AT says Dual-core faster than Quad-core for gaming.

[Tempered81]

"Writing multithreaded code that makes efficient use of four or more cores is a daunting task - to date few applications and even fewer game developers are able to boast of this accomplishment. Given this, is it that hard to admit that perhaps we've all been a little guilty of demanding too much, too soon from our favorite software vendors? It should not be surprising then to learn then that many of today's ultimate gaming machines make use of "lesser" dual-core CPUs in place of their quad-core counterparts. With most titles able to take advantage of only two cores at a time, optimum gaming performance (read: maximum FPS) is often achieved by running a dual-core CPU at a greater frequency than is attainable using even the best quad-core processors."



http://anandtech.com/cpuchipse...howdoc.aspx?i=3251&p=3

 

[Idontcare]

This can't be new to anyone, is it?

Guess what is even better than a dual-core for single-threaded games? That's right, an even higher clocked single-core processor!

Quick, publish it before TGDaily gets the scoop!

 

[Markfw]

Yes, we all know that OFTEN that is the case, but not always. You needed to create another thread to say the same thing ? This has been the topic of many of your threads, its getting a little old.....

 

[Tempered81]

I think a thread like this is useful for everyone asking, "should i get a q6600 or e8400 for gaming?"

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Right, but the article goes on to talk about how Intel is dropping the extreme variant of the dual core...its all quad core or higher from here on out.

And when we consider modern games are GPU limited, this doesn't really even matter, especially when we take overclocking into consideration. As soon as the 45nm Quads land, I'm dropping my E8400

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
I think a thread like this is useful for everyone asking, "should i get a q6600 or e8400 for gaming?"

I fail to see how this will ever become a "one size fits all" situation. Every user has their own mix of applications and games they play.

One thing I like about quads is that it does take care of all that background multi-tasking stuff I like my computer to be doing while I am playing my single/dual-threaded games.

Anti-virus, diskeeper, ripping, burning, playing non-game soundtracks, encoding, etc. All that crap I like my computer to do in the background while I am trying to use more computer for playing.

Quads are a good answer to my needs where I have multiple single-threaded apps doing things at the same time. And I haven't seen AT do anything to quantify the value of a quad versus a dualcore in such an environment.

Surely I am not the only person who uses their computer this way.

 

[toadeater]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
I think a thread like this is useful for everyone asking, "should i get a q6600 or e8400 for gaming?"

I believe the topic should be changed to: WHERE THE **** can I get a e8400 at all!?

(And one that doesn't cost $250)

 

[Sunrise089]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: jaredpace
I think a thread like this is useful for everyone asking, "should i get a q6600 or e8400 for gaming?"

I fail to see how this will ever become a "one size fits all" situation. Every user has their own mix of applications and games they play.

One thing I like about quads is that it does take care of all that background multi-tasking stuff I like my computer to be doing while I am playing my single/dual-threaded games.

Anti-virus, diskeeper, ripping, burning, playing non-game soundtracks, encoding, etc. All that crap I like my computer to do in the background while I am trying to use more computer for playing.

Quads are a good answer to my needs where I have multiple single-threaded apps doing things at the same time. And I haven't seen AT do anything to quantify the value of a quad versus a dualcore in such an environment.

Surely I am not the only person who uses their computer this way.

To me this overstates the argument in favor of quad-cores for gaming. The big bonus when adding a second core is that stuff OFTEN running in the background can be shifted to the second core. That same argument is much weaker trying to justify four - you'd need a game that was either completely saturating two cores, or you'd need so many background apps that an entire core's worth of power is being consumer by them. For 95% of gamers, I don't think they encode DVDs or run Prime95 while gaming.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Sunrise089
To me this overstates the argument in favor of quad-cores for gaming. The big bonus when adding a second core is that stuff OFTEN running in the background can be shifted to the second core. That same argument is much weaker trying to justify four - you'd need a game that was either completely saturating two cores,

You obviously haven't been keeping up with the gaming world, in the past 6 months or so. I'm not aware of any game being released, at least a "major" title, that didn't utilize 2 or more cores. And of the ones that were dual-core only, nearly all of them utilize both cores at or extremely near 100% usage.

 

[aigomorla]

*tightening my tie, straighten my suit*

Mark, good luck! :]

And i will agree with Jared for some games. But on my games, i wouldnt give up the quadcore.

 

[KrispyKreme50]

Originally posted by: toadeater

Originally posted by: jaredpace
I think a thread like this is useful for everyone asking, "should i get a q6600 or e8400 for gaming?"

I believe the topic should be changed to: WHERE THE **** can I get a e8400 at all!?

(And one that doesn't cost $250)

Amazon.com is selling it for ~$300. I'll take it you're fine with any price as long it's not $250.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: Sunrise089To me this overstates the argument in favor of quad-cores for gaming. The big bonus when adding a second core is that stuff OFTEN running in the background can be shifted to the second core. That same argument is much weaker trying to justify four - you'd need a game that was either completely saturating two cores, or you'd need so many background apps that an entire core's worth of power is being consumer by them. For 95% of gamers, I don't think they encode DVDs or run Prime95 while gaming.

Exactly. I checked up on my CPU usage running Call of Duty 4, and it takes up about ~95% of one core and ~50% of the other. That's leaves roughly 50% of the 2nd core free for background tasks, which is MORE than enough to have your AV, firewall, torrents, MP3s running in the background hassle free.

Like you said, if you need to encode a DVD whilst gaming, then a quad core might help...

 

[OfficeLinebacker]

Originally posted by: toadeater

Originally posted by: jaredpace
I think a thread like this is useful for everyone asking, "should i get a q6600 or e8400 for gaming?"

I believe the topic should be changed to: WHERE THE **** can I get a e8400 at all!?

(And one that doesn't cost $250)

LOL--so true.

So, where?

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: KrispyKreme50

Originally posted by: toadeater

Originally posted by: jaredpace
I think a thread like this is useful for everyone asking, "should i get a q6600 or e8400 for gaming?"

I believe the topic should be changed to: WHERE THE **** can I get a e8400 at all!?

(And one that doesn't cost $250)

Amazon.com is selling it for ~$300. I'll take it you're fine with any price as long it's not $250.

ouch are they that hard to find now? i got mine from newegg for 200 ish about a month ago