How long will a E6400@ 3.2GHZ "future proof" me for gaming?

[idiotekniQues]

youll be fine with a 6400 for a good bit. sure SC uses 4 cores, but the benefit of 4 over 2 is not nearly as great as the benefit from 2 over 1 so dont fret about having "only" 2 cores right now.

down the road throw in a cheap quad-core if enough games are out that really hook up with more than 2 cores (get a current day quad core in a year or two for cheap) and a new GC and youll be golden.

 

[Munky]

Dual cores will be fine for gaming for at least another 1-2 years. There's one game that takes advantage of quad cores, and most other games run well on a single core, nevermind dual core cpus. Software tech always lags behind hardware when it comes to games, so get what you need when you need it, because nothing is 'future-proof'. You can get a quad-core system now and watch it become obsolete before it becomes useful, or you can use a dual core cpu for now and get a quad core cpu later when there's a real advantage in using quad cores.

 

[idiotekniQues]

Originally posted by: cubeless
re why pc games... if u r into strategy games, then i believe that the pc is the only choice... if u r into shootem ups, then console is fine...

i respectfully disagree.

fps are superior on a pc.

not only because the mouse is infinitely more superior to a small joystick for aiming, but the keyboard comes into play as well.

when games start coming out that will be for both windows live users and xbox users, a good pc fps player will be able crush all but the most leet xbox fps players.

 

[craftech]

OK,

I see now why you prefer the PC over the game consoles. I really didn't know because as I said I don't game.

Thanks,

John 🙂

 

[idiotekniQues]

Originally posted by: craftech
OK,

I see now why you prefer the PC over the game consoles. I really didn't know because as I said I don't game.

Thanks,

John 🙂

🙂

each has its advantages, but for certain genres the interface is the primary advantage. if consoles embraced the keyboard mouse/interface - it would be a whole new ballgame.

out of the three main genres fps/rts/sports - only sports is better with a controller IMO.

for rts it is a matter of so many controls needed for the massive variety of units/structures to build. in highly competitive matches, every split second really makes a difference. plus the ability to goto any area of the map so quickly.

for fps you have a joystick with a movement area of say half an inch in any direction controlling your aim - with the mouse you not only increase that by a huge amount (helping accuracy), but you are simply able to change your aim much faster.

also the controls help. in 2142 for example i routinely use a knife, pistol, rifle, medic hub, defib, grenade, rockets and switch from single shot to burst - right there is 7 buttons (the rifle button toggles from one-shot to burst). i have one for each that i can tap instantly within quick reach. then i have a main fire button, alt-fire button, jump, crouch, prone & sprint & pick up/use also individually assigned. that is 7 more. plus for rockets the mouse wheel allows you to change range so fast. again each easily accessible. then i also have my map key and a quick ability to issue orders with the mouse on the map, as well as a VOIP button. of course you have your key to check the score and to change your kit.

a controller player could never keep up if you have the same skill.

if you have a good rig, graphics are just crisper and better on a pc game.

that being said, i have nothing against consoles. i just prefer pc gaming. i wish i liked playing fps on a controller since most of my friends use the 360 and id love to shoot around with them. so ill wait to whup them when xbox/pc gamers can play together.

 

[NYHoustonman]

Originally posted by: craftech
OK,

I see now why you prefer the PC over the game consoles. I really didn't know because as I said I don't game.

Thanks,

John 🙂

You could also (and I have many times) make the argument that a never-ending upgrade cycle isn't necessarily a bad thing. Inherently more expensive, yes, but it enables the games you play to become more and more technologically advanced. The playstation 2/XBox couldn't come CLOSE to what a PC could do towards the ends of their cycles, and even now high-end PC's are capable of more than the new consoles (we'll see this when Crysis hits - there simply hasn't been a game released on PC that looks as good as GoW, yet). In 2-3 years, the X360/PS3 won't be looking so 'next-gen' anymore, while PC's will continue to become more powerful.

 

[apoppin]

next year the PC is gonna *blow away* the consoles 😛

DX10 brings definite advantages for the PC ... and more HW muscle is gonna be needed to *show* the differences

along with the new and "full dx10" games will come multi-threading for all games ... an *entire new generation* of demanding video games
--prepare according ... or just upgrade when your rig feels 'slow' to you 😉

i am *waiting* to upgrade ... when i am *forced* to get rid of SC and you guys dump DC in favour of Quad

 

[apoppin]

you dual-core guys will want to read this ... it *belongs* here:

Topic Title: Supreme commander Quad core ready ? CPU whore

it *needs* more than 2 cores to run really well

and SC is the "first" 😛

 

[ibex333]

Originally posted by: apoppin
you dual-core guys will want to read this ... it *belongs* here:

Topic Title: Supreme commander Quad core ready ? CPU whore

it *needs* more than 2 cores to run really well

and SC is the "first" 😛 (and hopefully the last at least until 2 years from now)

I think you are wrong when you say dual cores will be obsolete 1-2 years from now. It's more like 3-4 years. (4 is pushing it)

You base your argument on one game that is not even a very good game. A game that many people bash because of unreasonably steep requirements and crappy game play that's worse than that of the original.
Judging from gamespot forums, more people DIDN'T buy this game because they are pissed they cant afford a PC to run it, than people who DID buy it.

Now, I'm thinking.. If the devs want to SELL games, they will take a lesson from this, and in the future try to make games that are a little more friendly to low end PCs, instead of rushing technologies that are simply not necessary in this day and time to make/run a nice game. I see a lot more people who bash SupCom than those who say they love it. It's just a poorly optimized game. Just like NWN2 is. Reviews mean nothing. People's opinion means everything.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R is one example of a game that despite having a dated engine still manages to attract masses with it's exceptional gameplay. That shows that we don't have to push quad cores, and 8800GTXs to make good games.

Either way, even if you are right, and I am wrong, SupCom is just one game in a sea of other games and software which DOES NOT support dual core. Can you please explain to me why you would want to use quad cores when you haven't even seen dual cores taken advantage of on a massive scale?
It's like making dual cores when 64bit AMDs were never really taken advantage of. Seriously.. How many times did I, as an average user/gamer run a 64bit application on my PC? Zero. I am sure that it is the case with majority of gamers out there.

I bet the gaming industry knows that many people still cant afford to upgrade even to dual core, so I'm pretty sure we wont see many games using quad cores earlier than 3 years from now.


P.S: Yes, I am VERY BIASED because I own a c2d, and I'd feel like crap if it became obsolete a year from now.

 

[ArchAngel777]

I don't see what all the hype is for SupCom.... It looks pretty lame to me. I viewed the screenshots, nothing graphics wise in that game warrants the CPU power it requires. The reviews I read give it great ratings, but nothing I want to play. Personally, I think C & C 3 looks better. Anyway, I think both games are weak...

 

[Skotty]

I'm betting you could get by with a C2D for about 6 years. My roommate was still using a Pentium III with an 5900 XT for gaming just a few months ago, playing stuff like Battlefield 2 on it. However, most Anantech readers demand top performance, anything else being obsolete and "unplayable", so that would take it down from 6 years to maybe 3 months.

 

[ibex333]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
I don't see what all the hype is for SupCom.... It looks pretty lame to me. I viewed the screenshots, nothing graphics wise in that game warrants the CPU power it requires. The reviews I read give it great ratings, but nothing I want to play. Personally, I think C & C 3 looks better. Anyway, I think both games are weak...

My point exactly.

 

[yacoub]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
I don't see what all the hype is for SupCom.... It looks pretty lame to me. I viewed the screenshots, nothing graphics wise in that game warrants the CPU power it requires. The reviews I read give it great ratings, but nothing I want to play. Personally, I think C & C 3 looks better. Anyway, I think both games are weak...

First of all the CPU is taxed by threads like AI. The graphics are actually rather high-end and pretty if you turn them up. But that taxes the GPU, not the CPU.

Learn more about computer parts like the CPU and the GPU so you understand what parts are impacted by what. And look at some high-res screenshots sometime with the graphical options on High and some decent AA like 4xS or 8xS. one example http://forums.gaspowered.com/viewtopic.php?t=6638

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: ibex333

Originally posted by: apoppin
you dual-core guys will want to read this ... it *belongs* here:

Topic Title: Supreme commander Quad core ready ? CPU whore

it *needs* more than 2 cores to run really well

and SC is the "first" 😛 (and hopefully the last at least until 2 years from now)

I think you are wrong when you say dual cores will be obsolete 1-2 years from now. It's more like 3-4 years. (4 is pushing it)

You base your argument on one game that is not even a very good game. A game that many people bash because of unreasonably steep requirements and crappy game play that's worse than that of the original.
Judging from gamespot forums, more people DIDN'T buy this game because they are pissed they cant afford a PC to run it, than people who DID buy it.

Now, I'm thinking.. If the devs want to SELL games, they will take a lesson from this, and in the future try to make games that are a little more friendly to low end PCs, instead of rushing technologies that are simply not necessary in this day and time to make/run a nice game. I see a lot more people who bash SupCom than those who say they love it. It's just a poorly optimized game. Just like NWN2 is. Reviews mean nothing. People's opinion means everything.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R is one example of a game that despite having a dated engine still manages to attract masses with it's exceptional gameplay. That shows that we don't have to push quad cores, and 8800GTXs to make good games.

Either way, even if you are right, and I am wrong, SupCom is just one game in a sea of other games and software which DOES NOT support dual core. Can you please explain to me why you would want to use quad cores when you haven't even seen dual cores taken advantage of on a massive scale?
It's like making dual cores when 64bit AMDs were never really taken advantage of. Seriously.. How many times did I, as an average user/gamer run a 64bit application on my PC? Zero. I am sure that it is the case with majority of gamers out there.

I bet the gaming industry knows that many people still cant afford to upgrade even to dual core, so I'm pretty sure we wont see many games using quad cores earlier than 3 years from now.


P.S: Yes, I am VERY BIASED because I own a c2d, and I'd feel like crap if it became obsolete a year from now.

well-then, we'll see won't we

and i will be here to remind you 😉

Games will be "playable" on Dual core and even Single core for 3 or 4 years to come ... of course ....
do you just want *playable* ? 😛
:roll:

i know i don't ... or i would just get an Xbox360 and forget PC gaming
:Q

i find it really *strange* that people will bash a game because it taxes their HW and somehow makes them feel 'inadequate'

SC may not be to your "liking" ... but it *portends* the future ... within 2-3 years. *ALL* PC games will utilize Quad-core

because the Devs "can" ... it is a "selling point" for HW manufacturers and their games ... and it is *easy* to do

DX10 will stress your HW like DX9 never will

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: apoppin
well-then, we'll see won't we

and i will be here to remind you 😉

Games will be "playable" on Dual core and even Single core for 3 or 4 years to come ... of course ....
do you just want *playable* ? 😛
:roll:

i know i don't ... or i would just get an Xbox360 and forget PC gaming
:Q

i find it really *strange* that people will bash a game because it taxes their HW and somehow makes them feel 'inadequate'

SC may not be to your "liking" ... but it *portends* the future ... within 2-3 years. *ALL* PC games will utilize Quad-core

because the Devs "can" ... it is a "selling point" for HW manufacturers and their games ... and it is *easy* to do

DX10 will stress your HW like DX9 never will

Says the gamer with a single core P4 on an AGP board, with less than 2GB of system RAM, to the guy with a C2D and an 8800GTS.:laugh:

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: apoppin
well-then, we'll see won't we

and i will be here to remind you 😉

Games will be "playable" on Dual core and even Single core for 3 or 4 years to come ... of course ....
do you just want *playable* ? 😛
:roll:

i know i don't ... or i would just get an Xbox360 and forget PC gaming
:Q

i find it really *strange* that people will bash a game because it taxes their HW and somehow makes them feel 'inadequate'

SC may not be to your "liking" ... but it *portends* the future ... within 2-3 years. *ALL* PC games will utilize Quad-core

because the Devs "can" ... it is a "selling point" for HW manufacturers and their games ... and it is *easy* to do

DX10 will stress your HW like DX9 never will

Says the gamer with a single core P4 on an AGP board, with less than 2GB of system RAM, to the guy with a C2D and an 8800GTS.:laugh:

what does the messenger have to do with the message?
:roll:

i will upgrade to Quad Core when you do ...

when it is necessary 😛

--next year 😉

a core2 would be practically useless at my low resolutions for games i play ...
--i don't play SC ... :beer:

 

[ibex333]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: apoppin
well-then, we'll see won't we

and i will be here to remind you 😉

Games will be "playable" on Dual core and even Single core for 3 or 4 years to come ... of course ....
do you just want *playable* ? 😛
:roll:

i know i don't ... or i would just get an Xbox360 and forget PC gaming
:Q

i find it really *strange* that people will bash a game because it taxes their HW and somehow makes them feel 'inadequate'

SC may not be to your "liking" ... but it *portends* the future ... within 2-3 years. *ALL* PC games will utilize Quad-core

because the Devs "can" ... it is a "selling point" for HW manufacturers and their games ... and it is *easy* to do

DX10 will stress your HW like DX9 never will

Says the gamer with a single core P4 on an AGP board, with less than 2GB of system RAM, to the guy with a C2D and an 8800GTS.:laugh:

what does the messenger have to do with the message?
:roll:

i will upgrade to Quad Core when you do ...

when it is necessary 😛

--next year 😉

a core2 would be practically useless at my low resolutions for games i play ...
--i don't play SC ... :beer:

Mmmm.... But how does that support your argument then? 😉
How does it go, (we are what we do? - or the other way around?) Nvm.

I cant see how you're can be using a game to prove your point when you don't play it.


Either way, we'll see who's right and who's wrong a year from now. If I'm wrong you can PM me and put me down. :laugh:

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: ibex333

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: apoppin
well-then, we'll see won't we

and i will be here to remind you 😉

Games will be "playable" on Dual core and even Single core for 3 or 4 years to come ... of course ....
do you just want *playable* ? 😛
:roll:

i know i don't ... or i would just get an Xbox360 and forget PC gaming
:Q

i find it really *strange* that people will bash a game because it taxes their HW and somehow makes them feel 'inadequate'

SC may not be to your "liking" ... but it *portends* the future ... within 2-3 years. *ALL* PC games will utilize Quad-core

because the Devs "can" ... it is a "selling point" for HW manufacturers and their games ... and it is *easy* to do

DX10 will stress your HW like DX9 never will

Says the gamer with a single core P4 on an AGP board, with less than 2GB of system RAM, to the guy with a C2D and an 8800GTS.:laugh:

what does the messenger have to do with the message?
:roll:

i will upgrade to Quad Core when you do ...

when it is necessary 😛

--next year 😉

a core2 would be practically useless at my low resolutions for games i play ...
--i don't play SC ... :beer:

Mmmm.... But how does that support your argument then? 😉
How does it go, (we are what we do? - or the other way around?) Nvm.

I cant see how you're can be using a game to prove your point when you don't play it.


Either way, we'll see who's right and who's wrong a year from now. If I'm wrong you can PM me and put me down. :laugh:

wth are you talking about
😕

Reviewers may not be gamers at all or *play* every game they review... who played Pacific Fighters? .. yet they still run benchmarks for all of us to see
:roll:

i am talking about an *unstoppable trend* ... games ARE being multi-threaded ... right now as i type ...
SC is just the FIRST one that shows definite performance gains using the 3rd and 4th cores

i am not saying exactly 365 days from now ... i can see clear "trends" ... by the End of '08 there is gonna be serious 'hurt' on your Core2 setup and you will probably have upgraded by then anyway.

i also started a thread about SC here in CPU forum:

Supreme Commander Uses *all* 4 Cores

does that mean i should run out and buy it?
:shocked:

:laugh:

 

[poohbear]

Originally posted by: apoppin
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=2955&p=3

Looking to the future, one thing that is clear is that multi-core solutions are truly becoming the norm.

😉

keep right on stuffing ... i am talking next year when your x2's will be *struggling* with multi-threaded DX10 games
:laugh:

what are u a cpu salesman? nobody knows anything will "struggle" w/ DX10. my singlecore running @ 2600mhz is doing awesome and i've thrown everything at it. Why? because i have a good video card. u're talking about games and telling ppl to buy a super cpu when that just wont do jack all. oblivion only shows improvements w/ dual core if u game @ 800x600, but who the hell does that?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: poohbear

Originally posted by: apoppin
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=2955&p=3

Looking to the future, one thing that is clear is that multi-core solutions are truly becoming the norm.

😉

keep right on stuffing ... i am talking next year when your x2's will be *struggling* with multi-threaded DX10 games
:laugh:

what are u a cpu salesman? nobody knows anything will "struggle" w/ DX10. my singlecore running @ 2600mhz is doing awesome and i've thrown everything at it. Why? because i have a good video card. u're talking about games and telling ppl to buy a super cpu when that just wont do jack all. oblivion only shows improvements w/ dual core if u game @ 800x600, but who the hell does that?

try *throwing* SC at it - at *high* resolution 😉
-right now ... today
:thumbsdown:

Supreme Commander Uses *all* 4 Cores


then you will understand *struggle* as your Frame Rate does the chug-chug-chug
--don't like the *message* ... too bad 😛

i *also* have a nice video card and single-core CPU ... but the video card *does not* determine the max resolution you can play at ... the CPU basically does ... your GPU supplies the *details*

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: yacoub

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
I don't see what all the hype is for SupCom.... It looks pretty lame to me. I viewed the screenshots, nothing graphics wise in that game warrants the CPU power it requires. The reviews I read give it great ratings, but nothing I want to play. Personally, I think C & C 3 looks better. Anyway, I think both games are weak...

First of all the CPU is taxed by threads like AI. The graphics are actually rather high-end and pretty if you turn them up. But that taxes the GPU, not the CPU.

Learn more about computer parts like the CPU and the GPU so you understand what parts are impacted by what. And look at some high-res screenshots sometime with the graphical options on High and some decent AA like 4xS or 8xS. one example http://forums.gaspowered.com/viewtopic.php?t=6638

Yeah I am sure those 4 versus 4 multiplayer matches really use a lot of AI! So that is where all the processor power is going, it is going to the AI, especially in multiplayer where it is 4 humans versus 4 humans! :roll:

Actually, the CPU has quite a bit to do with sending the GPU data. Maybe you should read up? I think you might want too.

 

[apoppin]

i think these guys are afraid of the Video forum 😛

:Q



http://forums.anandtech.com/categories.aspx?catid=31&flcache=6348976&entercat=y

you're all welcome
:evil:

*no moderation*

:laugh:

well ... almost none

 

[Ichigo]

Just a comment about some weird things a couple of you said. Consoles can use the same display and sound systems as PC's these days, so there's no need to factor in the cost of an HDTV or anything.

Also, the "main" genres are fps/rts/sports? Where do you get that? How does that include games like Prince of Persia, GTA series, God of War, Gears of War even (third person shooter, =p), Armored Core 4 (just came out), Tekken series etc? Heck, you even missed RPG's, which believe me is way more "main" than any PC dominated genre will ever become.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: myocardia
Says the gamer with a single core P4 on an AGP board, with less than 2GB of system RAM, to the guy with a C2D and an 8800GTS.:laugh:

what does the messenger have to do with the message?
:roll:

i will upgrade to Quad Core when you do ...when it is necessary 😛

--next year 😉

Now you're seeing my point-- that it still isn't necessary for gamers to have a quad-core. And I'm willing to bet that I'll have a quad before you do, since I've built three systems since you built your current one (sans the new cpu, of course).

a core2 would be practically useless at my low resolutions for games i play ...
--i don't play SC ... :beer:

So now dual-cores are overkill?😉 Of course, if you have a 7600GS or X1600 along with a CRT, and are happy with their performance, then a dual-core would actually be overkill, now that I think of it.<<---assuming that your single core is fast enough, of course

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: myocardia
Says the gamer with a single core P4 on an AGP board, with less than 2GB of system RAM, to the guy with a C2D and an 8800GTS.:laugh:

what does the messenger have to do with the message?
:roll:

i will upgrade to Quad Core when you do ...when it is necessary 😛

--next year 😉

Now you're seeing my point-- that it still isn't necessary for gamers to have a quad-core. And I'm willing to bet that I'll have a quad before you do, since I've built three systems since you built your current one (sans the new cpu, of course).

a core2 would be practically useless at my low resolutions for games i play ...
--i don't play SC ... :beer:

So now dual-cores are overkill?😉 Of course, if you have a 7600GS or X1600 along with a CRT, and are happy with their performance, then a dual-core would actually be overkill, now that I think of it.<<---assuming that your single core is fast enough, of course

i *never said* QC is "necessary" ... i AM saying there IS a performance difference ... right now

and i did see your point ... mine is simply that we should realize that a E6400@ 3.2GHZ is *not* "future proof" for gaming. 😉

the *future* is here - right now - in a couple of games ... *more* are to follow ... "soon"

what is currently in my machine *satisfies* my needs ... to hell with my "wants" ... they are endless ... i would *settle* for nothing less than ST:NG's ship's computer ... Credit card sized and with a neural interface, of course. 😛

like you, no doubt
:Q

but ... i also do what i think is "practical"[as no doubt you feel you do]

so far, i am very happy with my mini-upgrade ... i run everything satisfactorily on my modest 14x9 LCD ... even STALKER and Shivering Isles - *brand new* '07 games released this month ... run fluidly on my system with enough details "maxed" to keep me ecstatic
:heart:

do i care that a core2duo will give me 100fps vs 40?
... a little ... 😉
but not enough to motivate me to action if the difference was 100 vs 25, for example


OK?

when my games start to 'chug' ... and my OC cannot keep up with that - at 14x9 - well then, it's time for a faster CPU
... or a CRT ... my old one may still function
:roll:

and when the details need to be lowered to provide decent FPS ... well then, i get a new GPU

ultimately, i can *suffer* for a little while with med/low ... but then i can usually time my major upgrades pretty well ... at least i have done so perfectly for my needs, in the past
:clock:


well see

and i am "on" for next year ... probably after you upgrade to QC 😉