The disagrees are probably because it's a PC tech article and you decided to bring the ps3 into it (obviously without reading any part of the article). It's a relevance thing ;)
"PS3's CPU can do either graphics and ram so that's why Sony didn't really put high ram" Do you know what the function is of RAM? CPU's can't do RAM my friend.
I'm not too surprised - most games have been GPU-bottlenecked for a while, and most system builders tend to sink more of their money into the GPU than the CPU.
the E2160 overclocks to 3.0 GHz with the stock cooler and voltage, I wonder why they only pushed it to 2.3, then said that its speed was bottlenecking the budget CPU setup?
but the conclusion is valid - if you're building a gaming PC rig, overclock a cheap CPU and spend the money saved on a bad boy GPU.
a couple of 8800GTs in SLI would be a better way to spend the money than a 9800GTX though.
this is a dumb article lmao, the guy doesnt even know the difference of what the cpu and gpu does and how the programmers intend for each piece to work, what an idiot... drop this story quick please for the love of people who actually have a degree in computer engineering
PS3's CPU can do either graphics and ram so that's why Sony didn't really put high ram and GPU.
The dedicated PC GPU will always be the best in terms of raw graphics and power for gaming.
I'm not too surprised - most games have been GPU-bottlenecked for a while, and most system builders tend to sink more of their money into the GPU than the CPU.
A GPU upgrade will always provide more bang for your buck.
the E2160 overclocks to 3.0 GHz with the stock cooler and voltage, I wonder why they only pushed it to 2.3, then said that its speed was bottlenecking the budget CPU setup?
but the conclusion is valid - if you're building a gaming PC rig, overclock a cheap CPU and spend the money saved on a bad boy GPU.
a couple of 8800GTs in SLI would be a better way to spend the money than a 9800GTX though.