Dual-core over quad-core right now for gaming but how about the future?

[minmaster]

i know that if you're a gamer dual is better than quad at this moment for your money, but people are starting to say that future games will be designed to take advantage of quads. how realistic is this and how soon in the future is this a possibility? do current games running on dual cores even take advantage of both cores? and have major game developers come out and announced that they will be writing their games to scale better on multiple cores?

i'd like to think quads will be fully utilized in future games, but the realist in me tells me that's a wishful thinking. maybe a few games will, but will the majority? i don't replace my system often, so my CPU choice has to be a long term decision. how reasonable is it to choose the quad and hope to be somewhat rewarded down the line?


-a current P4 AGP owner-

 

[tallman45]

For the long term then its wise to get a Quad, Quads are now at the price point that they are becoming more and more popular. At approx $100 more its the better move now that prices are dropping

Do games use Dual cores now ? Yes, the entire OS balances workload between the 2 cores, there is a lot going on besides the game you are playing , programs are running in the background by the OS

 

[JPB]

I was in this same situation as well. And I usually upgrade every 2 years or so. And while I was deciding between a dual core and a quad....I decided to go with the quad.

In two years time, a dual core *could possibly* run like a Celeron now. Kind of chug along. So why not go quad ? I chose the Quad 9450

 

[minmaster]

yeah, quad looks like what i'll be going for. i haven't replaced my system in 5 years. (well besides video card and memory upgrade) it's going to be a huge change for me.

 

[boomhower]

I think the support for quads will turn on faster than it did for duals. After the initial switch to multi-core most foward thinking companies have realized multi-core is the future and will write there software accordingly. That being said game studios are not the most forward thinking and efficient bunch. After so many years of banking on more powerful hardware to take up the slack of poor software they have a whole new ideology to adopt.

 

[minmaster]

yeah at a certain point, it would all depend on what GPU you have, right? i mean a quad isn't useful if your GPU isn't good enough to handle what the cpu sends it, no?

 

[Marty502]

This reminds me of the guys, a few years ago, who bought chips like the Athlon 64 4000 over the X2 3800 because it was faster in current games. Then the 64 became useless and the X2 still had some juice left.

So, if you can afford to upgrade often, keep a fast dual core and upgrade to a faster quad when they're worth it. But if you don't, then a quad, by now, is surely the way to go.

 

[AlgaeEater]

Originally posted by: Marty502
This reminds me of the guys, a few years ago, who bought chips like the Athlon 64 4000 over the X2 3800 because it was faster in current games. Then the 64 became useless and the X2 still had some juice left.

So, if you can afford to upgrade often, keep a fast dual core and upgrade to a faster quad when they're worth it. But if you don't, then a quad, by now, is surely the way to go.

Probably the best statement I've heard on anandtech in a long time, my hats off to you.

Dual core is great, runs fine, and its not an issue at all for the majority of users out there who plan to use it (as always with chip technology) for the most basic of stuff. But for the multimedia user, the gamer, and the power user, there's no point not to go quad core at the moment. Price difference isn't that much, availability isn't an issue, and software developers are starting to wise up and openly support the changing hardware. Technology always goes in spurts, and once support starts rolling, it multiples quickly. I'm thinking quad cores will be the norm in 2 years, and we'll all be back on these boards asking "So the new 16 core chip is out... need a build under $1500. Kthxbye."

You can't go wrong with either choice, but if you want a rig that you can keep in the back burner in 2-3 years rather than completely retiring it (AKA: Pulling it apart for parts or dismantling it to throw away), just go quad.

 

[solog]

Future-proofing your computer is a waste of money. If you like spending money on your computer you are like many others here. If you needed a quad core you would already know it and wouldn't be asking us to cosign your purchase

 

[tallman45]

Originally posted by: solog
Future-proofing your computer is a waste of money. If you like spending money on your computer you are like many others here. If you needed a quad core you would already know it and wouldn't be asking us to cosign your purchase

Agreed, one year ago a Q6600 was selling in the $500 range, today $179.00. The vast majority of those early adopters could have easily went with a $150 E4500 and just popped in a Q6600 today (if the needed it) and been $$ ahead, and still been "Future Proof"

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: tallman45

Originally posted by: solog
Future-proofing your computer is a waste of money. If you like spending money on your computer you are like many others here. If you needed a quad core you would already know it and wouldn't be asking us to cosign your purchase

Agreed, one year ago a Q6600 was selling in the $500 range, today $179.00. The vast majority of those early adopters could have easily went with a $150 E4500 and just popped in a Q6600 today (if the needed it) and been $$ ahead, and still been "Future Proof"

We're not talking about one year ago, we're talking about now, when a quad is $179.00...

A tiny minority of the population know how to and are willing to 'pop' another cpu in, in any event

 

[Tempered81]

quad will be the way to go in the future (multicore). as of now, i don't think it is. I will stay with duals until the "do you think i need a quad?" is no longer a hot topic because the answer is obvious.

 

[solog]

Originally posted by: dug777

We're not talking about one year ago, we're talking about now, when a quad is $179.00...

A tiny minority of the population know how to and are willing to 'pop' another cpu in, in any event

If your computing style could really benefit from using a quad, or if spending the extra money doesn't bother you and you like having the newer electronics, go ahead and get one. It doesn't bother me (unlike the many similar threads like this every day).

That small minority of people willing to change out cpus are mostly made up of the same people who build their own pc to begin with...

 

[minmaster]

okay for the people that replace CPUs often, how much longer is the LGA 775 socket going to be around? i bought my P4 at the end of socket 478 and i hated that.

 

[Tempered81]

bloomfield x58s are coming out these are new nehalem sockets 1066/1366

lga775 will slowly reach EOL but there are more cpus to be released on it, even after Nehalem is out. I know an E8700, q8200, e7400 and E5xxx series chips will come out. you will see more duals/quads on 775, alongside the current offerings. I'd check the roadmap to get an idea...

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images...2duo-e8600/roadmap.png

 

[minmaster]

great! now i might just wait for the new nehalem sockets! if i'm reading it right, it's saying bloomfield in Q4 of 08 right?

 

[AlgaeEater]

Originally posted by: solog
Future-proofing your computer is a waste of money. If you like spending money on your computer you are like many others here. If you needed a quad core you would already know it and wouldn't be asking us to cosign your purchase

Can be said for pretty much every post here on Anandtech asking about hardware

Everyone knows people ask to lessen the guilt of spending more money on computer upgrades we know we all don't truly need but want.

Speaking of which, off to NEWEGG

 

[GundamF91]

You can "future proof", not completely, but you can extend the useful life of system by thinking strategically. If you get something that'll continue to meet your requirement down the road, then basically you can leap over the next generation, and extend your system's life cycle. I think the best strategy right now is to get Quad core over Dualcore, because the systems down the road will be more core sensitive, and you'll expect quad core to be useful after dual cores have pushed to their limits.

 

[Gillbot]

I still think quads are overrated. Why pay $300+ for a Q9450 or whatever if you plan to upgrade next year. By then Q9450's will be available in FS/FT for probably less than $150.

As stated earlier, not even 3-4 months ago you were hard pressed to find a decent clocking Q6600 for under $250, now you can get good Q6600's in FS/FT for $150 or less.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: minmaster
great! now i might just wait for the new nehalem sockets! if i'm reading it right, it's saying bloomfield in Q4 of 08 right?

yah this is Nehalem Nov. 2008

 

[minmaster]

but mainstream desktops well into 2009.

 

[Drsignguy]

Originally posted by: Gillbot
I still think quads are overrated. Why pay $300+ for a Q9450 or whatever if you plan to upgrade next year. By then Q9450's will be available in FS/FT for probably less than $150.

As stated earlier, not even 3-4 months ago you were hard pressed to find a decent clocking Q6600 for under $250, now you can get good Q6600's in FS/FT for $150 or less.

I think gillbot is right.

Only thing I can think of is that it all depends on your buget.

Here is my example: right now the Q6600 is $179 at Microcenter, say If I had $150 to spend, I would find all the loose change in my truck(s) ashtrays, on the floor boards and in my couches, lazyboys and dryer, and make damn sure I get that quad.

Simple.

 

[Gillbot]

If you can afford it right now, go for it but after running a dual @ 4.25GHz going to a Quad at 3.7GHz, I got WAY more back for my $ out of the Dual core. If I didn't get an excellent deal on this Quad, i'd still be running the dual for sure.

 

[A554SS1N]

Originally posted by: Marty502
This reminds me of the guys, a few years ago, who bought chips like the Athlon 64 4000 over the X2 3800 because it was faster in current games. Then the 64 became useless and the X2 still had some juice left.

So, if you can afford to upgrade often, keep a fast dual core and upgrade to a faster quad when they're worth it. But if you don't, then a quad, by now, is surely the way to go.

I chose a single core 3800+ over the X2 version - I wish I hadn't now, but I saved a bit of money and tbh a 3800+X2 isn't all that fast anyway now - if I really wanted to I could probably stick a 5000+ in as a replacement and not lose out all that much on overall cost. I think I'll wait for something more substantial though.....

 

[minmaster]

i decided to just wait for nehalem instead of getting a 775 quad core.