How much advantage is gained for gaming using a Quad Vs a Dual?

[Pentacore]

Hi all I'm new here...



Maybe an obvious question but I've been out of computers and gaming for that matter for a long time. Anyways, I'm about to put together a new computer strictly for gaming. The mobo is the ASUS P5N-E SLI and has a Core 2 Duo E6400 2.16Ghz that I've been able to OC to 3.0Ghz. The question I have is, I have a 2nd computer that I only use for music production and it has a Q6600 in it. I don't really need the quad core capability for what I'm doing so what I'd like to know is, would it be worth it to put the Q6600 in my new board and overclock it, versus leaving things the way they are now?

I guess what I really want to know is, how much more will the Q6600 increase my gaming experience Vs just the Dual Core? I'm using an 8800GT for the videocard if that helps any. Thanks in advance!

 

[DSF]

It depends on the game. Generally speaking, the answer is either it won't help at all, or it won't help much.

Edit: But if you want to be doing something CPU-intensive in the background while you're playing games, that might be a different story.

 

[Thor86]

You have an SLI board, just get another 8800GT and use SLI if you want better gaming frame rates.

 

[Pentacore]

I hope to get another 8800GT eventually but I've already spent enough money on everything so I'll have to wait on that for now. So that quad core really isn't going to make much impact on gaming? I guess gaming perfomance has more to do with the videocard than the CPU then?

 

[sgrinavi]

I have a q6600 quad and an e4600 dual core; I was wondering the same thing. When I swapped out the quad for dual, ran them both at 3.0 with an 8800GT the quad gave me about 15% better frame rates in crysis.. maybe it was the cache, I don't know. The 3dmark06 scores showed a similar, but less drastic, result..

When I swithched my graphics card to the GTX the difference was less noticable in crysis, closer to 10% loss of frame rates with the e4600.

 

[konakona]

did the min frame rates change? thats what matters after all, and I would assume it is a strongly GPU limited scenario..

 

[sgrinavi]

Originally posted by: konakona
did the min frame rates change? thats what matters after all, and I would assume it is a strongly GPU limited scenario..

I dunno.. I was looking at the average frames/sec. It is probably a combination of GPU and cache.

 

[Pentacore]

Originally posted by: sgrinavi
I have a q6600 quad and an e4600 dual core; I was wondering the same thing. When I swapped out the quad for dual, ran them both at 3.0 with an 8800GT the quad gave me about 15% better frame rates in crysis.. maybe it was the cache, I don't know. The 3dmark06 scores showed a similar, but less drastic, result..

When I swithched my graphics card to the GTX the difference was less noticable in crysis, closer to 10% loss of frame rates with the e4600.

Very interesting thank you for that info as Crysis was one of the main games I wanted to play. If the Q6600 will give me better framerates then I might as well use it as its really being underutilized in its current box.

 

[Cardio]

When I went from an E6600 @3.2 to a Q6600 @3.2 (actually went down from 3.6 on the dual as the Quad would not run that fast) with everything else exactly the same, I gained exactly nothing. Crysis no change whatever, Bioshock, FlightSim X or any other game or program I use were also exactly the same. Really disappointing to me. Actually the E6600 would run faster and cooler also. I guess if you are editing video or some applications the Quad might be of some advantage but I do not do those things and don't run multiple applications at once either. I just increased the cost and got nothing in return. Some say that in the future more applications will use more cores. Well by then I will not be using the same computer anyway.

Abit IP35 Pro With heatpipe MOD and 2 40mm fans, 4GB, 8800GTX OC, Zerotherm NV120, Stacker 830 with 7 120mm case fans, PC Power 750 Quad. I don't think I was short on anything that would hurt performance. It was certainly a waste of time and money for me. Would go back if it wasn't so much trouble.

 

[The-Noid]

I have quadcores in my computers because I use them for crunching. If I did not I would run the DC equivalent at higher frequencies. They cost less and use less energy. They also generally overclock a bit better.

 

[konceptz]

I run an E6600 @ 3.2 custom built with an x1950pro. My friend runs a Dell Q6600 with an nvidia Geforge 8400 something.

We play a lot of Supreme commander (windowed). Also, we've noticed I get higher "highs" and he gets higher "lows" framerate-wise. This is only after using a SupCom maximizer that spreads load onto up to 32 threads. At the largest points in the game, I'm at 100% CPU usage and he's at around 70%

This is not a common comparrison imo, but it may give warning of things to come.

I'd get the quad simply for the four four colors in CoreTemp.... but that's the kind of guy I am.

 

[The-Noid]

I won't comment on the multiple colors comment

However I believe Supreme Commander, Hellgate:London, Crysis, UT2007 are games that support quadcore right now. I am not sure if there are any more.

 

[Gerr]

From what I have heard, it all depends on if the game is written to take advantage of more than 2 cores. Crysis is, so the Quad will be faster. Other games that are not designed for a Quad will show next to no difference, unless you move all the OS stuff off onto the 3rd and 4th cores, but still wont make much of a difference then.

Generally, use your most powerful hardware in your gaming rig as modern 3D games will stress your system more than most other things.

Plus what is more important to you, higher FPS, or shorter times waiting for you music stuff to finish?

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: Cardio
When I went from an E6600 @3.2 to a Q6600 @3.2 (actually went down from 3.6 on the dual as the Quad would not run that fast) with everything else exactly the same, I gained exactly nothing. Crysis no change whatever, Bioshock, FlightSim X or any other game or program I use were also exactly the same. Really disappointing to me. Actually the E6600 would run faster and cooler also. I guess if you are editing video or some applications the Quad might be of some advantage but I do not do those things and don't run multiple applications at once either. I just increased the cost and got nothing in return. Some say that in the future more applications will use more cores. Well by then I will not be using the same computer anyway.

Abit IP35 Pro With heatpipe MOD and 2 40mm fans, 4GB, 8800GTX OC, Zerotherm NV120, Stacker 830 with 7 120mm case fans, PC Power 750 Quad. I don't think I was short on anything that would hurt performance. It was certainly a waste of time and money for me. Would go back if it wasn't so much trouble.

I agree with this post. having a quad core is extremely overrated. a dual core 45nm is going to whoop up quad 45nm and quad65 nm, due to its higher overclocking headroom

think you guys are wrong about crysis quad core support:
http://www.extremetech.com/art.../0,1697,2209093,00.asp

this crysis comparison shows the 6850 dual & quad, with the quad getting 8.5% better performance. is this due to 4 cores, or higher cache?
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/583/9/

 

[WaTaGuMp]

Quads cores are a waste cause too many people cant even count to 4.

 

[Cardio]

Originally posted by: WaTaGuMp
Quads cores are a waste cause too many people cant even count to 4.

Windows Vista 32 is that way, I have 4GB's and it can only count to 3.25 ! Wonder is it can count to 4 if you have a Quad. A 3.25 core would be unique, though.

 

[JAG87]

There is quite a significant difference in Source engine based games. Although it is not a fully multi threaded game, going from 2 to 4 cores yields a 10-15% boost in fps for me.

I ran the test by disabling core 2 and 3 in the bios, and running only with core 0 and 1.

Games like Crysis and COD4, and all the latest stuff will benefit slightly from a quad core. Not as much as it should though.

Games like UT3 make almost perfect use of a quad core. Gotta give props to epic games for that.

 

[NXIL]

A 3.25 core would be unique, though.

Well, AMD almost has you covered with the Phenom "Try" core, the Toliman.

Since they "tried" to make quad cores and wound up with a triple cores, it's sort of is like a 3.25 core. Or thereabouts.

3.25 cores, 3.25 GB, 3XXX video card--it's their new "3 legged spider platform": crippled, but still able to limp around.

 

[taltamir]

those processors are at entirely different price levels. You should compare similarly priced processors.

If you already HAVE two of those lying around, then yea, a quad at the same speed will obviously improve performance...

If you are BUYING A new processor the E8400 will give you better performance in games and pretty much everything except winrar and half life 2 level compiler, in which the Q6600 still wins.
In a month or so new quad core penryns will arrive, and then there will be much more reason to buy one as they will compete much more favorably with the E8400. So if you want to wait that's also an option...

But if you already own the processor then just plop it in.

 

[Cardio]

Originally posted by: JAG87
There is quite a significant difference in Source engine based games. Although it is not a fully multi threaded game, going from 2 to 4 cores yields a 10-15% boost in fps for me.

I ran the test by disabling core 2 and 3 in the bios, and running only with core 0 and 1.

Games like Crysis and COD4, and all the latest stuff will benefit slightly from a quad core. Not as much as it should though.

Games like UT3 make almost perfect use of a quad core. Gotta give props to epic games for that.

I am not sure that disabling 2 cores of a quad processor is the same as using a dual core of the same speed. It may be, maybe not. In my case, I changed the processors. The quad was not faster with all 4 cores than the dual core at the same speed in any game. This included Crysis and COD4. And since the dual core would actually run faster by about 400mhz, at that speed it was considerable faster than the quad. Just my experience, but based on actual tests in the same computer with no other changes. Quad at stock speed-no improvement, Overclocked-no contest dual core faster. I don't' do encoding so can't comment on that kind of application.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: sgrinavi
I have a q6600 quad and an e4600 dual core; I was wondering the same thing. When I swapped out the quad for dual, ran them both at 3.0 with an 8800GT the quad gave me about 15% better frame rates in crysis.. maybe it was the cache, I don't know. The 3dmark06 scores showed a similar, but less drastic, result..

When I swithched my graphics card to the GTX the difference was less noticable in crysis, closer to 10% loss of frame rates with the e4600.

8mb vs. 2mb cache did about 13.5% and the 2 extra cores did the other 1.5% in crysis

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

I agree with this post. having a quad core is extremely overrated. a dual core 45nm is going to whoop up quad 45nm and quad65 nm, due to its higher overclocking headroom

think you guys are wrong about crysis quad core support:
http://www.extremetech.com/art.../0,1697,2209093,00.asp

this crysis comparison shows the 6850 dual & quad, with the quad getting 8.5% better performance. is this due to 4 cores, or higher cache?
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/583/9/

Maybe you didnt know little man but the QX9650 can probably overclock higher then a wolfdale thanks to its unlocked multi.

And maybe theres a reason why intel hasnt announced a X dualcore wolfdale? :T


Dude dualcores are slowly getting phased out. Live with it. There not going to last forever. And im getting tired of your rants about quadcores. You dont even understand why people buy them and your telling them there bad.


OP. you want better game performance, YOU always look at gfx cards as the foundation. Thats how its always been, and always will be.

A AMD X2 @ 2.4ghz would spank any intel machine in gaming if it had SLI 8800GTX on it and the intel had a single GPU solution. The GPU just plays a ton more on games. So yeah, a quadcore maybe not worth it.

But like someone else says, it would be nice to rip a DVD, while your encoding a MPEG -> some other format while racking up frags on CS:S 1.6 or playing (enter your game here) and not have your system HANG.

THIS IS THE POWER OF A QUADCORE. Not RAW MHZ numbers. Is this concept too difficult for you guys to understand?

If your happy with single tasks, or you just do light office application, internet, email, videos, the best solution would be a low voltage 45W AMD processor or downvolting your C2D processor.

You always build by application. NEVER by "this article here says this processor can overclock to X Y Z Ghz". Unless you are going after that mhz. Otherwise your a complete noob when it comes to system building.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

So yeah, a quadcore maybe not worth it.

dude, it's a fact than an e8400 is faster than q6600, wether you like it or not. That's stock or overclocked.

"little man"

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: aigomorla

So yeah, a quadcore maybe not worth it.

dude, it's a fact than an e8400 is faster than q6600, wether you like it or not. That's stock or overclocked.

"little man"

LMAO

wanna see who can do 12k points on WCG first?

or how about who can do more EU's on F@H at a given 4 hour segment?

OR how about see who can encode more MP3's AVI's DIVX ect... in 2 hours?

OR how about who can do more compiling and sorting of major DB.


No your processor would get spanked hardcore @ any MHZ unless you got like 7-8ghz on that wolfdale.

You'd probably win on a SuperPI. But then i would bring in my Q6600ES to fight this one and stomp you on a suicide run @ 4.2ghz. :T But then i could probably get it higher now that my DFI LT X38 is more stable then my other DQ6 at suicide ocing.


Application first then you build little man.

 

[Tempered81]

how about choose any of the games on gamespot.com?

If you're not too busy having all that fun getting 12,000 distributed computing points, or watching your frames per second counter in gordian knot.

This is only if the average enthusiast takes time out of his eventful compiling and sorting of major databases to play some crysis.