Just a few quick questions

[linkfreak]

Ok, on my adventerous and deadly quest to upgrading my PC I have narrowed down my options to a few possible paths, but I need just a little bit more information before I can proceed to my future configuration.

On the CPU, I hear that in the future more games will utilize(oh I game pretty much all the time no question about that, no "software" really) 4 cores.

So my first question to you is...

If there is a game capable of using 4 cores, how much of a performance hit would I see if I used a 2 core processor (processors in each category are related, so highest quad to highest dual or lowest quad to lowest dual, keep it matched up in each category). I mean its not like I would get 2 fps if I use a 2 core right? I'm thinking that a dual core will do just fine but not AS good as a quad, but I'm ok with that.

Ok, second question...

What is the cheapest processor (inspite of the question above) from either company that will not SIGNIFICANTLY (5-10+ fps) bottleneck a GTX 260. Also this answer goes for the HD 4870 and the HD 4770 as well.

Thanks alot everyone =)

 

[yh125d]

There are several popular games that can utilize 4 cores or more. WoW, Supreme Commander and GTA4 jump to mind, among others. They are definitely the minority for now though. As far as gains versus a dual core, most quad optimized games can be ran fine on a fast dual core, but the gains from a quad can be considerable. Even a Q6600 when compared to an e6600 which is the dual core version can get anywhere from probably 20-60% better FPS in games properly optimized for it. The newer quads and i7/PHII expand on that further


Good CPU matches for a GTX260/4870 would be in the e7500/PHII X3 720 area, with good quad options with Q9400/Q9550/PHII 945/i7 920, although they are gonna be the stronger component compared to a single gtx260/4870

 

[LoneNinja]

I know the unreal 3 engine makes use of quads, I don't feel like browsing a ton of reviews right now, but these numbers come from Anandtechs bench area.

FallOut 3
E8400 87
Q9650 86

Left 4 Dead
E8400 117
Q9950 125

Far Cry 2
E8400 45
Q9950 61

Crysis Warhead
E8400 79
Q9950 83

 

[ShawnD1]

How does frame rate scale with the number of cores? PCGH has a nice article about this.
http://www.pcgameshardware.com...tion-reviewed/Reviews/

Anno:
E8400 - 24.2
Q6600 - 25.9

Far Cry 2:
E8400 - 57.3
Q6600 - 62.2

GTA 4:
E8400 - 20.5
Q6600 - 22.0

Grid:
E8400 - 71.4
Q6600 - 71.4 (but the minimum is still higher)

Do you see the trend? The E8400 has much faster cores than the Q6600, but it's consistently slower in games. The number of CPU cores is very important and it will be more important in the future when quad core becomes the norm. We had this exact same debate of single vs dual core a few years ago and you know how that turned out.

What is the cheapest processor (inspite of the question above) from either company that will not SIGNIFICANTLY (5-10+ fps) bottleneck a GTX 260. Also this answer goes for the HD 4870 and the HD 4770 as well.

For future games? You can probably just get the cheapest quad core and overclock it. $150 Q8200 (should overclock to ~3ghz on stock voltage) is a nice choice. $170 Phenom II 945 (95W version) is an excellent processor as well, but I can't find any overclocking data. IMO, you should stay away from dual and triple core processors. Would you really give up an entire CPU core just to save $30? I wouldn't.

 

[myocardia]

Games available now that gain performance from quad cores, in order from most to least:

1) Microsoft Flight Simulator X-- can utilize up to 256 cores, and can and will use 100% of four cores, when flown @ VFR, between 2,000 & 5,000' AGL.
2) Supreme Commander-- can use roughly 100% of three cores, when on large maps with maximum bots

No other games benefit a lot right now. Note though, we are in a transition period now, like we were a few years ago when we were transitioning from single cores to dual cores. Although the majority of video cards aren't fast enough to keep up with a fast quad core, most games that are being released these days (recent releases and upcoming releases) will attempt to use 4 cores, if they're available. Even today, if you're running two GTX285's or better, and aren't running an overclocked quad core, you're wasting an awful lot of GPU cycles with a large percentage of new games. And video cards get faster every 6 months, and have for a decade now. That isn't likely to change in the near future.

The percentage of games utilizing four or more cores won't be going down in the coming months, it will definitely be going up. So, if you happen to be the type who upgrades their processor/system often, you'll be fine with a fast dual core. If you're like the average person, and upgrade your system every 3 or 4 years, you really only have one choice, the fastest quad you can afford. Good luck.

 

[linkfreak]

Well, on the Far Cry 2 example provided by Shawn, I can live with a 5 fps loss =/ I mean at the moment all I do is gaming so the advantage of going from dual (or tri) to quad would be insignificant compared to the uses that quads are really put to the test to (such as video decoding and editing). Maybe I can just get a dual core and overclock it and in 3 years time, most games will be using 4 cores (I'm guessing) and then when that time comes I can just buy a quad core for my upgrade. As in the tests provided by you guys, the dual core (E8400) was slower indeed, there's no way of getting around that, but the loss from the fps that the quad provides is insignificant in MY eyes, some people migh keel over over every .1 fps but I'm not one of those people. So is this plan reccommended by you guys? Thanks a many everyone =)

PS: Oh and by the way, what is anno?

 

[linkfreak]

Ok, well I spent about 2+ hours doing this but I think I have found some good processors from both brands in each category.

AMD: Price: Intel: Price:

Dual core: AMD Phenom II X2 545 $90 Dual core: Intel Core 2 Duo E7400 $110

Triple core: AMD Phenom II X3 710/720 $99/$119

Quad core: AMD Phenom 9650/9750 $110/$120 Quad core Intel's are too expensive for my budget

Here is a very interesting article that I found on tomshardware that compares 2, 3, and 4 cores on everything but what I was paying attention to was the games. One of the comments stated that each different number of cores that a processor had were all at 2.7 GHz and the graphics card used was a Geforce GTS 250.

http://www.tomshardware.com/re...-core-cpu,2280-10.html

According to this, I'm starting to lean towards dual's or tri's =/ And is there a significant difference between Phenom and Phenom II? This is related to the quad section but I just wanted to know.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: linkfreak
Ok, well I spent about 2+ hours doing this but I think I have found some good processors from both brands in each category.

AMD: Price: Intel: Price:

Dual core: AMD Phenom II X2 545 $90 Dual core: Intel Core 2 Duo E7400 $110

Triple core: AMD Phenom II X3 710/720 $99/$119

Quad core: AMD Phenom 9650/9750 $110/$120 Quad core Intel's are too expensive for my budget

Here is a very interesting article that I found on tomshardware that compares 2, 3, and 4 cores on everything but what I was paying attention to was the games. One of the comments stated that each different number of cores that a processor had were all at 2.7 GHz and the graphics card used was a Geforce GTS 250.

http://www.tomshardware.com/re...-core-cpu,2280-10.html

According to this, I'm starting to lean towards dual's or tri's =/ And is there a significant difference between Phenom and Phenom II? This is related to the quad section but I just wanted to know.

That Phenom II X2 545 has a whopping 7MB of cache and is at 3 GHz...I would say that is going to be your best choice for gaming in that price range.
If you're adventurous, then it also overclocks very easily and you can usually unlock the disabled cores on it as well.

 

[linkfreak]

Well, its actually 6MB but hey, I'm not complaining =). My sempron probably has like 2 bits lol. So this wouldn't bottleneck, say a HD 4870 would it? Because that's the main reason I'm getting a new processor, to cut that bottleneck with a saw so a big glass cup is all that's left =)

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: linkfreak
Well, its actually 6MB but hey, I'm not complaining =). My sempron probably has like 2 bits lol. So this wouldn't bottleneck, say a HD 4870 would it? Because that's the main reason I'm getting a new processor, to cut that bottleneck with a saw so a big glass cup is all that's left =)

It's 1MB of L2 and 6MB of L3...7MB
Unless you run at 800x600 for some bizarre reason (and even then it will be fine), then the bottleneck will be the GPU (as it almost always is these days).

 

[heyheybooboo]

If you decide to go quad the AM3 Phenom 810 would be your best long-term option.