Quad Cores or Dual Cores? I'm COnfused =(

[Glaucus]

it all depends when you next plan to upgrade, if it's not going to be a year or so I would go quad. The speed differencing in reality is only a few fps over a dual core. but when things start using it, quad will be much faster.

Which basically means dual core are for the perfectionist gamer and over clocking brigade.

 

[Deimos]

I've read the 1st 2 pages of this thread, and what I would like to point out is that I don't believe the difference between the duel and quad cores will have any impact on whether a game is playable or not. All those benchmarks are showing FPS of 60+ and at the higher resolutions where GPU is the limiting factor there is no noticeable difference at all. Its my belief that for the next 2 years the Wolfdales will handle the 1680 x 1050 + resolutions perfectly and the GPU will be the only limiting factor in terms of a games playability.

Conclusion

The quad cores are better, but the duel cores are much better value. What is the point of spending more on a quad if the sole purpose of the machine is to play games and non demanding tasks. You may get a much better fps in very low resolutions and small improvements at higher res but its unimportant as the games are extremely playable and will be for the forseeable future. with an E8400 the only factor limiting a games playability for a good 2 years + is the GPU.

I would like to point out however that I love benchmarking and having the highest FPS possible. I am getting a Q9450 for that very reason.

Gaming Computer - care only about playing games at top resolutions with a decent FPS. Get a Dual core

Gaming Computer - Care about getting the best fps possible within games regardless of it having no impact on the actual performance and playability. Spend an extra £100 on a good Quad core

GPU limitation is the only factor for computers with dual core CPU's from the last 2 years. Other than Supreme Commander and a select few other games.

Btw 45 FPS is what I believe to be my personal threshold, I don't notice any difference above that. However that is my personal observation and other people will have different ones.

Almost forgot about heat, Dual cores win. This has been stated throughout the thread but I thought I better include it,

 

[helmutcheese]

The faster MHZ Dual Core is better in Games for now.

It is still the case if its 2560x1600.

 

[RizlaKing]

Roast if your planning on having this pc for the next two years i definately say get a quad as i think in that time you will see a definate benfit from it. I think more and more apps and games will use the four cores as it is an easier way to up performance i might be wrong bu that seems to be how it is moving.

 

[555BUK]

Saying a Dual Core is better for gaming is not strictly true. It depends on the type of games you play. Some of my favorite games see massive benifits with a quad. Supreme Commander and UT3 give 30-100% increases on my system when comparing a quad at 3.1 and dual at 3.9GHz. Other games such a HL2 and GRID prefer the higher clocked DC.

At the end of the day it depends whether the games are CPU or GPU limited, and whether they have been optimised for multi cores. I really do cannot tell which is best when comparing DC vs QC with an 800MHz advantage to the DC.

 

[helmutcheese]

Saying a Dual Core is better for gaming is not strictly true. It depends on the type of games you play. Some of my favorite games see massive benifits with a quad. Supreme Commander and UT3 give 30-100% increases on my system when comparing a quad at 3.1 and dual at 3.9GHz. Other games such a HL2 and GRID prefer the higher clocked DC.

At the end of the day it depends whether the games are CPU or GPU limited, and whether they have been optimised for multi cores. I really do cannot tell which is best when comparing DC vs QC with an 800MHz advantage to the DC.

1 GAME so far after a mod/patch means nothing.

Alan Wake was SUPPOSED to be the 1st game to use Quads.

For NOW Duals are still better bet, it gets asked about 10x per week and its the same story now as then.

 

[tatts]

For NOW Duals are still better bet, it gets asked about 10x per week and its the same story now as then.

I would be interested in reading the source of this info?
Everyone i've seen so far show the C2D's cause GPU bottleneck after 3Ghz even with the 4870x2

 

[Vir]

I would be interested in reading the source of this info?
Everyone i've seen so far show the C2D's cause GPU bottleneck after 3Ghz even with the 4870x2

No offense but how can that be when the 2 extra cores aren't even used?

 

[tatts]

No offense but how can that be when the 2 extra cores aren't even used?

The extra 2 are used but with it being on average 5-10% usage it doesnt make significant differences.

Theres links on here that ive posted showing both duals & quads hit a wall @ 3ghz regarding fps (jumping from 3ghz to 3.6ghz showed a 3fps increase) which is down to GPU bottleneck

 

[helmutcheese]

I would be interested in reading the source of this info?
Everyone i've seen so far show the C2D's cause GPU bottleneck after 3Ghz even with the 4870x2

The source is about 100 peeps here and in every forum and review.

This question is nearly as much a PIA as the 2GB or 4GB one because peeps are incapable or using SEARCH.

 

[tatts]

The source is about 100 peeps here and in every forum and review.

Sorry i forgot word of mouth was the most reliable source, all my links to reviews & facts in this thread & others no longer mean anything or show C2D's & C2Q's cause GPU bottleneck after 3GHZ, sorry about that


*jumps on the bandwagon*

 

[helmutcheese]

I just right now took DEL of 2 VelicoRaptors so don't have time to prove anything to you that I do not need do in the 1st place.

You can find the info as easy as I can.

I'm now of to image my Vista to new HDD.

 

[Deimos]

I would be interested in reading the source of this info?
Everyone i've seen so far show the C2D's cause GPU bottleneck after 3Ghz even with the 4870x2

That maybe so for some games, but the bottlekneck is always at FPS well over 60. At higher resolutions it makes little difference and besides the less fps the less instructions the Graphics card requires from the CPU anyway. Therefore in my opinion there is no difference between a dual and quad, except the equivilent quads are around £100 more.

I can't see any games resulting in less than 40-50FPS purely from CPU bottlekneck for a long time.

 

[thesnowdog1971]

Which is strange considering they used a 4870x2 for benching
This has been my argument all along, all the quads & wolfdales will do 3ghz quite easily on a good cooler.

To me i see the Dual more of a set up for benchers/some gamers & Quad for the remaining gamers, encoders, multi taskers etc (for more all round performance) although if you've got the budget, the Q9450/Q9550 has to be the best buy atm

Yup, that's what I'm doing in the next couple of weeks...going for a Q9550.

 

[Randell]

My position pro duals is purely one of budget and the fact I can't be a***d with extreme overclocking. An 8400 at 3ghz is £117 and a Q9450, which will be a bit slower in 90% of games is £217. If you're ona fixed budget that £100 would be better spent towards a better GPU for the next 12-18months.

I would much prefer a Q9650, but at £375 that was dearer tham my whole E8400, Asus p5-E and 4gig OCZ Reaper ram upgarde cost me.

 

[ticktock]

Dual core seems the best bet at the moment.

 

[Kelt]

Mercenaries 2 makes great use of quad cores as well, the list is growing.

 

[aftershxck]

My general uses once i have dual screen would be, Wrath of the Lich king on one screen, other has Opera, msn, skype, and other small utilities.

That's all good and well but is this actually possible? What I mean to say is that when I used dual screens I would have CS 1.6 playing on one screen, and then other general apps running on the other. However to switch to the general apps I needed to alt-tab out of CS (which consequently minimized it on the first screen) before I could 'access'/'click' anything on the second screen.

So although I had this great fantasy of being able to seamlessly switch between the two desktops in reality it was an anti-climax, because of course I still wanted to see the in-game screen even if I did get onto the second screen. I tried this using ultramon - maybe this is possible with another app?

Just wanting to highlight that it may not be as great as it sounds!.. unless there is another app or method I'm unaware of.

 

[RoastChicken]

That's all good and well but is this actually possible? What I mean to say is that when I used dual screens I would have CS 1.6 playing on one screen, and then other general apps running on the other. However to switch to the general apps I needed to alt-tab out of CS (which consequently minimized it on the first screen) before I could 'access'/'click' anything on the second screen.

So although I had this great fantasy of being able to seamlessly switch between the two desktops in reality it was an anti-climax, because of course I still wanted to see the in-game screen even if I did get onto the second screen. I tried this using ultramon - maybe this is possible with another app?

Just wanting to highlight that it may not be as great as it sounds!.. unless there is another app or method I'm unaware of.

Aye you just run Wow in windowed mode then fill the screen with it so you can just click in each screen also you can have films on the otherscreen running without needing to click back

But games that are full screen i agree with you can't just click to the other screen it needs to be minimised first

 

[1kiwi]

Quads rule