Upgrading to 6-cores... Worth for gaming?

[OpenToSuggestions]

but it's already started that we seeing games being optimized for 6 cores+

My quad urinates on games from a great height.
If hex cpus were miles better, I would have bought one but it wasn't circa a year ago when they came out and it isn't now.
The AMD hex cores are just not as fast as Sandy Bridge.

The Bulldozer are the next gen of hex, not first gen.
If a 2011 cpu came out that was 6 or 8 cores, I would get that but generally the first gen of stuff does not get used by hardware/software.

Run my graphics card at 8x and it loses 1% performance over 16x. They will release 32x PCIE soon and market it as the best thing since sliced bread, yet it will give absolutely no benefit for a few years yet.

 

[gareth170]

My quad urinates on games from a great height.
If hex cpus were miles better, I would have bought one but it wasn't circa a year ago when they came out and it isn't now.
The AMD hex cores are just not as fast as Sandy Bridge.

The Bulldozer are the next gen of hex, not first gen.
If a 2011 cpu came out that was 6 or 8 cores, I would get that but generally the first gen of stuff does not get used by hardware/software.

Run my graphics card at 8x and it loses 1% performance over 16x. They will release 32x PCIE soon and market it as the best thing since sliced bread, yet it will give absolutely no benefit for a few years yet.

Some people buy some hardware to last them 2 years+, could be due to a number of reasons.

maybe it won`t get fully used until 6 months - a year or whenever, but when it does it's there.

 

[gurusan]

Pointing out the facts to the question of what uses 4 cores is the point & is a relevant answer to the question & the question had nothing to do with fps.

My point is that no one should give a rats ass if a game can "use" 6 cores if there isn't any substantial benefit over 2,3 or 4....which is basically the case today.

 

[Final8y]

My point is that no one should give a rats ass if a game can "use" 6 cores if there isn't any substantial benefit over 2,3 or 4....which is basically the case today.

Your comment was about UT3 engine & Others & i was the only person beforehand who mentioned them & if people want to know what uses 4 cores or more then its up to them & not for you or I to tell them that they should not care for the facts. Benefits or not are an entirely different matter & is not a prerequisite for the facts of what uses how many cores.

There is very little to no benefit with hex for most users & but that does not changes the facts.

 

[gurusan]

che?

The title of the post is asking if it's worth it to upgrade to 6 cores for gaming.....not if any games use more than 4. Therefore my answer is more relevant than most of the previous responses.

 

[Final8y]

che?

The title of the post is asking if it's worth it to upgrade to 6 cores for gaming.....not if any games use more than 4. Therefore my answer is more relevant than most of the previous responses.

And the OP as been replied to in that regard to the title.
But that your initial post was in reply to the other comments as well & whether or not other comments are pedantically held to the OP post is not the point & which contain obvious inclusions to be brought up & you did post in response to them as well & the facts needed to be cleared up about them.

 

[David Koh]

The sum of the argument is that the 2500k is the best chip for gaming builds right now period. Many posts on the same topic

 

[bhavv]

4 fast cores > 6 slow cores for gaming. IMO not required.

But 6 fast cores > 4 slow cores for gaming.

For people who are still on 1366 and dont want to change their mobos, Gulftowns are 32 nm and clock higher than the 45 nm bloomfield does.

However, they are still too expensive to justify buying them over a new mobo and sandybridge CPU instead.