Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UT3 Recommends Core Extreme..

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    The game runs a lot better on a quad-core versus a dual-core--smoother, and at much higher resolutions. Having said that, you don't need a quad-core extreme, as any ol' Intel quad (like my $250 Q6600 G0) will OC to 3 GHz+ easy.

    Comment


      #17
      They don't recommend a QX, they advertise it

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by Metal_Militia View Post
        The game runs a lot better on a quad-core versus a dual-core--smoother, and at much higher resolutions. Having said that, you don't need a quad-core extreme, as any ol' Intel quad (like my $250 Q6600 G0) will OC to 3 GHz+ easy.
        that's false. you can overclock a dual core to and the higher clock speeds will win. try a q6600 at 3ghz against an e8400 at 4ghz.

        Comment


          #19
          Yet again DUO core weather amd or intel are awesome

          Comment


            #20
            I see no reason to upgrade right now from my core 2 duo and 4 gigs of ram with 8800 GTS 640 mb..

            Comment


              #21
              they recommend a 2.4GHZ dual last time i checked

              Comment


                #22
                UT3 doesn't even have Quad core support, so why they 'recommend' it is a mystery to me.

                Comment


                  #23
                  The C2QE has much higher cache than the C2D which is why the top C2QE will be the best performers in their current range of CPU's i.e. QX9770 > E8500.

                  It's been a while since I've played UT3 on PC but I think that spinning Intel logo during startup says Core 2 Extreme recommended or something to that effect.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by j0j081 View Post
                    that's false. you can overclock a dual core to and the higher clock speeds will win. try a q6600 at 3ghz against an e8400 at 4ghz.
                    That is just retarded. Why would I compare a Q6600 G0 @ 3 GHz, when it runs @ 3.6 GHz+ 24/7 (as most can, in the hands of a skilled OC'er)? Try a Q9650 @ 4.2 GHz vs an E8500 @ 4.2 GHz and let me know which one wins. Remember, we're not talking price-to-performance here, just raw performance. If you wanna go that way, the more appropriate comparison for your argument would be a Q9450 @ 3.8 GHz vs an E8500 @ 4.2 GHz--at least the compared chips would be in the same tech generation. Then again, a Q6600 G0 is only $189 now. . . .

                    Comment


                      #25
                      I run at 1680*1050 everything on max and have no problems
                      Using a lowly E4400 (£70)
                      When @ stock speeds of 2.0GHz - all is great
                      When @ slight OClock of 2.5GHz - a few more fps (and lots of background progs run too)
                      When @ high OClock of 3.0GHz - not any difference, except have to have the fans on faster.

                      So for me I just have this cheep cpu and run it at 2.5 and am well happy.
                      Do intend to upgrade but it's not been worth it so far... despite the E8's

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X