Upgraded to Q6600 and bioshock is totally different

[azrael1]

Brought from Scan the other day a Q6600 Go.

Hi all i was running bioshock before on a Core duo 6400 overclocked to 3.6 gig at 1920 x 1200 and it ran okish, sluggish i felt. I upgraded to a q6600 * also overclocked to 3.4 gigish in preparation for world in conflict and crysis and hl2 ep2.

All i can say is WOW, bioshock runs sooo fast now and totally smooth its like a difference beween a mini and a porshe.

I had no idea that Quad made such a difference, I look forward to to games that use multi cores.

[Fraz]

I'm surprised. I'd have thought that Bioshock would be entirely graphics card limited. Also, I'd have thought it'd be practically insane for any games company to release a game that required better than a overclocked C2D to run right. Isn't screen resolution moderately decoupled from CPU demands?

What graphics card do you have, as a matter of interest?

[aidanjt]

Works with my E6320 & 8800GTS just fine. All at stock mind you.

[azrael1]

im using a 8800 gtx but i have all the graphics setting on high......at 1920 x 1200

[aidanjt]

Well my resolution is 'only' 1280x1024, but all my settings are maxed out as well.

[lanceuppercut]

ahh the placebo effect of getting a q6600. taken from the 2k forums about quad cores/bioshock, minimal increase is the word there.

http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9172

[azrael1]

ummm, sure the games only appear to be alot faster and no longer sluggish....

well up to you what you believe but im a hardcore gamer and believe me when i say ive noticed a huge difference.

[azrael1]

ahh the placebo effect of getting a q6600. taken from the 2k forums about quad cores/bioshock, minimal increase is the word there.

http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9172

Gotta love ppl who dont research games and the unreal engine 3 properly....

http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?o...tid=279&page=3



and thats a review of the unoptimised vegas 6 with quad core....

[EarlGrey]

Minimal benefit doesn't mean no benefit...

What you perceive as smooth is probably governed by your minimum frame rates, not the average. So if the quad core is alleviating the situations where the fps drops heavily, it will appear more smooth and be much more enjoyable to play. When you look at the average frame rate however you might have got just a 1 or 2 fps increase.

Ignore the naysayers, quad core is the way forward!

[Phillikon]

I have a E6600 duo and a nVidia 8800gtx OC
all stock, runs like a dream.

[Fresco]

I'm still running a old cpu (AMD 3500+) with 1Gb of Ram, but have upgraded to an 8800GTS. Bioshock runs smooth on highest settings, but anything I try to run on my pc thats cpu dependent causes me some problems.

[Fabula]

Running on 3800X2, 1950xt and 2gig corsair. Only dx9, but everything on high. Runs very smoothly, although the res is only 1280x1024.

[Pie_uk]

i have an e4300 and have had an e6600 and cant tell the difference tbh. i clocked my e4300 to 2.8ghz hehe.

i have the ati x1950xtx 512mb / 2gb memory and it runs world in conflict really nicely at 1600x1050 and bf2 etc. just going to wait and see what next year has in stall for us. would be silly to upgrade my card

[moogle]

Well my resolution is 'only' 1280x1024, but all my settings are maxed out as well.

running a 7900gtx and amd 4600 and it runs fine on high settings at same res. i was getting about 50fps though still its not bad.

[Lucio]

Of course, we could be overlooking the obvious here and the OP could have simply had a program or two running in the background that was completely trashing his performace. By switching to a Quad Core, he could have let those extra programs run on their own cores thus vastly boosting his performace