-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Gaming cpus ?
- Thread starter Hobojim
- Start date
To explain why a dual core is preferable over a quad core for gaming currently...
Not many games yet take advantage of multiple cores or mutliple CPU's. Those that do will not see a massive increase in performance. There can be a gain in some games that are designed for it. So a dual core at this time is the more sensible way forward. It also means a larger budget to spend on other components.
So personally I'd recommend a dual core and more memory and faster graphics card than spending all the money on a quad core.
Not many games yet take advantage of multiple cores or mutliple CPU's. Those that do will not see a massive increase in performance. There can be a gain in some games that are designed for it. So a dual core at this time is the more sensible way forward. It also means a larger budget to spend on other components.
So personally I'd recommend a dual core and more memory and faster graphics card than spending all the money on a quad core.
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 1,945
- Location
- Location Location!
Yep dual core E6600. Clocks to 3.2Ghz easy, would recommend it for gaming over a quad core anyday.
+ Look at the money you save.
+ Look at the money you save.
Won't games perhaps, be optimized, for dual AND Quad core when it starts "happening"?, just because quad are more advanced (in a way) over dual, doesn't mean games makers can't write simultaneously for dual/Quad does it?, like say,: (for example) "Call of duty 4" Dual/quad core optimized 
-Ant
-Ant
if you want cheapest but yet still outstanding for games, you want a low priced core2duo and if you have a bit more money and want to do more than games for example want photoshop to load a bit faster you would want a E6600 processor then overclock it if you want.
and if you have more money than sence or you want to show off or just want 4 billion fps and eraise 4 billionths of a second off loading times or want the top scores in benchmarks you want a quad core
and if you have more money than sence or you want to show off or just want 4 billion fps and eraise 4 billionths of a second off loading times or want the top scores in benchmarks you want a quad core
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Dec 2006
- Posts
- 2,132
- Location
- aberdeenshire
go for dualcore
Once games are properly threaded, and designed for multi core, it is no harder to run the program on dual core than quad. The game can do its own benchmarking, and enable/disable features as needed.
Quad, or Dual might not be the only decided for which features a game might enable. It could be that a Dual core 2.1Ghz processor might be too slow for all features, while a Quad [email protected] might be able add extra abilities to the game, better phyics whatever. However its also possible that a dual core 3.2Ghz processor might have enough processing power that it could also run the game with all features enabled.
I would stick with a 'fast' and cheaper dual core processor at the moment, as by the time a quad is really a benifit to most games, their prices will have dropped considerably.
Quad, or Dual might not be the only decided for which features a game might enable. It could be that a Dual core 2.1Ghz processor might be too slow for all features, while a Quad [email protected] might be able add extra abilities to the game, better phyics whatever. However its also possible that a dual core 3.2Ghz processor might have enough processing power that it could also run the game with all features enabled.
I would stick with a 'fast' and cheaper dual core processor at the moment, as by the time a quad is really a benifit to most games, their prices will have dropped considerably.
I went with quad-core just to be different 
I don't mind paying more for hardware when the price rise isn't exponential. A Q6600 is about twice as much as an E6600...and you get twice as many cores. Made sense to me, but then I have a work bias
I don't mind paying more for hardware when the price rise isn't exponential. A Q6600 is about twice as much as an E6600...and you get twice as many cores. Made sense to me, but then I have a work bias