its a myth that sandy bridge will improve gaming performance

[endlessmike133]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/game-performance-bottleneck,2738.html

GPU is more important than CPU, a decent dual core CPU is good enough for vast majority of games; sandy bridge quad cores arent needed

 

[tokie]

True that a decent dual core CPU is enough for a majority of games.

But if you play games more often that require a quad (like BC2/UT3) then the CPU does become more important, doesn't it?

 

[lehtv]

Usually a better processor will noticeably improve your game performance only when the previous processor bottlenecked your graphics card.

 

[BD231]

Shat up with this crap already Sandy Bridge rocks just admit it, you sh*tstorm of an OP. Seriously though how many threads need to pop up about this dual core gaming topic.

 

[alkemyst]

True to an extent like a SSD drive is better than upgrading the CPU in a laptop for most.

There are many CPU limited games though.

 

[Patrick Wolf]

This is a repost. IBL.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2111619

 

[PlasmaBomb]

^ Yup repost.

What was said in BFG's thread still applies.

 

[PreferLinux]

It's not Sandy Bridge. It is ANY CPU that is more powerful than necessary, which is most current CPUs.

 

[notty22]

Check out the minimum frame results between these cpu's using a 5870 at 1680x1050
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/01/03/intel-sandy-bridge-review/10

 

[Nintendesert]

It will be nice however to not have to worry about my CPU for a few years and focus on SSDs and the GPU. Some of us are in need of SB due to older crappier chips. 2500K fits that role nicely.

Now, moving from a current i7 or i5 might not make those most sense, but that's hardly everyone that's been waiting for and anticipating SB.

 

[Maximilian]

Yup anyone with a good quad has nothing to worry about, except the original phenom.

 

[thedosbox]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/game-performance-bottleneck,2738.html

GPU is more important than CPU, a decent dual core CPU is good enough for vast majority of games; sandy bridge quad cores arent needed

So, what are you suggesting? That gamers go buy dual-core Core 2 Duo's? Because bit-tech did a similar test, and determined that a tri-core is the sweet spot when paired with a sufficiently powerful video card.

Look, we understand if you're jealous that some people can afford an upgrade. Really.

 

[TonyB]

how would SB fare on games that are traditionally CPU bound, such as Worlds of Warcraft

 

[mv2devnull]

how would SB fare on games that are traditionally CPU bound, such as Worlds of Warcraft

Faster clock for clock, but has higher stock clock to boot and will OC higher too? What would you gain in WoW with that?


It is a myth that I would care for vast majority of games, but the one I do care about happens to be CPU-bound. Do I need a faster CPU? No, gaming is not compulsory and I've been able to play with older hardware. Nevertheless, I'm curious whether SB could turn seconds per frame into frame per second. That would be observable.

 

[soccerballtux]

True that a decent dual core CPU is enough for a majority of games.

But if you play games more often that require a quad (like BC2/UT3) then the CPU does become more important, doesn't it?

ut3 doesn't require quad, I played it on my 3.4ghz e2180 with plenty of CPU to spare.