right now dual cores are the best, quads will be better in the next few years when games and programs are optimized properly to run on a quad coreDual Core V Quad Core Best for gaming????
thanks
agreed. most dual cores = higher speeds per core than quad and right now, not to sound corny or cliche, but thats the NAME OF THE GAME. that being said, in the future games will definitely be getting multi-core support
thanks xred can i ask where you got that TF2 banner at the bottom of your post .... i think its cool as hell and want one to.
[QUOTE=''cornholio157'']right now dual cores are the best, quads will be better in the next few years when games and programs are optimized properly to run on a quad core[/QUOTE]no, the higher the clock speed the better it will be for games, e.g. a 2.6ghz Quad will outperform a 2.4ghz Dual core just like a 3.0ghz dual will perform better than a 2.6ghz Quad. however if your into RTS's then a quad would be by far the best choice.
Its actually a banner thru XFIRE w/ one of the skins that they give you. And in case you don't know what XFIRE is, its basically a program that runs in the background while your gaming and keeps info on gametime, stats, what servers you play on, etc.....
dual is the best for games but you can take quad and oc him in fact what really importent is the graphic card because the processors today strong enough for games (except crysis nothing enough for him) you can take the E7200 and easily oc him to 3.5ghz
If you don't want to spend a ton on the CPU and care strictly about gaming performance, one of the 45nm dual-cores will have you set-for now.
The problem with most of the 45nm quads is that their multipliers are rather low, making your chances of hitting a FSB wall that much more likely. It's only until you get to the expensive chips like the Q9650 and the Extreme Editions that the multipliers become on par with the duals, but now you're paying quite a bit more. Then you have to factor in that twice the cores means twice the heat, further limiting overclock headroom unless you spend a good bit on cooling as well.
If an E8400 and a Q9650 were at the same price, though (much like the E6850 and Q6600 days), I'd go with the Q9650 because with decent cooling, it can still overclock to respectable levels and perform more viably in the long run than the E8400 would as more apps beyond CGI and CAD and whatnot make use of quads. Of course, they're NOT the same price, and you may decide that any extra money spent now could be put toward a future quad (i.e. Nehalem/Core i7), depending on how frequently you like to upgrade.
The question it's not Quads or Duals but the clock speeds. Q9550 it's on pair with E8500 / E8400 on games not optimized for Quads since it have 12Mb L2 Cache vs 6Mb L2 Cache of the Wolfdales and will be better for anything else, so a fast Quad is better than a fast Dual even overclocked.
Since most games are now optimized for duel-core, even if you have 4,8 or 100, you can only use 2 at a time so clock speed is more important. But that's only because it can't use the full potential of quad-core (probably be having the same problem when 8 core comes out (Does the i7 hyperthreading count?)). I have Intel Core 2 Duo at 2.66Ghz.By the way, when you use task manager as you game with quad core, does it use 2 or all 4 cores?I'm supposing the big processors (i7) are more for people doing audio/video editing and stuff. They need more speed than most in games in a lot of cases. Do you really need 8 cores if your game only supports 2? Audio/video editing on the other hand has supported 64-bit XP when it came out (not many gamers got it I think since it wasn't very stable according to some people) and many other top notch computing stuff.
[QUOTE=''voodoothe2nd''] Since most games are now optimized for duel-core[/QUOTE] Sir I challenge you to a duel
[QUOTE=''teddyrob''][QUOTE=''voodoothe2nd''] Since most games are now optimized for duel-core[/QUOTE]Sir I challenge you to a duel
[QUOTE=''mattpunkgd''] Well thats a benchie of one of the very few games that optimize quads. There are very few games that use quads ( i think GTA IV and supreme commando or somthing are a couple). [/QUOTE]Correct you learn fast and that is the future of gaming. A dual core @4.2Ghz can't keep up with a Core 2 Quad @3.6Ghz or a I7 @3Gz in games optimised for Quad. Plus dual core will lag.http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,669595/Reviews/GTA_4_PC_CPU_benchmark_review_with_13_processors/?page=2The PC version of GTA 4 eats CPUs for breakfast without quad-core power GTA 4 is noticeably less enjoyable. For example: A Q6600 is about 52 percent faster than the dual-core E6600 when both CPUs are running at 2.4 GHz. If the clock speed is increased, the difference gets smaller, but is still huge and a QX6850 is 47 percent faster than an E6850. Dual-core processors have a serious disadvantage with 3.6 GHz an E8500 is able to beat the Q6600, but nevertheless suffers from frequent lags on dual-core systems - no matter if an AMD or Intel CPU is used
[QUOTE=''teddyrob''][QUOTE=''mattpunkgd''] Well thats a benchie of one of the very few games that optimize quads. There are very few games that use quads ( i think GTA IV and supreme commando or somthing are a couple). [/QUOTE]Correct you learn fast and that is the future of gaming. A dual core @4.2Ghz can't keep up with a Core 2 Quad @3.6Ghz or a I7 @3Gz in games optimised for Quad. Plus dual core will lag.http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,669595/Reviews/GTA_4_PC_CPU_benchmark_review_with_13_processors/?page=2The PC version of GTA 4 eats CPUs for breakfast without quad-core power GTA 4 is noticeably less enjoyable. For example: A Q6600 is about 52 percent faster than the dual-core E6600 when both CPUs are running at 2.4 GHz. If the clock speed is increased, the difference gets smaller, but is still huge and a QX6850 is 47 percent faster than an E6850. Dual-core processors have a serious disadvantage with 3.6 GHz an E8500 is able to beat the Q6600, but nevertheless suffers from frequent lags on dual-core systems - no matter if an AMD or Intel CPU is used[/QUOTE]
Yes, but still most games don't use quad cores.
I really wish you would stop using GTA IV as an example of quad-core dominance. The issue with that game is that it was a horribly optimized console port, and requires far more cpu power than a similar game developed for the pc would. I keep seeing you using that benchmark on different threads, and it's really annoying to anybody who really knows what's going on. You're misleading people who might actually be looking to build a cost-effective gaming pc. To quote you: ''I challenge you to a duel'' in 90-95% of the games that are out on the market, or that will come out in the next year. Let's keep it limited to games that are actually developed for the pc, not horribly sloppy console ports. And I think I speak for many people who are forced to read your posts when I say that I am puzzled how you can base an argument almost entirely off of one game.. or even 5 (if there were 5 for you to use) for that matter.
[QUOTE=''mattpunkgd'']
Yes, but still most games don't use quad cores.[/QUOTE]and most games don't use dual core but that is the past.
[QUOTE=''teddyrob''][QUOTE=''mattpunkgd''] Well thats a benchie of one of the very few games that optimize quads. There are very few games that use quads ( i think GTA IV and supreme commando or somthing are a couple). [/QUOTE]Correct you learn fast and that is the future of gaming. A dual core @4.2Ghz can't keep up with a Core 2 Quad @3.6Ghz or a I7 @3Gz in games optimised for Quad. Plus dual core will lag.http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,669595/Reviews/GTA_4_PC_CPU_benchmark_review_with_13_processors/?page=2The PC version of GTA 4 eats CPUs for breakfast without quad-core power GTA 4 is noticeably less enjoyable. For example: A Q6600 is about 52 percent faster than the dual-core E6600 when both CPUs are running at 2.4 GHz. If the clock speed is increased, the difference gets smaller, but is still huge and a QX6850 is 47 percent faster than an E6850. Dual-core processors have a serious disadvantage with 3.6 GHz an E8500 is able to beat the Q6600, but nevertheless suffers from frequent lags on dual-core systems - no matter if an AMD or Intel CPU is used[/QUOTE]The entire reason you think Dual-core is dead is beacaue they released ONE game here recently that shows improvment with quad over duals?Did you thnk the same thing almost 2 years ago when Supreme Commander came out? Can you be sure that 90% of the games over the next year will show improvment with a quad? I just want to know how you are so sure?
[QUOTE=''hartsickdiscipl'']I really wish you would stop using GTA IV as an example of quad-core dominance. The issue with that game is that it was a horribly optimized console port, and requires far more cpu power than a similar game developed for the pc would. I keep seeing you using that benchmark on different threads, and it's really annoying to anybody who really knows what's going on. You're misleading people who might actually be looking to build a cost-effective gaming pc. To quote you: ''I challenge you to a duel'' in 90-95% of the games that are out on the market, or that will come out in the next year. Let's keep it limited to games that are actually developed for the pc, not horribly sloppy console ports. And I think I speak for many people who are forced to read your posts when I say that I am puzzled how you can base an argument almost entirely off of one game.. or even 5 (if there were 5 for you to use) for that matter. [/QUOTE]I may be annoying to know that that is where gaming is heading with the euphoria engine going to be in many games. Also there is ALAN WAKE should be release sometime early next year hopefully. Quad core gaming is here. GTA IV is not a poor port it is a highly damanding game which uses the euphoria engine. Even a console should as the Xbox has 3 cores. Simple 2 core gaming isn't enough now and that will be obvious as games in 2009 will be mostly Quad core optimised.A Quad core is no more expensive than an equivalent dual core system. You are getting 2 cores for free mostly. My Quad core was ?07 that isn't expensive, it was cheaper than the E8200 at the time I'm glad I got it when most told me a dual was better. Now GTAIV runs perfectly on my system and many dual cores are stuttering with bad lag etc even with 4Ghz clocks. I sorry that your system isn't beefed up for the coming onslaught of games and you have to blame GTA IV performance on a badly optimised console port when it's really your hardware.
I don't think my q6600 at 2.4ghz has been maxed in any games so far, except rome:tw, but it only use 1 core, so dual core comp would have the same slow-down.
In my opinion quad>dual for now and the future. Sure now the dual cpu is better, but only marginally in some rare games
No comments:
Post a Comment