3.3Ghz dual core w/HT, or 2.6Ghz quad core

[2timer]

Which one would be better for gaming?

Let's make the comparison specific to the following categories: for games 2 years old and older, for modern and near future titles, and finally, for console ports.

*Edit*: Let's assume both are Ivy Bridge.

 

[Yuriman]

Are we taking about an Ivy Bridge i3 vs a Kentsfield? Depends heavily on what dual and what quad.

In that case I feel the older Core2 has an edge in performance when overclocked.

 

[blastingcap]

Dual core w/ HT assuming same generation of CPU. Most games aren't really optimized for more than 1-2 cores. That isn't going to change anytime soon so all three categories would prefer the faster dual-core.

 

[Arkadrel]

"i3-3220" ?

Its decent value.
Do you already have a motherboar? or planning to do a intire PC build from ground up?

 

[Jovec]

OP needs to state processor makes and models. If it's i3 IB vs C2Q, there is a fairly large IPC and clockspeed gap.

GPU factors in. The games that do multi-threaded rendering are usually have more demanding graphics. An i3 + 7970 and an i7+ 7870 are in the same ballpark with respect to price, and will some games could be CPU limited with the i3+7970, the overall experience across a wide range of games is probably better.

Or to put it another way, CPU cores and performance matters, but it matters most when paired with high-end GPUs and big-budget games.

Of course, cores are useful for more than just gaming.

 

[2timer]

OP needs to state processor makes and models. If it's i3 IB vs C2Q, there is a fairly large IPC and clockspeed gap.

GPU factors in. The games that do multi-threaded rendering are usually have more demanding graphics. An i3 + 7970 and an i7+ 7870 are in the same ballpark with respect to price, and will some games could be CPU limited with the i3+7970, the overall experience across a wide range of games is probably better.

Or to put it another way, CPU cores and performance matters, but it matters most when paired with high-end GPUs and big-budget games.

Of course, cores are useful for more than just gaming.

I meant CPUs from the same ISA. Eg, both Ivy Bridge.

 

[Haserath]

Go with quad core and partially overclock it. The multiplier should be able to put it up to 3ghz.

 

[daveybrat]

I would definitely take a lower-clocked Ivy-Bridge Quad over a Dualie any day of the week.

 

[2timer]

Go with quad core and partially overclock it. The multiplier should be able to put it up to 3ghz.

I believe you missed the point. I'm not talking about how to improve performance. I want to know which would perform better, a higher clocked dual core w/HT, or a lower clocked quad.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

In most games the dual core will be faster, in some the quad will.

When you need a quad the dual will fail more than the quad does when it is losing to the dual.

I hope that helps.

 

[Durvelle27]

Dual core w/ HT assuming same generation of CPU. Most games aren't really optimized for more than 1-2 cores. That isn't going to change anytime soon so all three categories would prefer the faster dual-core.

Not true at all most newer games are becoming more multithreaded and requiring quad cores.

Just look at Crysis 3 for example

Another game SimCity

 

[Yuriman]

2 year old games I doubt there will be much difference. Outside of Blizzard games, the quad is going to perform better on average.

 

[Termie]

I believe you missed the point. I'm not talking about how to improve performance. I want to know which would perform better, a higher clocked dual core w/HT, or a lower clocked quad.

You've suggested a quad clocked way below any existing product. Comparing existing products, any Ivy quad will be faster than an Ivy dual, but also nearly 50% more expensive. What you should buy all depends on your budget.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Not true at all most newer games are becoming more multithreaded and requiring quad cores.

Just look at Crysis 3 for example




Another game SimCity

Not true, >99% of all new gams are still single or at best dualthreaded.

Simcity doesnt use a quadcore at all. And yes, I own the game.

It all look good when you only look at AAA games.

However, I do agree for long term future and AAA titles. Quadcore is the way.

 

[nenforcer]

You want the quad core all the way, especially with the new generation of consoles coming out later this year, the XBOX 720 and Playstation 4.

 

[Ayah]

If we're talking about current to future generation chips, then quad all the way, since an overclock will close the single-thread performance gap.

 

[BrightCandle]

Plenty of games are showing decent performance gains from quad cores now, and minimal gains (but still present) from 6 cores. Dual core is a bad idea at this point, too many games are utilising more than dual core even if their total CPU usage doesn't appear they are.