Originally Posted by Was_Ash_Emerald
Points taken, but I really hope 4 cores is used and ideal (if not required), and not 2 cores.
If PS2 will really have hundreds and hundreds of players running around blowing up shit in the same field of view, I'd think that 4 cores is what's going to make that run well.
PS1 used 1 processor and that was never enough. As more complexity was added (especially BFRs), the continent caps had to be continuous lowered. Somehow, using just 2 processors (cores) just doesn't sound like enough improvement. It's a sad reality that a Pentium 4 by itself is, after all this time, not that much slower than a single LGA 1155 I7 core.
I know there are other factors that are different than circa 2003, with far more powerful video cards and far larger memories being the obvious two.
I'm a total size queen and I really hope battles are an order of magnitude larger than we had in PS1. (So, yes, that means 1000+ players pilled up at times in a massive cluster....)
|
Where the hell do you get this info from??
Closet comparison I can find is a Pentium 955 XE (2 core HT from 2006) vs a i3 2100 (2 core HT from today) is shown to be at least twice as
fast.