How long will a Core2Duo be a "good" processor?

[PotatoSandWitch]

If I got, say, an E6600, how long could I expect it to be considered a fast processor? That could handle (along with a decent GPU) games with higher requirements for good performance?

I'm not too picky with graphics as long as they don't look like BF2 does on my laptop (Nintendo 64 ). However, I am very annoyed at lag and low FPS.

 

[myocardia]

A couple of years, with most games, most likely. Your problem, though, is that the game developers don't tell us anymore than they've told you, as far as their plans for future games.

 

[tallman45]

Up until the day that software takes advantage of Quad cores

 

[PotatoSandWitch]

if I wanted to make those estimated couple years a few years (guessing you meant around 2; I mean around 3) what would you recommend?

 

[PotatoSandWitch]

Originally posted by: tallman45
Up until the day that software takes advantage of Quad cores

when do you think that might be? any idea?

 

[gobucks]

well, dual cores have been out for years and very few games take much advantage of them, so i imagine it will be quite a while before games really need quad cores.

Anyways, I think that a C2D is a pretty safe investment, since even the best video cards today can't show many instances in which a C2D is holding performance back, especially since nearly all of them can run at least 3GHz, with many of them running at like 3.4-3.5, at least on the higher end models. Plus, it looks like we won't really see a new GPU architecture for a while, since ATI still hasn't worked out the kinks on their current gen product, and both ATI and nvidia will probably spit out a few refreshes before coming up with anything really new.

You may, however, want to look at a newer, penryn-compatible motherboard. that will give you some nice upgrade options if penryn and DDR3 really end up kicking the crap out of what's available now.

 

[The I]

I think you can be safe for at least 3 years. Like the other guys said: games have been very hesitant about dual-core and that's not going to change with quad-core. Most game developers won't make games that doesn't run well on the majority of the CPU population and considering that a very large portion of the CPUs sold today are still single cores (celerons and semprons) the shift to the point where they can take two cores for granted will still take a while.

Quads are probably only going to become the norm in high-end computers during the next year. It will take at least two years before we're in the situation with quads that duals are in now, where middle end cpus are dual-cores, and it'll take some time before enough of the potential buyers has quads.

And add to that that a C2D @ at least 3 ghz is bottlenecked by the GPU in almost all games and I'd be pretty confident that my CPU will be decent for games even in 2010.

 

[nyker96]

that's very subjective. For me as long as the CPU is enough for my work. But some might say up until Quads become 266 a piece in July or so.

 

[jgassen]

Well you have to remember that us tech junkies are only a small percentage of computer users. Most just go to Best buy or Walmart and get whatever they sell them.

 

[Noema]

Originally posted by: jgassen
Well you have to remember that us tech junkies are only a small percentage of computer users. Most just go to Best buy or Walmart and get whatever they sell them.

Agreed. For most people a P4 @3.0GHz or an single core A64 @2.0GHz are more than plenty...and borderline overkill.

Heck, my parents still run a P4@1.2GHz. I'm going to give them my current A64 rig when I build me a C2D box and for them, it'll be lightning fast because they'll just use it for email, web browsing and word processing.

And when it comes to games, well, those have always been more GPU limited than CPU limited anyway. Not to say that the CPU doesn't matter...it's just not the most important piece of the puzzle. An A64 X2 with a 8800GTX will outperform a C2Qx6800 with a 7800GT in pretty much any game (currently).

 

[UF Matt]

If you're worried that C2D may not be a good buy, don't. It is an amazing lineup for the price. For $114 you can get an e4300 and O/C it 50% with ease. Runs beautifully.

 

[PotatoSandWitch]

Thanks for the replies... somehow I forgot to check this thread and only did today (June 1).

Anyways, another question. When are the prices supposed to drop for c2d's? I've heard people say July, but I don't really hang around too many people who are as interested in computers as I am.

 

[MarcVenice]

I think that as soon as games start using multiple cores, it won't matter if it is a dualcore or a qaudcore, as soon as octo cores come out, those games developed for multiple cores will be able to use all 8 cores. And, if the qaudcore hits 266$ july, well, that's pretty a much a mid to high-range price for a cpu, and I bet you'll see it in some higher range OEM pc's from dell and what not.

But a e6600 will probably be fine for a year or 2. I mean, MS said vista can be optimized for qaudcores, but that's it. And a new OS doesn't come out earlier then 2 years from now Noema is also pretty much right, gpu's are pretty much the limiting factor these days, not the cpu's.

 

[Keysplayr]

I might jump to a quad core after the price cuts and be done with it. 266 bucks for a QX6600 sounds very sexy.

Will I need it? No idea. But I'll be ready. For what? No idea. LOL.

 

[sliderule]

ALan Wake is supposed to take advantage of 4 cores...using one for physics http://youtube.com/watch?v=3j6rR-Xv2Ro

 

[cmdrdredd]

I think the longevity of a system is directly related to your usage and what you want to do with it. There may come a time when what you do is too slow and you'll have to upgrade. It may be 6 months for me and 2 years for you. Like I said, it's user dependant. I can't tell you how long it'll be good for.

If you want my opinion, a decent C2D system built today should last 2.5 years as being a good computer. AT which time you may want a new quad core CPU and DDR3

 

[Munky]

Gaming performance at high settings mostly depends on the video card, so the e6600 will be plenty for the next few years, even more so if overclocked. And just because a game is designed to use two or more cores doesn't mean you'll see a noticeable improvement, especially when at high resolutions you're still limited by the video card. Several games like Stalker are supposedly designed to use multiple cores, but the performance difference is insignificant.

 

[PotatoSandWitch]

1. So the price drop in July is only on quad cores or c2d's as well?

2. And, if game performance is mostly dependent on GPU, how low down the C2D line could I go? E6600 at like $220 is probably the highest I'm willing to go... would saving 50-60 bucks and getting an E6320 kill my computer's life span?
Howbout E4400 for $140 or E4300 for $115? 115 sounds like a nice number

I don't think general speedy-ness of the computer (as in doing things outside of games and multitasking) will be much of a problem, since I'm still doing fine with my Inspiron 9300 after a couple years. I haven't even really experienced using a decent desktop before. I just want to get a good lifespan out of something I'm willing to spend like 800 bucks on.

 

[Modelworks]

I wouldn't worry about developers using quad cores for gaming anytime soon.
Most developers don't even want to use dual cores.
It takes a ton of planning to implement multiple cores in programming a game.

If you send cpu 2 the physics and are using cpu1 for the Ai, what happens when cpu1 is done ,but cpu2 isn't ? shuffle the process back to cpu1 ?

That was one example a developer gave.

check out gamedev.net and search for dual core or multithreaded.
Its really causing some headaches .

 

[ebj1992]

I would say 1-2 years maybe 3 at the very most, because with scientists getting smarter with DNA computer technology, it could be less than 1 year...

 

[Hauk]

Originally posted by: sliderule
ALan Wake is supposed to take advantage of 4 cores...using one for physics http://youtube.com/watch?v=3j6rR-Xv2Ro

Nice find on the Alan Wake video. Can't wait for that one. Hopefully dual core will be enough.

 

[kurt454]

How old is the Athlon64 4000+ San Diego single core? I have one in my HTPC, running with 7800GT vid card. It can still play any current game on the market. A C2D should be good for a few years.

 

[incompleteunit]

Originally posted by: ebj1992
I would say 1-2 years maybe 3 at the very most, because with scientists getting smarter with DNA computer technology, it could be less than 1 year...

Yeah, because after all, they've built a DNA-based system that can play tic-tac-toe. One move every 30 minutes.

I really wouldn't worry about current computing technology being eclipsed by this stuff within the decade, let alone a year.

 

[doggyfromplanetwoof]

Considering I can still play the latest 3D games on my AMD 939 3000+ system, that I built in 2004. Not bad. Most games are GPU bound, as you can see.

 

[Extelleron]

It'll be a good processor, but whether or not it'll provide a good gameplay experience on maximum settings in future games is another story. Alan Wake looks like it will require Quad-core to run at maximum, and we don't really know how CPU-limited Crysis or Unreal Tournament will be.

My best advice is pick up an E4300 and buy a Q6600/Penryn quad-core later, or buy a cheap 65nm X2 (3600+ for $69) and wait for AMD's quad-cores. Getting a high-end dual-core CPU at this point is not a good idea IMO.