No dual core love in 2015

[BSim500]

Games are designed to run with 4 cores because 80% of CPU's have at least 4 cores.

According to Steam's hardware survey, it's actually more like 48% dual, 44% quad (and only 2% of gamers own 5 or more cores...)

 

[john5220]

Pentiums aren't made for gamers.

they are however priced the same atleast with AMD you can get an affordable quad core that will run any game with a few fps less.

With intel cheap will get you garbage thats almost unplayable. My old pentium G3220 haswell was utter garbage totally unplayable while an ancient athlon II X4 from AM2 platform will destroy the G3220 in battlefield 3 with 64 player maps.

Bought an i3 for me and ordered a 760K for my friend as he had cash but not a credit card. Both these chips perform about the same in gaming or general performance. And his 760k was $70 and my i3 was $120. Thats $50 less!!!

I realized then and there all this is just intel fanboyism. You get way better value for money with AMD and the added benefit of not supporting intel a mafia company that loses every case where they are slapped with billions of dollars in charges for breaking the law just to undermine AMD

Too bad AMD is the honest ones and play by the rules.

 

[jpiniero]

Nope but nice try. Even if it did start it wouldn't run well. Games are designed to run with 4 cores because 80% of CPU's have at least 4 cores.

4 threads, yes. 4 cores, no.

 

[tweakboy]

Might as well go on the P2B . 450Mhz 4GB HD onboard SCSI .........

 

[Maximilian]

I still remember the fights in this forum about single vs dual core. Guess how that turned out? We're witnessing the exact same thing right now. Dual cores are ok for older games but for newer and more complex games we do need more than dual cores.

The dual vs quad argument finished years ago as well. Q6xxx vs E8xxx The people who bought the quad were right.

Niche situations where the dual might have been better etc etc blah, wrong, the quad was the better buy.

 

[Phynaz]

Look how all those review sites claimed the unlocked pentium was king and you should buy it over any AMD quad core like the 760k etc which is the same price.

Turns out they were full of sh!t, many games will give an error if it detects you have a dual core. A quad core AMD is so much better than the best over clocked intel dual core.

Such a lie spread by intel fan boys now when you have a G3258 and you go cry how the game will not start up on that chip, people laugh at you and say is this 2006? get a real quad core CPU.

Funny thing is AMD quad cores run games just fine. Just look at Battlefield 4 online on 64 player maps, runs better on any AMD quad core over any intel dual core.

Evidence this is another of your troll threads.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

The dual vs quad argument finished years ago as well. Q6xxx vs E8xxx The people who bought the quad were right.

Niche situations where the dual might have been better etc etc blah, wrong, the quad was the better buy.

This isn't like that at all, nobody's saying a dualcore would beat a quad of the same generation. It's just strange that games refuse to run on 2 cores, even though they run on quads with well under half the per core performance.

 

[2is]

I'm not sure what's shocking about this tbh. Gaming is one of the more demanding tasks you ask of your PC and you're talking about burning through the newest ones on some of the lowest end processors available today. i5's and i7's serve a purpose and aren't merely for bragging rights.

This is also why I never recommended buying the bare minimum hardware specs. You do that and their longevity is also minimized. I've been building my gaming machines for quite some time now and have done things both ways and quickly came to realize that overbuilding is the better option.

 

[cbn]

Funny thing is AMD quad cores run games just fine. Just look at Battlefield 4 online on 64 player maps, runs better on any AMD quad core over any intel dual core.

I have an OC G3258 and with a R7 250X on 1080p low it runs the 64 player maps just fine.

 

[cbn]

The dual vs quad argument finished years ago as well. Q6xxx vs E8xxx The people who bought the quad were right.

Niche situations where the dual might have been better etc etc blah, wrong, the quad was the better buy.

The Q6xxx vs. E8xxx was a different argument because the processors were at the same price point.

These days an unlocked quad core i5 is around 3x the money of the unlocked Pentium.

 

[escrow4]

The quadcore requirements are fake and another hopeless attempt to make consoles look better than they are. And the games that does require a quadcore gets one patch after the other to enable dualcore mode. When crackers already removed the idiotic block that makes no sense.

Wrong. Its not 2006 anymore, running a fat old AAA game on a poky old dual core with 8.1 lurking in the background is a recipe for disaster. Every AAA game this month can use the threads - Unity, Advanced Warfare, Inquisition, FC 4. Unity and Inquisition can even stretch to an octa-core and will effectively use a hexa core. I don't even use dual's in my office boxes anymore (barring a cheapo laptop). Duals are throwaways, its 2015 and you want the threads.

 

[cbn]

Looking at the two games in question, here are the minimum CPU requirements:

Far Cry 4:

Intel Core i5 750
AMD Phenom II 955

Dragon Age: Inquistion

Intel 2GHz quad core
AMD 2.5 GHz quad core

Dragon Age Inquistion appears to be generalizing the cpu requirements because there is no 2Ghz Intel quad core I can think of other than a Celeron J1900. With regard to Far Cry 4, a Core i5 750 doesn't seem like a very high minimum requirement.

According to news reports (from a Internet Search) Far Cry 4 will likely be patched to work with dual cores, Not sure what is going to happen with Dragon Age Inquistion, but I wouln't be surprised to see the patched as the cpu requirements appear to be even lower than Far Cry 4.

 

[john5220]

I have an OC G3258 and with a R7 250X on 1080p low it runs the 64 player maps just fine.

yes but you have to OC it which the vast majority of the consumers are not willing to risk or is interested in, PERIOD!!

when someone buys a product they expect it work as is without any need to modify it. The small 2% of OC market here does not count.

So its silly to think any dual core is going to be a better choice than quad cores its just a bad lie being fed to people. Lots of games now are crashing if it detects you have a dual core.

A quad core amd will outlast those G3258 and the ones who invested the money in it will be left like idiots. The previous cod advanced warfare proved just that before activision was forced to patch it to allow dual cores after huge outcry from the community and we aren't going to be so lucky next time around. With games being ported from consoles which run 8 core CPU, you can expect the phasing out of dual core chips very soon.

 

[cbn]

Lots of games now are crashing if it detects you have a dual core.

I have only heard of three so far, COD :AW (which has now been patched to work with dual core), FC4 and Dragon Age Inquisition.

 

[positivedoppler]

When even tablets have 4 cores, advocating dual core in this day and age is just pointless

 

[cbn]

When even tablets have 4 cores, advocating dual core in this day and age is just pointless

If all the $100 tablets out there had desktop level Core i5 desktop level processing power then I could partially see your point. (ie, cheap and capable quad core desktop level processing power is ubiquitous and cheap to the point that dual core desktop processing power is obsolete like Pentium 4)

But fact remains tablet quad core is just not there yet.

 

[john5220]

^ this is true even smartphones now hardly ever come with dual core CPU to begin with.

Expect many games in the coming years to not support dual cores period. Sure AMD is trying to limit the CPU bottleneck with Mantle but there is no replacing the benefits of quad cores over dual.

 

[john5220]

If all the $100 tablets out there had desktop level Core i5 desktop level processing power then I could partially see your point. (ie, cheap and capable quad core desktop level processing power is ubinquitous and cheap to the point that dual core desktop processing power is obsolete like Pentium 4)

But fact remains tablet quad core is just not there yet.

it would take more power to drive a dual core in a tablet or phone to get the same performance of a quad core. And produce more heat not so?

Kinda like Pentium 4 increasing frequency until they realized this can no longer work because of heat and power.

 

[positivedoppler]

Yeah i dont care if its Intel or AMD, but building a new desktop rig that even on paper has lesser spec than a cell phone is laughable and embarassing for any yeck geek

 

[cbn]

it would take more power to drive a dual core in a tablet or phone to get the same performance of a quad core. And produce more heat not so?

My point is that a quad core tablet chip is not going to have faster multi-threading than a desktop Pentium dual core chip.

However, if they day came that Core i5 desktop level processing power was dirt cheap and ubiquitous then Dual core Pentium would probably be out the door in the same way P4 is out the door.

 

[papapapapapapapababy]

first, elitist pc dudes over here are the worst... lololo quad core or bust. argh... yes more cores are better. except that the worst dual core celeron DESTROYS whats inside this super lame consoles!

regarding artificial limitations, total bs. most portjobs are stressed in just one core
( example see dos review of far cry 4 from ub...) and if you do have all the sys requirements nailed there is still a huge chance your brand new game wont work AT ALL for a terrible bug, so adding extra fake limitations is TOTAL BS, it the game works it works. a oc pentiun cpu is a lil monster ( again compared to this garbage) Stop trying to sell me the console supercharged bs, im not a retard it wont work!

 

[john5220]

I think dual core pentium will be out the door in the next 3 years.

A cheap quad core AMD is a far better purchase than any dual core intel when it comes to future proofing. And with console ports and consoles using 8 cores I expect to see 8 core as recommended within the next 3 years.

Remember how they said quad cores are useless for gaming since no games use 4 threads? now dual cores are atrocious.

 

[ShintaiDK]

^ this is true even smartphones now hardly ever come with dual core CPU to begin with.

Expect many games in the coming years to not support dual cores period. Sure AMD is trying to limit the CPU bottleneck with Mantle but there is no replacing the benefits of quad cores over dual.

What smartphones again contains more than 2 cores? Few flagship models and what else? Apple is still with dualcores for example.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I think dual core pentium will be out the door in the next 3 years.

A cheap quad core AMD is a far better purchase than any dual core intel when it comes to future proofing. And with console ports and consoles using 8 cores I expect to see 8 core as recommended within the next 3 years.

Remember how they said quad cores are useless for gaming since no games use 4 threads? now dual cores are atrocious.

How are those 4-8 core AMD CPUs doing in the lastest quadcore requireed games? Specially compared to the old obsolete dualcore i3.

And remember COD AW?

 

[john5220]

well yeah games are now starting to really utilize more than 2 threads.

Unreal Engine 4 will use 8 threads for example at a point. By the end of the new console generation, quad cores will be come absolute.

We will be back here in 8 years saying how the new games cannot run on 8 cores and really needs 16. That much we can be sure off!!