Phynaz
Lifer
- Mar 13, 2006
- 10,140
- 819
- 126
You can waste your money any way you see fit. But a dual core doesn't make economic sense for a gamer with common sense. Most people would prefer a CPU that can run everything, not just single threaded stuff.
Tom's Hardware:
Games, on the other hand, have taken longer to "get there." With a primary emphasis on graphics performance, it's not surprising that single-threaded engines still exist. However, spawning additional threads and utilizing a greater number of cores allows ISVs to implement better artificial intelligence or add more rigid bodies that can be affected by physics. Increasingly, then, we're seeing more examples of games exhibiting better performance when we use quad-core processor.
Eurogamer:
However, the rest of our titles show the challenge of running multi-threaded software on a dual-core processor. Curiously, it's not really the frame-rates that are the problem - as you can see from the results table, the Pentium puts in a respectable enough performance in many cases. The issue is one of consistency - games are now built typically with four threads or more in mind. Dropping down to two - no matter how fast they are - causes latency and stalling issues that manifest as highly unwelcome stutter during gameplay.
WCCF Tech:
The days of gaming on a budget seem to be coming to an end. More and more games now require quad core CPUs to perform efficiently or even start up for that matter.
http://wccftech.com/death-gaming-dual-core/
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-pentium-g3258-review
https://steamcommunity.com/app/209660/discussions/0/617320628288708612/
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-frame-rate-performance,3427.html
Lol, you just proved my point.