putnam]

Yeah, Pentium 4 was absolute shit for DF.

Also, 40d didn't have that much better performance than 0.42, it was sorta bad IIRC.

[BigD145]

Back with 40d an overclocked single-core P4 was running DF better than dual and quad cores within a couple years of 40d's release.

That doesn't sound right at all.

Random i7, single thread performance rating of 1987 (at 3.0 GHz), and Pentium 4, performance rating of 184 (4.o GHz), which at a glance makes the i7 ten times better.
Admittedly this is just armchair science and I can't be bothered going in to too much depth, but really there's not much to be mistaken about here. People put too much importance on clockrate without realising there's a lot more to CPU architecture.

I've no idea where BigD got that from but there's no way that's right.

I'm talking about 6-8 years ago, not 2 years ago. The entire "Core" line was barely out with 40d.

[Orange Wizard]

Oh, right. Yeah, dual/quad cores around then wouldn't have been much better than a P4.