Does Quad-core really matter?

K, I have none-the-less a Q6600cpu (no-OC). When running the 3dmark06 I get 1-fps during the CPU test. I also hear all the talk about most games in general not even utilizing 4cores in a game anyway. ? So if these are the results, then why in the world are people getting these???

You cannot get 1FPS with that QX6600 Quad Core processor. Maybe there is a problem with your program or CPU.

And Quad Core CPUs work 2X faster than Core 2 Duo processors, It cannot be measured a Quad Core Processor with a Core 2 Duo processor.

And the games should work faster with a Quad Core processor more than a Dual Core one.

You cannot get 1FPS with that QX6600 Quad Core processor. Maybe there is a problem with your program or CPU.

And Quad Core CPUs work 2X faster than Core 2 Duo processors, It cannot be measured a Quad Core Processor with a Core 2 Duo processor.

And the games should work faster with a Quad Core processor more than a Dual Core one.

Owyns

Don't think there's a problem with either. My overall score is 1119xx. w/ no overclock. And getting great FPS's w/ Crysis. So is the idea about getting the quad-core more for bragging rights or future proofing thier PC's ?

some dual cores beat the older quads now except for the newer quad cores, they rule the games.TrooperManaic

So is the idea about getting the quad-core more for bragging rights or future proofing thier PC's ?

Xtraflo

It's both, to a degree. Naturally, programs and games will start utilizing more cores as time goes on. People buying quads right now are essentially betting that time will come sooner rather than later. Games definitely don't support quad cores as a standard right now, let alone dual cores.

Honestly, I think the general crop of quads, Q6600 in particular, are going to become old news by the time there are plenty of games that really make quad cores shine compared to duals.

With the E8400 out right now which performs better in games out of the box and has a much higer headroom for OCing, I really don't see the appeal of buying a Q6600 if you're focusing on performance in games. But that's just my take on it.

quad cores make a lot of sence in servers and workstations. for gaming not that much. Supreme Comander.Sistem_42

You cannot get 1FPS with that QX6600 Quad Core processor. Maybe there is a problem with your program or CPU.

And Quad Core CPUs work 2X faster than Core 2 Duo processors, It cannot be measured a Quad Core Processor with a Core 2 Duo processor.

And the games should work faster with a Quad Core processor more than a Dual Core one.

Owyns

1 - Yes you can get only 1FPS in the CPU test in 3Dmark06, it's tests how well the cpu handles the graphics.

2 - Quad-core's are only faster in app's that make use of all the cores..

3 - Like i said above the games have to be optimized for multi-core.

look ... when something is called "a game for multi cores" ... just like far cry 2, it's because the devs make some processing work on 1 core, some different stuff run on the second core ... so on

for other games, like team fortress 2, unreal tournament 3, call of duty 4
YES having a quad core will be incredibly helpful as opposed to having only a single core

BUT, those games will take your quad core, and make it fonction just like a single core
(meaning, all the processing is calculated equaly on each core, so all the 4 cores are being used like if it was only 1 powerful core)

[QUOTE="Xtraflo"]

So is the idea about getting the quad-core more for bragging rights or future proofing thier PC's ?

Fignewton50

It's both, to a degree. Naturally, programs and games will start utilizing more cores as time goes on. People buying quads right now are essentially betting that time will come sooner rather than later. Games definitely don't support quad cores as a standard right now, let alone dual cores.

Honestly, I think the general crop of quads, Q6600 in particular, are going to become old news by the time there are plenty of games that really make quad cores shine compared to duals.

With the E8400 out right now which performs better in games out of the box and has a much higer headroom for OCing, I really don't see the appeal of buying a Q6600 if you're focusing on performance in games. But that's just my take on it.

I have to agree with FigNewton (although I may be biased since I own an E8400). If you're a serious multitasker Quadcores might make since, especially with Intel's planned April price cuts. However, for sheer gaming performance/overclockability I think the E8400 rules the roost. It's virtually impossible to truly futureproof a PC beyond a few years no matter what hardware you buy or how much OCing you do. I would rather get a product that is properly optimized for today's games and programs than gamble on a product that may not become viable for several more years, at which point all of us will have to upgrade our processors anyways.

look ... when something is called "a game for multi cores" ... just like far cry 2, it's because the devs make some processing work on 1 core, some different stuff run on the second core ... so on

for other games, like team fortress 2, unreal tournament 3, call of duty 4
YES having a quad core will be incredibly helpful as opposed to having only a single core

BUT, those games will take your quad core, and make it fonction just like a single core
(meaning, all the processing is calculated equaly on each core, so all the 4 cores are being used like if it was only 1 powerful core)

waza000

It depends on how you use your PC. For me, playing games is just one part of the use I find for it. Having mulitple cores has meant for me that I don't have to basically resort to using my laptop whilst I'm encoding files for example, (which takes an icnredibly shorter time than it did on my old PC) - it basically makes my PC more versatile. I certainily wouldn't waste money on a Quad just for playing games, that would be pointless, but the price makes it worth it if you use your PC for more.

Why-in some bench-tests-is it shown that with a quad-core, that overall gaming performance appears to increase as opposed to Dual-cores. That is, since some believe it makes no difference?Xtraflo

Well, obviously if all things are equal, a Quadcore is theoretically more powerful than a Dualcore. However, you have to keep in mind that most applictions, and especially games, aren't optimized for Quadcores i.e. there is a negligible if not nonexistent performance increase. Also, Dualcores tend to be cheaper and overclock better.

That having been said, Quadcores are much better for multitaskers. I personally like to keep the number of programs I run simultaneously to a minimum so my E8400 has been enough for me.

Why-in some bench-tests-is it shown that with a quad-core, that overall gaming performance appears to increase as opposed to Dual-cores. That is, since some believe it makes no difference?Xtraflo

SHake-I was referring to the Q6600 exclusively.Did a lot of research prior to my build on what performs better than what. Xtraflo

There are only a handful of games that I know of that really benefit from Quadcores--Supreme Commander, Unreal Tournament 3, and perhaps a few others. However, an E8400 overclocked to 4Ghz should run them similarly to a Q6600@3.6GHz.

SHake-I was referring to the Q6600 exclusively.Did a lot of research prior to my build on what performs better than what. Xtraflo

. I also hear all the talk about most games in general not even utilizing 4cores in a game anyway. ? So if these are the results, then why in the world are people getting these???Xtraflo

All I know is that my E8400 OC'd @ 4.00GHz blows the pants of many Quad Cores. And it was a hell of a lot cheaper as well!

Hate to break it to ya, but a Q6600 OC'd to 4.0Ghz (and they're everywhere, hell, I got mine to 3.8Ghz last night) will beat the pants off your dual core.

It's been proven over and over that quads perform better than duals in games. Crysis alone with a quad sees anywhere from a 15-30% increase over a dual at the exact same settings and speeds.

Hate to break it to ya, but a Q6600 OC'd to 4.0Ghz (and they're everywhere, hell, I got mine to 3.8Ghz last night) will beat the pants off your dual core.

It's been proven over and over that quads perform better than duals in games. Crysis alone with a quad sees anywhere from a 15-30% increase over a dual at the exact same settings and speeds.

degobah77

[QUOTE="degobah77"]

Hate to break it to ya, but a Q6600 OC'd to 4.0Ghz (and they're everywhere, hell, I got mine to 3.8Ghz last night) will beat the pants off your dual core.

It's been proven over and over that quads perform better than duals in games. Crysis alone with a quad sees anywhere from a 15-30% increase over a dual at the exact same settings and speeds.

mastershake575

Well yeah, anyone OC'ing on a stock cooler is a fool, and to get to 4Ghz, he's buying at least a $50 cooler just like me.

All I'm saying is that quads ARE worth it, and games do improve over duals - even if they aren't "optimized for quad cores" or whatever these people are saying.

Also, I get up to 3fps on 3dmark06's CPU test, never broke 2, and was normally at 1 and 0 on my dual core. Everything at stock speeds.

Now TBH, the only reason I didn't get an E8400 was because they were sold out, but now that I've seen the OC'ing capabilities of this Q6600, I am glad they were sold out.

[QUOTE="mastershake575"][QUOTE="degobah77"]

Hate to break it to ya, but a Q6600 OC'd to 4.0Ghz (and they're everywhere, hell, I got mine to 3.8Ghz last night) will beat the pants off your dual core.

It's been proven over and over that quads perform better than duals in games. Crysis alone with a quad sees anywhere from a 15-30% increase over a dual at the exact same settings and speeds.

degobah77

Well yeah, anyone OC'ing on a stock cooler is a fool, and to get to 4Ghz, he's buying at least a $50 cooler just like me.

All I'm saying is that quads ARE worth it, and games do improve over duals - even if they aren't "optimized for quad cores" or whatever these people are saying.

It's been proven over and over that quads perform better than duals in games. Crysis alone with a quad sees anywhere from a 15-30% increase over a dual at the exact same settings and speeds.

degobah77

I find that hard to believe. Got a link?

I'd heard many times Crysis sees hardly any peformance increase with a quad compared to a dual with the exact same setup. Crysis isn't even programmed to take advantage of 4 cores, right?

Hate to break it to ya, but a Q6600 OC'd to 4.0Ghz (and they're everywhere, hell, I got mine to 3.8Ghz last night) will beat the pants off your dual core.

It's been proven over and over that quads perform better than duals in games. Crysis alone with a quad sees anywhere from a 15-30% increase over a dual at the exact same settings and speeds.

degobah77

Unsure where you got your proven facts but Crysis dosent even max out a e8400 100% both cores on low resolutions such as 1280x1024 where the cpu is playing a bigger role than it does at higher resolutions.

Run your benchmark in crysis tonight and post the scores. Do a Screen of your desktop showing the test results, cpuz or whatever you wish to show your cpu information, and for overall reality check also the GPU and cores. I will run it tonight as well on my barely oc'ed e8400 at 3.6, and see where we stand. To be neutral, lets focus on the 1280x1024 resolutions where cpu/gpu ratio is best.

So I will test my 3.6ghz DC against your Quad 3.8Ghz. That was we can show in this thread some facts.

You up for the challenge?

Now we are testing games only. So I dont care if you run your Anti-virus, or your ripping dvds, or anything else. You got a quad to do those things while you game. I got a DC cause I got better things to do, and I only game on my PC between Work and school. So dont complicate things up here.. Just games. Do whatever you want while you game, but dont add in excuses why you dont get your 15-30%.

1280x1024 is about the last cpu bound boost you get before the gpu bottlenecks and takes over as to what your performance will be, such as at 1600x1200. So like I said. I will test with you.

look here: make your pic and see which one is the right for you http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=946&model2=882&chart=421

as you can see (in gaming), there's not much of a difference between the best dual core (E8500 = 52 fps in Supreme Comm) and the best extreme quad core (QX9770=63 fps in SC) so for a 11 fps gain you'll have to pay around 1000$ more...and this is for supreme commander which is an optimize game using multi-core....now look at normal games (eg:quake 4) and you'll notice a 6 fps difference........

it's your choice

You cannot get 1FPS with that QX6600 Quad Core processor. Maybe there is a problem with your program or CPU.

And Quad Core CPUs work 2X faster than Core 2 Duo processors, It cannot be measured a Quad Core Processor with a Core 2 Duo processor.

And the games should work faster with a Quad Core processor more than a Dual Core one.

Owyns

All wrong.

In the 3DMark test there is a CPU specific test that always has crap FPS. When I run it, it actually says 0 FPS because of how slow it is.

Quad core is NOT 2x faster then a duel core. You need to get that idea out of your head that you can just multiply by how many cores and get the raw power. It's all wrong.

Yes, games SHOULD work faster, buy they don't because the developers are not writing their games to take advantage. There are only a few games that are even remotely optimized for 2 cores, let alone 4.