Are dual cores obsolete?

If you are trying to run current PC games these day, how feasible are dual cores? All I ever hear about is quad-cores now days, so it would help me decide on a new desktop if I could narrow down the possibilities. Otherwise, what is the minimum for good dual-cores?

I'm not great with PC hardware, so please excuse my ignorance if this is a stupid question.

Dual-cores still work for pretty much all games out now. That being said you shouldn't consider them unless your budget is extremely restrictive.

Dual cores are starting to lose their grip in games now

Sorta-kinda. The SNB i3's hold their own against the Phenom II X4 line (in fact the i3-2100 will outperform Phenom II X4 in the vast majority of games) so you can't really call dual cores obsolete, but on the other hand that speaks as much to AMD's troubles with Bulldozer as it does the long-term feasibility of dual core CPUs.

So depending on your non-gaming workload a dual-core might make sense in a budget rig, but the quad-core SNB i5 line is the obvious price/performance sweet spot for mid- and high-end consumer rigs.

Sorta-kinda. The SNB i3's hold their own against the Phenom II X4 line (in fact the i3-2100 will outperform Phenom II X4 in the vast majority of games) so you can't really call dual cores obsolete, but on the other hand that speaks as much to AMD's troubles with Bulldozer as it does the long-term feasibility of dual core CPUs.

So depending on your non-gaming workload a dual-core might make sense in a budget rig, but the quad-core SNB i5 line is the obvious price/performance sweet spot for mid- and high-end consumer rigs.

PBSnipes

umm no.. and in games that ya know use quad core's the SB i3 gets walked all over by a phII x4 or the fx-4100or a llano. thats simply bad reviewing. as for that ONE bulldozer 8150 bench.. dont act like its the end of the world we can cough it up to a number of things including support for the 8150 in the first place.

there isnt an excuse not to get a quad core. an athlon II x4 631 (phenom II x4 945) can be had for as cheap as $80 atm. and games basically need a 4 core. its impossible to avoid.

umm no.. and in games that ya know use quad core's the SB i3 gets walked all over by a phII x4 or the fx-4100or a llano. thats simply bad reviewing. as for that ONE bulldozer 8150 bench.. dont act like its the end of the world we can cough it up to a number of things including support for the 8150 in the first place.

there isnt an excuse not to get a quad core. an athlon II x4 631 (phenom II x4 945) can be had for as cheap as $80 atm. and games basically need a 4 core. its impossible to avoid.

ionusX

And which games are those taking significant advantage of four cores? Certainly not any of these, or these ones, either. Is going Phenom II X4 a little more future-proof for gaming? Potentially, but buying hardware for its potential future uses tends to be a bad ****ing idea, and for the majority of non-gaming consumer workloads two speedy cores are going to be better than four slower cores.

And I have no idea what you mean by "one bulldozer 8150 bench" -- every bench I've seen shows Bulldozer is a total non-starter as a consumer part. It struggles to compete with Phenom II in lightly threaded (read: the vast majority of consumer) workloads, and the FX-8xxx series is priced comparitively to Intel's quad-core offerings. Maybe devs will start to take advantage of 8 threads, and maybe the Win 8 optimization might pan out (and maybe Win 8 will launch sometime next year), and maybe AMD/Global Foundaries will work out the power consumption and clockspeed issues, but that's three (four) too many "maybes" when i5-2500k already outperforms the 8150 in all but the most heavily-threaded workloads and retails at (or close to, anyway; I think Amazon has the 8120 for $200 right now) 8120 prices.

If you're on a budget and want a decent gaming PC then a dual core i3 2100 makes a lot of sense, but you need to have an upgrade path (meaning a good P67 or Z68 motherboard). If money's not a problem then quad is the way to go.

They will be soon, hell, most are now...

A good dual core can still run any modern game well. I can do BF3 just fine on mine.

Of course, Quad Cores are recommended for a reason, and it won't be long until my CPU falls before the minimum requirement the way tech moves these days. At least my GPU should be great for the next few years.

Im runing on a dual core and i dont plan on upgrading.

For gaming? Pretty much unless you're working with a tight budget. For everyday computing? Shoooooot, no.

dual-cores are still awesome, I've maxed every game I've tried on my i5 dual core (albiet, overclocked)
few games take advantage of quad-core, but just about allnew releases do dual.

I'm still of the opinion that a high-speed dual beats a low-speed quad (which is generally always the trade-off)

I should clarify. It's useless to buy a dual core instead of a quad core unless you're working with a tight budget. If you still have a ballin' dual core, no need to upgrade if it's not affecting performance.

sandy bridge dual cores dont count as dual cores, they're on steroids

dual-cores are still awesome, I've maxed every game I've tried on my i5 dual core (albiet, overclocked)
few games take advantage of quad-core, but just about allnew releases do dual.

I'm still of the opinion that a high-speed dual beats a low-speed quad (which is generally always the trade-off)

BlackDevil99

Same here. Just a few years ago I remember Dual Cores were the new hotness needed for new hot gaming, so I can still play any game I own or want for the next few years with it and my GPU. Not that I don't plan on upgrading eventually.