cpu for gaming

[N2gaming]

Hello All
I'm ready to upgrade my cpu so I was wondering whats the deal on quads?? meaning are they the ones to get or is a dual core still OK?

not ot sound weird here, ;-) but if you buy a dual/quad core or whatever their at now. how do you test them to see that they are?

and isnt the higher core number for better multitasking? thanks for your help, JAKE

 

[IntelEnthusiast]

Right now quad cores are the answer for gaming. With the Intel® Core™ i5-2500K being thought of as the best gaming processor on the market right now.

As far as testing to make sure a processor is a dual/quad the easist answer is just to open Windows task manager and look at the number of threads that it supports. Also you load CPU-z (a free program) onto your system and it will tell you which processor/motherboard etc. that you have and if it is an Intel processor you can look it up at ark.intel.com.

 

[Puppies04]

Right now quad cores are the answer for gaming. With the Intel® Core™ i5-2500K being thought of as the best gaming processor on the market right now.

As far as testing to make sure a processor is a dual/quad the easist answer is just to open Windows task manager and look at the number of threads that it supports. Also you load CPU-z (a free program) onto your system and it will tell you which processor/motherboard etc. that you have and if it is an Intel processor you can look it up at ark.intel.com.

This, but if you are on a budget the I3 dual cores (with hyperthreading) are very capable cpus in all but the most demanding games.

 

[Magic Carpet]

At this point, I wouldn't get anything less than 2500K. Preferably, 2600K if you can afford. The newer titles like Battlefield 3 seriously benefit from more threads. Especially, if you are a pro gamer.

Don't particularly fancy the i3 line-up. I'd rather get AMD and OC

 

[dfuze]

Don't forget the other part of gaming is the video card. You can have a great CPU but if you skimp on video then you will be sorely dissappointed still. What are you currently using for video and what resolution do you plan on gaming at?

 

[KingFatty]

Don't forget the other part of gaming is the video card. You can have a great CPU but if you skimp on video then you will be sorely dissappointed still. What are you currently using for video and what resolution do you plan on gaming at?

If 4 cores is better than 2, why stop at 4 cores? Get lots of cores... unless you will be using it for a game like Starcraft 2, where that game can't even use more than 2 cores, so it's a waste of money to get more than 2. Unless, perhaps Blizzard will release the sequel with support for more than 2 cores?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Because games typically use 2, some 3-4, and one or two will use more than that. There are very few AAA titles that use more than 4 cores, most of them use 2.

Having more cores than the game can use is like having more ram than you need, it has no benefit once you've used as much as you can use.

 

[Necc]

Last year when I upgraded my old system (had a Q6600 rig) to the new sandy bridge system iwas on budget, i went with the i3-2100 (2cores, 4 threads) and told my self I'll upgrade that next year to a i5/i7, But i'm not sure anymore. this thing is a beast, sure ican get more fps (+5%), but if i'm getting already more then 60fps why would i want more? for my gaming needs it just enough, All games Iplay are constant 60fps or more (Mass effect 2, L4D2, CS:S, TF2, Aion, lineage2, Skyrim).

Dont get fooled to teh more cores = l337 fps & Dual cores = old news, most games dont use more then 2 cores, and probably you will get GPU bottlenecked before you're cpu bottlenecked. by the time this thing gets obsolete haswell/broadwell will be out and you would wanna upgrade to those.Fast sandy bridge dual cores are beasts for gaming today.

 

[gmaster456]

At this point, unless your on a budget, the minimum I would get is a Phenom ll X6 1065t or an i5 2300.

 

[Puppies04]

Last year when I upgraded my system (had a Q6600 rig) to the new sandy bridge system iwas on budget, so i went with the i3-2100 (2cores, 4 threads) and told my self I'll upgrade that next year to a i5/i7 But i'm not sure anymore. this thing is a beast, sure ican more fps (+5%) but if you are already geting more then 60fps then why would you want more? for my gaming needs it just enough, All games Iplay are constant 60fps or more (Mass effect 2, LFD2, CS:S, TF2, Aion, lineage2, Skyrim). Dont get fooled to teh more cores = l337 more fps and Dual cores are old news, most games dont use more then 2 cores, and probably you will get GPU bottlenecked b4 you're cpu bottlenecked. Fast sandy bridge dual cores are beasts for gaming.

What I said then

This, but if you are on a budget the I3 dual cores (with hyperthreading) are very capable cpus in all but the most demanding games.

In all seriousness though, the I5 2500k is an absolute steal for the price but I have yet to see a game bring a SB I3 to its knees, so what I said before stands.

 

[thelastjuju]

If 4 cores is better than 2, why stop at 4 cores? Get lots of cores... unless you will be using it for a game like Starcraft 2, where that game can't even use more than 2 cores, so it's a waste of money to get more than 2. Unless, perhaps Blizzard will release the sequel with support for more than 2 cores?

:thumbsdown:

Why make such assumptions? Ever since 2008, quad core owners and advocates have been telling us to just WAIT until EVERYTHING is benefiting from quad cores. 4 years later, we have like ONE game (BF3) that really benefits from the extra 2 cores, and some would argue its simply because the game is poorly optimized.

Contrary to what most people want to believe, its the CACHE of the processor that is actually the most important factor right now. That's why the i7s perform so much better than a q6600, with identical number of cores, and even if clocked at identical speeds. Its far more of a factor than # of cores.. which seemed to have really went nowhere compared to what people were speculating about when they were first released.

Its all marketing gimmickry really, it causes consumers AND enthusiasts to buy things they don't actually need. They are motivated to buy products that are 64 bit instead of 32 bit, 4 core instead of 2 core, etc.. regardless of whether the gains are authentic or not.

 

[N2gaming]

Thanks for clearing things up for me, so my next Q is, right now I have an Intel i5 661, socket 1156 LGA (clarkDale @3.33ghz)

Which I'm pretty sure its a dual core although some i5s are quad so in your gaming wisdom
should I upgrade to the coveted i7 or just stay with this one? THX, Jake

Btw, I'm upgrading my sys cause I'll be retiring this summer and I want to get the important stuff out of the way before I retire

side note: my new (video card) Radeon HD 6970 came today while I was at work

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Unreal Engine 3 uses 4 cores, last i checked. So any games & or software using UE3 will utilize 4 cores.

List of games using UE3

 

[Puppies04]

Thanks for clearing things up for me, so my next Q is, right now I have an Intel i5 661, socket 1156 LGA (clarkDale @3.33ghz)

Which I'm pretty sure its a dual core although some i5s are quad so in your gaming wisdom
should I upgrade to the coveted i7 or just stay with this one? THX, Jake

Btw, I'm upgrading my sys cause I'll be retiring this summer and I want to get the important stuff out of the way before I retire

side note: my new (video card) Radeon HD 6970 came today while I was at work

Your I5 is a dual core with hyperthreading, it should be more than enough for your 6970 but the logical upgrade would be to a quad core I5 not an I7 as hyperthreading in quads is nowhere as important as with duals.

 

[Rvenger]

Your I5 is a dual core with hyperthreading, it should be more than enough for your 6970 but the logical upgrade would be to a quad core I5 not an I7 as hyperthreading in quads is nowhere as important as with duals.

+1

 

[KingFatty]

:thumbsdown:

Why make such assumptions? Ever since 2008, quad core owners and advocates have been telling us to just WAIT until EVERYTHING is benefiting from quad cores. 4 years later, we have like ONE game (BF3) that really benefits from the extra 2 cores, and some would argue its simply because the game is poorly optimized.

It pains me to run SC2 on a quad core when the game only uses 2 of the cores.

Is BF3 a sign of the future things to come - do you think the next year of games to be released will be taking advantage of more than 2 cores?

If I encoded videos all day (or some other multi-core app) then perhaps it would make more sense to get as many cores as possible because right now they would make sense.

But is it ever a good idea to try to predict how the software will trend in the next year or two you plan to use your CPU? I mean, worst case scenario, if your favorite game comes out in 6 months from now, and it supports 8 cores but you insisted on buying 2 cores, is it possible that your 2-core experience will be poor and handicapped compared to if you had gotten 8 cores? Or, assuming you use your CPU for recoding videos, would a dual-core perform 1/4 as good as an 8 core?

 

[janas19]

It pains me to run SC2 on a quad core when the game only uses 2 of the cores.

Is BF3 a sign of the future things to come - do you think the next year of games to be released will be taking advantage of more than 2 cores?

If I encoded videos all day (or some other multi-core app) then perhaps it would make more sense to get as many cores as possible because right now they would make sense.

But is it ever a good idea to try to predict how the software will trend in the next year or two you plan to use your CPU? I mean, worst case scenario, if your favorite game comes out in 6 months from now, and it supports 8 cores but you insisted on buying 2 cores, is it possible that your 2-core experience will be poor and handicapped compared to if you had gotten 8 cores? Or, assuming you use your CPU for recoding videos, would a dual-core perform 1/4 as good as an 8 core?

All signs point to gaming becoming increasingly multi-threaded, yes.

You really can't blame Blizzard for their choice though. Back when Starcraft 2 was in development, quad cores were still pretty rare. So although we may grumble, they really did the right thing at the time, imo.

 

[Ieat]

Thanks for clearing things up for me, so my next Q is, right now I have an Intel i5 661, socket 1156 LGA (clarkDale @3.33ghz)

Which I'm pretty sure its a dual core although some i5s are quad so in your gaming wisdom
should I upgrade to the coveted i7 or just stay with this one? THX, Jake

Btw, I'm upgrading my sys cause I'll be retiring this summer and I want to get the important stuff out of the way before I retire

side note: my new (video card) Radeon HD 6970 came today while I was at work

Your i5 661 is fine for now if you overclock it. If you take it to 4ghz or higher an i3 2100 or i3 2120 is actually a downgrade as they are locked. If you just have the upgrade bug look for a cheap i5 750 or 760 in the $125 or lower range.

 

[reputationZed]

As far as testing to make sure a processor is a dual/quad the easist answer is just to open Windows task manager and look at the number of threads that it supports.

Wouldn't a dual core i3 with hyper threading show the same number of threads as a quad core i5 (no hyperthreading). Wouldn't both show 4 threads? I'm not on a Win PC just now so I can't check.

 

[jacktesterson]

Wouldn't a dual core i3 with hyper threading show the same number of threads as a quad core i5 (no hyperthreading). Wouldn't both show 4 threads? I'm not on a Win PC just now so I can't check.

Yep

 

[GoStumpy]

My i3-2100 does very well with every game I throw at it. My GPU (HD6850) is the bottleneck to my system.

 

[N2gaming]

Since my i5 is a dual-core w/hyperthreading what then am I missing gaming wise since I dont have a quad-core with multi-threading < <if thats the correct term?? sorry guys!

and I guess I'm kinda old school in my thinking cause I always thought that the faster the cpu the better the game will play (fps) am I wrong again??

Also my cpu is at 3.33 ghz so I guess that will be strong 'nuff for awhile and when I do upgrade it will be the beloved quad =-)

 

[Ieat]

Since my i5 is a dual-core w/hyperthreading what then am I missing gaming wise since I dont have a quad-core with multi-threading < <if thats the correct term?? sorry guys!

and I guess I'm kinda old school in my thinking cause I always thought that the faster the cpu the better the game will play (fps) am I wrong again??

Also my cpu is at 3.33 ghz so I guess that will be strong 'nuff for awhile and when I do upgrade it will be the beloved quad =-)

Here are 2 links that compare a i3 550 (basically same cpu you have) overclocked to 4.2-4.3 ghz compared to an i7 920 and i7 2600k at the same speeds. Both links use a 6970 so it should provide some good info. As you can see most games don't take real advantage of more then 2 cores. But when they do there is a slight to noticeable drop off.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1134237/review-i3-550-4-3ghz-vs-i7-2600-4-3ghz-in-games

http://www.overclock.net/t/943540/i3-vs-i7-gaming-performance-updated

 

[skipsneeky2]

The 2500k is the must have gamers chip right now and at $200 there hasn't been this fantastic of a processor since the q6600 as far as what your dollar can get i believe.:thumbsup: