Games are starting to use more cores. As mentioned, BFBC2.
Check this:
http://www.overclock.net/pc-games/861216-bfbc2-cpu-scaling.html
Looks like BC2 will scale to as many cores as it needs to.
But I still say a highly clocked quad core is the best value for money, and probably will be for a while
I'd only start recommending more than quad when BF3 comes out and it turns out that Intel 2600k gives noticeable improvement over 2500k at 4ghz or something.
(since 2600k has hyperthreading/'fake cores' as such)
Although if you're running Tri+ sli/crossfire apparently the more CPU the better
Remember - Used != Saturate
Being able to use 10 cores is all well and good but not much of a point if only a small load is applied.
Exactly, the thread linked in the quote shows a
1 ghz i7 quad giving more than playable fps as a 4Ghz quad, still not maxed out cpu and the same minimums as the four times faster quad.
Just because it CAN use more threads doesn't mean it NEEDS more threads.
Most games are advertising hype, just because some company bangs on about how many threads they can use, or cores, doesn't mean it needs all the performance from every core to max out a game.
The 1Ghz i7 is getting only 20fps lower average than the 4Ghz, and you can bet your life on the fact that going from 1-2Ghz gives a vastly larger improvement than going from 3-4Ghz.
I mean keep in mind, cpu processing power has increased 400%(maybe more when you take into account decreased latency), yet average performance hasn't come close to increasing by 100%, circa 35-40% increase in average framerate but realistically 50 won't feel very different to 70, especially when the minimums are essentially identical.
Now, in a laptop I "might" pay the extra for a hex core, might, and theres two main reasons for that, if its a 32nm chip over a 45nm quad then it could be a better power option for a laptop AND because upgrading a laptop is a lot less easy than a desktop if you wanted to keep the laptop for a few years the hex MIGHT come into its own at a later date.
Personally I'd buy a cheaper laptop thats more than capable now and a new laptop thats more than capable and a heck of a lot faster a year or two later, overall it would cost a lot less.
IE buy a 6970 based laptop with a cheaper quad core now and then in a year upgrade to a 7970 based laptop, or ayear after that upgrade to a 8790 based laptop, etc, etc, you'd save a crapload of money and while the 580gtx m sli would be faster for a year, if you keep it for say 3 years, 2 years you have it, it will be slower than a new laptop. Basically paying through the teeth for future performance almost always costs more than upgrading yearly with value components that yield similar performance to start with and WAY more a year or two later.
. This goes for computers, cars....anything really! Over a year ago I bought into the 'futureproofing' of the P55A motherboard by getting one with Sata III and USB 3. I haven't got any USB 3 devices still and the Sata III is slow and doesn't even have TRIM (so is basically naff). Now Sata III hard drives are the norm (for decent SSDs) and my Sata III controller is pretty much useless.
