Do you expect future games to all be quad core optimized?

I've noticed that many of the recent games recommend quad core systems as they are optimized for multithreaded use. Do you expect quad core to become mainstream in the near future at least with 'next gen' titles?

If you were building a system which would you choose assuming same price, a fast dual core or a little slower quad core? How much of a speed increase would a dual core CPU need to overcome the quad cores advantage do you think?

How much of an improvement have recent games shown when a quad core setup is used?

To be honest there is no reason to get a dual core system since you can get fairly good quads at the low end of the scale. Nowadays more games can benefit from quads but still for the next few years it will still be dual core minimum requirement with some better scaling to 4 cores, and i certainly wouldnt expect to see any games in the next 3-5 years optimised for more than 4 cores. This being said though fast cores are still required so for gaming 2.66ghz is the lowest i would suggest for a gaming core and even this in quad has seen a few issue in the older models q6600 for example. If though it was between a 3.4ghz dual and a 2.8-3ghz quad then i would take the quad all day. These how ever are just guesses based on all things being equal, if you can give some exact make and models we can give clearer examples and why :)

Getting a dual core system right now would be like getting a single core system 5 years ago.

No reason to do it. If you can't afford a quad core, then wait until you can.

To be honest there is no reason to get a dual core system since you can get fairly good quads at the low end of the scale. Nowadays more games can benefit from quads but still for the next few years it will still be dual core minimum requirement with some better scaling to 4 cores, and i certainly wouldnt expect to see any games in the next 3-5 years optimised for more than 4 cores. This being said though fast cores are still required so for gaming 2.66ghz is the lowest i would suggest for a gaming core and even this in quad has seen a few issue in the older models q6600 for example. If though it was between a 3.4ghz dual and a 2.8-3ghz quad then i would take the quad all day. These how ever are just guesses based on all things being equal, if you can give some exact make and models we can give clearer examples and why :)

5SI-GonePostal

[QUOTE="5SI-GonePostal"]

To be honest there is no reason to get a dual core system since you can get fairly good quads at the low end of the scale. Nowadays more games can benefit from quads but still for the next few years it will still be dual core minimum requirement with some better scaling to 4 cores, and i certainly wouldnt expect to see any games in the next 3-5 years optimised for more than 4 cores. This being said though fast cores are still required so for gaming 2.66ghz is the lowest i would suggest for a gaming core and even this in quad has seen a few issue in the older models q6600 for example. If though it was between a 3.4ghz dual and a 2.8-3ghz quad then i would take the quad all day. These how ever are just guesses based on all things being equal, if you can give some exact make and models we can give clearer examples and why :)

greengloop

To be honest none of those PCs are ideal for gaming as the graphics card is the most important part for gaming and they all have weak graphics cards.

For $700 you should be able to get something better than a 640 or 7750. (7750 is quite a bit better than a 640 though)

[QUOTE="greengloop"][QUOTE="5SI-GonePostal"]

To be honest there is no reason to get a dual core system since you can get fairly good quads at the low end of the scale. Nowadays more games can benefit from quads but still for the next few years it will still be dual core minimum requirement with some better scaling to 4 cores, and i certainly wouldnt expect to see any games in the next 3-5 years optimised for more than 4 cores. This being said though fast cores are still required so for gaming 2.66ghz is the lowest i would suggest for a gaming core and even this in quad has seen a few issue in the older models q6600 for example. If though it was between a 3.4ghz dual and a 2.8-3ghz quad then i would take the quad all day. These how ever are just guesses based on all things being equal, if you can give some exact make and models we can give clearer examples and why :)

kraken2109

To be honest none of those PCs are ideal for gaming as the graphics card is the most important part for gaming and they all have weak graphics cards.

For $700 you should be able to get something better than a 640 or 7750. (7750 is quite a bit better than a 640 though)

$750 and you build you own you can get a really good system - how do you feel on building your own? We can help pick the pieces.

Ok so for $40 more than a couple of those systems you can build this:

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/w0gR

Thanks for the replies. I'm not going to be building right away, I'm considering what to get for the next gen of gaming. Either a console or gaming computer. Uptil now quad cores were kind of pointless but I noticed recent games being quad core optimized. But if I decide to build I'll definitely ask you guys for help. Thanks :D.

[QUOTE="NamelessPlayer"]I expect TODAY's games to be quad-core optimized. I bought a Q6600 five years ago expecting this, and it looks like I was right. Too bad for those people who paid the same price for an E6850 with half the cores that a Q6600 could easily match just by overclocking, but they probably upgrade CPUs on a more frequent basis. That said, it seems like the Q6600 is really showing its age even when overclocked, thanks to PlanetSide 2. That game wants every last one of your CPU cycles if you don't want slideshow framerates in the most intense battles. Here's hoping Haswell can manhandle it and never dip below 60 FPS.greengloop

Well this one is quite simple

Console = Medium settings for its entire life

PC = Ultra/High settings + cheaper games - you pay for ultra settings basically

[QUOTE="greengloop"][QUOTE="NamelessPlayer"]I expect TODAY's games to be quad-core optimized. I bought a Q6600 five years ago expecting this, and it looks like I was right. Too bad for those people who paid the same price for an E6850 with half the cores that a Q6600 could easily match just by overclocking, but they probably upgrade CPUs on a more frequent basis. That said, it seems like the Q6600 is really showing its age even when overclocked, thanks to PlanetSide 2. That game wants every last one of your CPU cycles if you don't want slideshow framerates in the most intense battles. Here's hoping Haswell can manhandle it and never dip below 60 FPS.5SI-GonePostal

Well this one is quite simple

Console = Medium settings for its entire life

PC = Ultra/High settings + cheaper games - you pay for ultra settings basically

[QUOTE="5SI-GonePostal"]

[QUOTE="greengloop"] My impression is that SOMEHOW PC games end up requiring a lot more powerful hardware towards the end of the generation cycle. For example if I were to take a system that's about equivalent to consoles hardware wise at the beginning of a generation cycle (2006 in this case) then by the end of the cycle (2012-2013 in this case) that same PC wouldn't be able to decently play the same games that consoles continue to play. Why is this? The cost of PC gaming seems to be too high which keeps putting me off of PC gaming. I still haven't managed to get a solid comprehensive answer about this apparent problem.greengloop

Well this one is quite simple

Console = Medium settings for its entire life

PC = Ultra/High settings + cheaper games - you pay for ultra settings basically

Nope and that would be down to the GPU, and even an 8 year old CPU would be struggling now, the q6600 is pushing dead on 6 years old now. Basically if you only want console like game play and are happy to use a gamepad, and you dont want MMOs then i would say just stick with the consoles my friend. I wouldnt advise anyone to build a PC to try and last 8 years and still play games, it is pretty unfeasiable, especially when you can get what you want for $400

My PC is for a specific set of games that i enjoy: FPS, MMOs, RTS and Modded games like Skyrim and DayZ. My consoles for everything else like AC, PES and everything else that as primarily been designed with a console in mind.

[QUOTE="greengloop"][QUOTE="5SI-GonePostal"]

To be honest there is no reason to get a dual core system since you can get fairly good quads at the low end of the scale. Nowadays more games can benefit from quads but still for the next few years it will still be dual core minimum requirement with some better scaling to 4 cores, and i certainly wouldnt expect to see any games in the next 3-5 years optimised for more than 4 cores. This being said though fast cores are still required so for gaming 2.66ghz is the lowest i would suggest for a gaming core and even this in quad has seen a few issue in the older models q6600 for example. If though it was between a 3.4ghz dual and a 2.8-3ghz quad then i would take the quad all day. These how ever are just guesses based on all things being equal, if you can give some exact make and models we can give clearer examples and why :)

kraken2109

To be honest none of those PCs are ideal for gaming as the graphics card is the most important part for gaming and they all have weak graphics cards.

For $700 you should be able to get something better than a 640 or 7750. (7750 is quite a bit better than a 640 though)

I think we are now at the point where devs realise that for gaming no-one is still using single core CPUs, and that more and more of the market has quad or more cores/threads.

Not being a programmer and not knowing how complex it would be to do - but a game designed to spread the work out over as many cores/threads as the PC has available would seem like a perfect solution.

I had a Q6600 until midway through last year and it was a fantastic CPU - still able to handle many games well when paired with a respectable graphics card, but agree it was starting to show its age a bit when benchmarked to newer CPUs, or when running particularly CPU intensive games.

If you are buying a new CPU for gaming, then Quad core should be the absolute minimum you look for.

[QUOTE="5SI-GonePostal"]

[QUOTE="greengloop"] My impression is that SOMEHOW PC games end up requiring a lot more powerful hardware towards the end of the generation cycle. For example if I were to take a system that's about equivalent to consoles hardware wise at the beginning of a generation cycle (2006 in this case) then by the end of the cycle (2012-2013 in this case) that same PC wouldn't be able to decently play the same games that consoles continue to play. Why is this? The cost of PC gaming seems to be too high which keeps putting me off of PC gaming. I still haven't managed to get a solid comprehensive answer about this apparent problem.greengloop

Well this one is quite simple

Console = Medium settings for its entire life

PC = Ultra/High settings + cheaper games - you pay for ultra settings basically

[QUOTE="greengloop"][QUOTE="5SI-GonePostal"]

Well this one is quite simple

Console = Medium settings for its entire life

PC = Ultra/High settings + cheaper games - you pay for ultra settings basically

kraken2109

I think we are now at the point where devs realise that for gaming no-one is still using single core CPUs, and that more and more of the market has quad or more cores/threads.

Not being a programmer and not knowing how complex it would be to do - but a game designed to spread the work out over as many cores/threads as the PC has available would seem like a perfect solution.

I had a Q6600 until midway through last year and it was a fantastic CPU - still able to handle many games well when paired with a respectable graphics card, but agree it was starting to show its age a bit when benchmarked to newer CPUs, or when running particularly CPU intensive games.

If you are buying a new CPU for gaming, then Quad core should be the absolute minimum you look for.

Avenger1324

[QUOTE="greengloop"][QUOTE="5SI-GonePostal"]

Well this one is quite simple

Console = Medium settings for its entire life

PC = Ultra/High settings + cheaper games - you pay for ultra settings basically

kraken2109