System Faults Didn't Stop THQ From Bringing Metro: Last Light To Wii U

[zarx]

miz1q2w3e said:

zarx said:

Nem said:

coolguy said:
For a console that has a 1.25 herz chip.it runs mass effect just as good as the 360 and alittle better then the ps3 when it comes to frames per second.
I saw the video..i will get this game for the wiiu

The thing is people dont understand a basic premise.

If we ask them what is better an i3 at 3GHz or an i7 at 1.5Ghz, they will probably say the first one is better. Ignorance at its best.

I wonder how fast the processor in the dreamcast was. If it was more than 1.3Ghz, the dreamcast is more powerful than the Wii U! And thus the world goes round... and dumber.

actually most people would be right in that case http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/47?vs=677&i=505.506

I don't have to tell you why that's wrong, but ok.

you do realise that the i7 in the comparison is just 640MHz slower than the i3 rather than the 1.5Ghz slower of your example right? Even with the non gaming tasks none are double the performance of the i3 with a much smaller gap in clock rate than your example...

So given double the clock rate an i3 would win against a i7, because the performance scaling over multiple cores is nowhere near as good as the scaling with clock rate. Also balancing workloads perfectly across multiple cores is basicaly impossible for most CPU workloads. 

For example http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/47?vs=677&i=38.39 and that is with a workload that scales very well across multiple cores. As you can see the i7 even with twice the number of cores, much larger cache and hyperthreading is nowhere near double the performance of the i3, even with a just 20% lower clock that the i3. 

Yes core count and architecture is extreamly important for CPU performance and a lower clocked CPU can beat a higher clocked one, but your example is still flawed.