$100 quad core back when people were still using Core 2 Duo CPUs

>$100 quad core back when people were still using Core 2 Duo CPUs

Post slept on CPUs.

Attached: X4 620.jpg (1280x1024, 227K)

>Athlon II X4 620 released Sept 16 2009
>Core 2 Quad Q6600 released Jan 2007
>Core i5-750 released Sept 2009
Bringing C2Q performance to the market more than two years after C2Q just as Nehalem arrives.

Attached: x4620.png (725x390, 24K)

was using core2duo overclocked to 4.5ghz only 2 years ago CSGO was running at 70-80fps

BF1 was running at 25fps.

upgrade to 7600k

csgo now gets 300+fps
bf1 only gets 60+ fps

conclusion DICE are cucks with no clue what they are doing.

actually BF1 gets more like 45-65fps average.

AMD were losing the marketing war heavily and then decided they can afford to lose performance too with bulldozer.

Well you have a quad core with no hyper threading.

Nehalem released in November of 2008 with the i7 920.

Those quadcore Athlon's were pretty nice, replaced my 4Ghz E8400 with an X4 640 for rendering video.

You faggots do realize it's almost 2019 and those cpus are complete shit

I love paper launches. Once the fuss dies down a bit, it's quoted as fact that "my company did it first hurr durr" forever.

Rocked a X4 640 until last year, when my shitty Assrock motherboard decided to give up the ghost.

it was cheap because it was slow brainlet

Asscock continued to be shit-tier right through the Constructor era, before suddenly coming up with decent motherboards for Ryzen. Fucking weird world, eh?

>old = shit
/t.fkin zoomer

(Checked)
Well, strictly speaking, he is right on a power usage/performance level, they're utterly horrible. Still, you can be certain that factoid never crossed that Tide-eating schoolkid's ADHD-addled mind: even a blind dog sometimes digs up a bone.

CS GO relies heavily on single threaded performance.

They didn't really lose performance, they lost the bet, hoping software developers would jump on the train. One of the main reasons a Piledriver CPU holds up so well after years against Intel is that multicore software became more widespread and optimized, a Piledriver, not even going to mention Bulldozer, was a total flop at the launch, while over time it actually became much better.

>i7 920
>paper launch
Asus p6t deluxe and a 920 was almost a meme back in late 08 early 09.

This, an FX-8350 when fully leveraged is way better than a 3570k that would've cost you more money at the time.

>late 08
>this was 10 years ago

Attached: 1536770441876.jpg (474x465, 24K)

I had one of these, overclocked the snot out of by using BCLK trickery. Had it running completely stable at 3.5GHz.

>Tfw gtx 1080 is basically like the 8800gt of old and computers are changing once again

Attached: 1533894666239.jpg (800x1011, 274K)

You mean post budget gap filler CPU's.

AMD's flagship upgrade chain: Athlon 64 > phenom II > piledriver > ??? Ryzen II maybe

I'm still on piledriver because intel is completely phoning it in and ryzen isn't enough of an improvement for an upgrade. But yeah phenom II was out by the time athlon II was released and completely outclassed it.

>He's still a piledriver nigga
Probably the most slept on CPU, people either love it or hate it.

Attached: NB OC.png (439x448, 82K)

I used an Athlon 2 X4 for years and years before I finally upgraded to an FX chip last year when my buddy was selling off his old parts. Was a solid ass CPU. My best friend's 16 year old brother put a cheapass gaming PC together a few years ago and he bought the same Athlon chip I had (Athlon 2 x4 @2.8ghz) and is still plays tons of vidya games, even with Linux's GPU bottleneck.

You have it backwards. Dice is fairly thread optimized and scales nicely as a result. CSGO is single threaded and favors high clock speed over core/thread count.

If DICE used low poly graphics like CSGO, their games would easily hit 400+ fps

It was an obvious upgrade for the AMD camp, cheap mobo's, cheap ram and a significant bump from the Phenom II 940 that I had at the time.

Also I disagree, rarely any programs use more than one core on this CPU, instead I just run more programs.
>a Piledriver CPU holds up so well after years against Intel is that multicore software became more widespread and optimized

Attached: stock.jpg (432x410, 60K)

Yeah most of my applications don't utilize it but Handbrake and Vegas make it sing and it's beautiful.

Attached: Multicore.png (422x460, 43K)

It's core 2 quad performance back when a core 2 quad cost more than $100, though.

amd 1055t 6 core processor is still very good

Why are FX niggers still trying? lmao

In 2009 an i5-750 costed less than $200 for almost double the performance

You've also got to figure the cost of the a P55 board to put the 750 in, it's going to cost more than a 770 or 790X for the AM3 CPU.

790FX was only AM2, and AM2+ compatible, nigger.

Bullshit nigga you can run an X4 955 on that motherfucker, know how to AMD before you talk shit.

>tfw if core 2 duo were a girl this board would want to fuck it because it's that old

To turn the 1080 into another 8800GT nvidia would have to improve GPU perf/watt by less than 10% over the next 2-3 years.
Its not impossible because it happened. Fermi was terrible but it seems unlikely with 7nm hanging around and even a crippled AMD can make make nvidia do something if they use 7nm.

>uses BIDEO GAME as cpu benchmark
lmao

>old = shit
It is. I still have a Athlon II x3. It was a great desktop CPU at the time I got it. Really nice upgrade over my previous CPU. Today it's extremely slow compared to my Ryzen 1600X. Calling it "shit" by today's standards is an understatement. I'm still using it for a 6 drive RAID6 NAS box which is mostly off unless I need it, it's like an external HDD that shows up on the network when I turn it on. It's fine for that purpose. But for desktop use? Too slow.

>Bulldozer
Faildozer was a horrible chip regardless of how you spin it. It's true that the all-core performance was close to on-par with Intel chips with fewer cores and higher per-core performance in some cases - but the power use and heat wasn't. Bulldozer ships run very hot. There's also the matter of the horrible performance in everything doing floating-point math because two "cores" share one FPU which, in reality, there's only half the number of cores advertised in many use-cases.

If you're only getting 60fps in BF1 with a modern CPU you were probably GPU bottlenecked.

>buys 4 threaded CPU in 2017
>blames developers for game engines designed around 8 threads
It's ass clowns like you who were left standing like idiots when the 7600k was rebranded as a fucking i3 in the coffee lake lineup.

Bulldozer doesn't even run that hot.