Isn't this one of those games that likes quads?
I've seen people repeat this over and over again, but where does this come from? Is there a benchmark that proves this? On my i3 530, the windows task manager draws one core at 95% and the other one at 50% + i never notice any hickups. So i really don't know what good a quad would do for this game
edit : Just to make a point, i took a screenshot. I waited until a moment where there was stuff going on (being shot at + building collapsing) to take the screenshot :
(so this is not a quad, its a dualcore with hyperthreading)
The op runs : E8400@3.6
I run my i3 530 at 3.66Ghz, so this should be comparable to his cpu (i3 should be faster clock by clock, but not by much)
That shows all 4 threads at high utilization, you just helped prove that this game is quad capable and benefits from it >.>
Well not to turn this into a full blown CPU thread...
but how does this dual core/4 thread thing work? In gaming is it just as good as having a quad core for games that utilize more than 2 cores? I am trying to figure out if I should just keep my e8400, upgrade to a s775 quad, or go core i5 (maybe even the new AMD 6 core chip even)
thread <> core
I think you are over-estimating HT.
Yes, we are derailing this thread i'm afraid (my bad ...)
I never really understood why microsoft chose to visualise hyperthreading as extra cores. I know what they were thinking, but in the end its only confusing. I'm not an expert either, but i think it is safe to say that you can simply ignore hyperthreading, because the effect is minimal (my opinion is based on old reviews, so maybe i'm wrong)
A game does not "use cores". A game uses threads. Lets say a game uses a constant number of threads (one for rendering, one for physics, one for sound, ...). Take 8 threads for example. Your OS will have to manage those 8 threads over 2 cores (the threads will fight for execution time on the cores). On a quadcore this will, of course, be more efficient. (Hyperthreading makes it possible for the cpu to execute 2 operations of 2 different threads in one instruction, if i'm not mistaking)
So what i was trying to say in my previous post : those 67% cpu usage means a dualcore is sitting on its ass for 30% of the time, so i'm assuming those 2 cores are more than plenty to handle all threads.
Yikes... your quasi-attempt at sarcastic humor?
thread <> core
I think you are over-estimating HT.
Yes, we are derailing this thread i'm afraid (my bad ...)
So if I have digested this properly... it would be just as good, if not better to have a newer dual core(say the i5 680) with a high clock speed with 4 thread capability as opposed to my E8400 with only 2 thread capability, and even an i5 750 with a lower clock speed, if the primary usage is gaming and internet...?
Not sure about other people, but I'm using the 10.4a preview driver.Don't know the difference between 10.3a and b, but shouldn't people be using WHQL 10.3 now?
You may want to check your setup again, 5870 is faster than a GTX 480 in BFBC2.
So if I have digested this properly... it would be just as good, if not better to have a newer dual core(say the i5 680) with a high clock speed with 4 thread capability as opposed to my E8400 with only 2 thread capability, and even an i5 750 with a lower clock speed, if the primary usage is gaming and internet...?
Yes and no. For gaming and internet a fast dual core can get you there most of the time but we are starting to see more and more quad utilization.
i3/i5 is definitely better than a E8400 though for gaming or internet.