Dual Core V Quad Core Best for gaming????

right now dual cores are the best, quads will be better in the next few years when games and programs are optimized properly to run on a quad corecornholio157

dual is the best for games but you can take quad and oc him

in fact what really importent is the graphic card because the processors today strong enough for games (except crysis nothing enough for him) you can take the E7200 and easily oc him to 3.5ghz

Since most games are now optimized for duel-core, even if you have 4,8 or 100, you can only use 2 at a time so clock speed is more important. But that's only because it can't use the full potential of quad-core (probably be having the same problem when 8 core comes out (Does the i7 hyperthreading count?)). I have Intel Core 2 Duo at 2.66Ghz.

By the way, when you use task manager as you game with quad core, does it use 2 or all 4 cores?

I'm supposing the big processors (i7) are more for people doing audio/video editing and stuff. They need more speed than most in games in a lot of cases. Do you really need 8 cores if your game only supports 2? Audio/video editing on the other hand has supported 64-bit XP when it came out (not many gamers got it I think since it wasn't very stable according to some people) and many other top notch computing stuff.

Since most games are now optimized for duel-corevoodoothe2nd

Sir I challenge you to a duel

Quad cores are best. Dual cores are passed their best.

[QUOTE="voodoothe2nd"]

Since most games are now optimized for duel-coreteddyrob

Sir I challenge you to a duel

Quad cores are best. Dual cores are passed their best.

Well thats a benchie of one of the very few games that optimize quads. There are very few games that use quads ( i think GTA IV and supreme commando or somthing are a couple). And you can get way higher speeds with a E8400 at least 4ghz.

Well thats a benchie of one of the very few games that optimize quads. There are very few games that use quads ( i think GTA IV and supreme commando or somthing are a couple). mattpunkgd

Correct you learn fast and that is the future of gaming. A dual core @4.2Ghz can't keep up with a Core 2 Quad @3.6Ghz or a I7 @3Gz in games optimised for Quad. Plus dual core will lag.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,669595/Reviews/GTA_4_PC_CPU_benchmark_review_with_13_processors/?page=2

The PC version of GTA 4 eats CPUs for breakfast without quad-core power GTA 4 is noticeably less enjoyable.

For example: A Q6600 is about 52 percent faster than the dual-core E6600 when both CPUs are running at 2.4 GHz. If the clock speed is increased, the difference gets smaller, but is still huge and a QX6850 is 47 percent faster than an E6850. Dual-core processors have a serious disadvantage with 3.6 GHz an E8500 is able to beat the Q6600, but nevertheless suffers from frequent lags on dual-core systems - no matter if an AMD or Intel CPU is used

[QUOTE="mattpunkgd"]

Well thats a benchie of one of the very few games that optimize quads. There are very few games that use quads ( i think GTA IV and supreme commando or somthing are a couple). teddyrob

Correct you learn fast and that is the future of gaming. A dual core @4.2Ghz can't keep up with a Core 2 Quad @3.6Ghz or a I7 @3Gz in games optimised for Quad. Plus dual core will lag.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,669595/Reviews/GTA_4_PC_CPU_benchmark_review_with_13_processors/?page=2

The PC version of GTA 4 eats CPUs for breakfast without quad-core power GTA 4 is noticeably less enjoyable.

For example: A Q6600 is about 52 percent faster than the dual-core E6600 when both CPUs are running at 2.4 GHz. If the clock speed is increased, the difference gets smaller, but is still huge and a QX6850 is 47 percent faster than an E6850. Dual-core processors have a serious disadvantage with 3.6 GHz an E8500 is able to beat the Q6600, but nevertheless suffers from frequent lags on dual-core systems - no matter if an AMD or Intel CPU is used

Yes, but still most games don't use quad cores.mattpunkgd

and most games don't use dual core but that is the past.

[QUOTE="mattpunkgd"]

Well thats a benchie of one of the very few games that optimize quads. There are very few games that use quads ( i think GTA IV and supreme commando or somthing are a couple). teddyrob

Correct you learn fast and that is the future of gaming. A dual core @4.2Ghz can't keep up with a Core 2 Quad @3.6Ghz or a I7 @3Gz in games optimised for Quad. Plus dual core will lag.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,669595/Reviews/GTA_4_PC_CPU_benchmark_review_with_13_processors/?page=2

The PC version of GTA 4 eats CPUs for breakfast without quad-core power GTA 4 is noticeably less enjoyable.

For example: A Q6600 is about 52 percent faster than the dual-core E6600 when both CPUs are running at 2.4 GHz. If the clock speed is increased, the difference gets smaller, but is still huge and a QX6850 is 47 percent faster than an E6850. Dual-core processors have a serious disadvantage with 3.6 GHz an E8500 is able to beat the Q6600, but nevertheless suffers from frequent lags on dual-core systems - no matter if an AMD or Intel CPU is used

The entire reason you think Dual-core is dead is beacaue they released ONE game here recently that shows improvment with quad over duals?

Did you thnk the same thing almost 2 years ago when Supreme Commander came out? Can you be sure that 90% of the games over the next year will show improvment with a quad? I just want to know how you are so sure?

I really wish you would stop using GTA IV as an example of quad-core dominance. The issue with that game is that it was a horribly optimized console port, and requires far more cpu power than a similar game developed for the pc would. I keep seeing you using that benchmark on different threads, and it's really annoying to anybody who really knows what's going on. You're misleading people who might actually be looking to build a cost-effective gaming pc. To quote you: "I challenge you to a duel" in 90-95% of the games that are out on the market, or that will come out in the next year. Let's keep it limited to games that are actually developed for the pc, not horribly sloppy console ports. And I think I speak for many people who are forced to read your posts when I say that I am puzzled how you can base an argument almost entirely off of one game.. or even 5 (if there were 5 for you to use) for that matter. hartsickdiscipl

I may be annoying to know that that is where gaming is heading with the euphoria engine going to be in many games. Also there is ALAN WAKE should be release sometime early next year hopefully.

Quad core gaming is here. GTA IV is not a poor port it is a highly damanding game which uses the euphoria engine. Even a console should as the Xbox has 3 cores. Simple 2 core gaming isn't enough now and that will be obvious as games in 2009 will be mostly Quad core optimised.

A Quad core is no more expensive than an equivalent dual core system. You are getting 2 cores for free mostly. My Quad core was £107 that isn't expensive, it was cheaper than the E8200 at the time I'm glad I got it when most told me a dual was better.

Now GTAIV runs perfectly on my system and many dual cores are stuttering with bad lag etc even with 4Ghz clocks. I sorry that your system isn't beefed up for the coming onslaught of games and you have to blame GTA IV performance on a badly optimised console port when it's really your hardware.

The entire reason you think Dual-core is dead is beacaue they released ONE game here recently that shows improvment with quad over duals?

Did you thnk the same thing almost 2 years ago when Supreme Commander came out? Can you be sure that 90% of the games over the next year will show improvment with a quad? I just want to know how you are so sure?

opamando

The questiong is which one is best ? Answer Quad please and move on.

[QUOTE="opamando"]

The entire reason you think Dual-core is dead is beacaue they released ONE game here recently that shows improvment with quad over duals?

Did you thnk the same thing almost 2 years ago when Supreme Commander came out? Can you be sure that 90% of the games over the next year will show improvment with a quad? I just want to know how you are so sure?

teddyrob

The questiong is which one is best ? Answer Quad please and move on.

So what you are saying is that you cannot back up your argument? You will just say quad is better without backing it up, OK.

The primary reason that GTA IV runs like **** on most (even well-built) pc's is the fact that it was coded to run on the console systems, and a lazy port was done to make sure that they make money off the pc market as well. The consoles have far inferior GPUs to today's gaming pc's, and the CPUs in them cannot be equated to pc processors. One setting that many people (even those with great video cards) have to turn down in GTA IV is draw distance, which is mainly a GPU-dependent setting. This is an example of poor coding, as GTA IV isn't the most graphically intensive game on the market, not even close. The architecture of console CPUs are very different.

You can choose to argue this all you want, but the facts speak for themselves. The fact that most games run much better on a higher-clocked dual-core system. By the time most games are optimized for a quad, your CPU will be obsolete. Until then, enjoy GTA IV, and the performance benefits your quad gives you in that game. As for Alan Wake, let's wait till it's actually released before making any sort of predictions.

The primary reason that GTA IV runs like **** on most (even well-built) pc's is the fact that it was coded to run on the console systems, and a lazy port was done to make sure that they make money off the pc market as well. The consoles have far inferior GPUs to today's gaming pc's, and the CPUs in them cannot be equated to pc processors. One setting that many people (even those with great video cards) have to turn down in GTA IV is draw distance, which is mainly a GPU-dependent setting. This is an example of poor coding, as GTA IV isn't the most graphically intensive game on the market, not even close. The architecture of console CPUs are very different.

You can choose to argue this all you want, but the facts speak for themselves. The fact that most games run much better on a higher-clocked dual-core system. By the time most games are optimized for a quad, your CPU will be obsolete. Until then, enjoy GTA IV, and the performance benefits your quad gives you in that game. As for Alan Wake, let's wait till it's actually released before making any sort of predictions.

hartsickdiscipl

You sound like a bitter man, Alan wake USA Feb 3,2009. UK March 14 2009

If he said quads, he would be wrong. Why should he say that? The correct answer right now is that a fast dual-core is best for gaming. In a year, we can ask this question again, and then in another year after that. Maybe then most games will run better on a quad. The main issue that people are having is the cost/performance ratio that you get with a quad right now. You could spend less and get a dual-core with a faster clock speed that runs 95% of the games on the market faster. If you have unlimited money, yes, you could buy a quad that can clock as high as a good dual-core. But most of us don't have that money. If I wanted to buy a quad-core, then I would have. I didn't because it wasn't the best option for my money, plain and simple. hartsickdiscipl

The correct answer right now is that a fast dual-core is best for gaming.. hartsickdiscipl

A fast quad core is better.

As you can see it isn't expensive to buy a Quad core many are far cheaper than a E8600 fast dual core. The Q9400 $266 is same price and performance is almost identical in these few games. Therefore it is 2 cores for free. The i7 920 is exceptional value for money delivering excellent performance for the price. It is what you should build now. DDR3 prices for 4GB RAM are £50 now and motherboards X58 are falling all the time.

With GTAIV it is such a demanding game that many dual cores are sub 30 FPS which as gamers know is in the unplayable department.

The primary reason that GTA IV runs like **** on most (even well-built) pc's is the fact that it was coded to run on the console systems, and a lazy port was done to make sure that they make money off the pc market as well. The consoles have far inferior GPUs to today's gaming pc's, and the CPUs in them cannot be equated to pc processors. One setting that many people (even those with great video cards) have to turn down in GTA IV is draw distance, which is mainly a GPU-dependent setting. This is an example of poor coding, as GTA IV isn't the most graphically intensive game on the market, not even close. The architecture of console CPUs are very different.

You can choose to argue this all you want, but the facts speak for themselves. The fact that most games run much better on a higher-clocked dual-core system. By the time most games are optimized for a quad, your CPU will be obsolete. Until then, enjoy GTA IV, and the performance benefits your quad gives you in that game. As for Alan Wake, let's wait till it's actually released before making any sort of predictions.

You sound like a bitter man, Alan wake USA Feb 3,2009. UK March 14 2009

What processes anti-aliasing, the video card or the processor, or, rephrase that, what which part would I need to upgrade to get my AA up, thevideo card or the processor? For now, I can only play Crysis if theres no AA. Sometimes 2x if there are few enemies and little action. Currently have IntelCore 2 Duo @ 2.66Ghz (5.22Ghz total) and Geforce 8800GT, 512Mbvoodoothe2nd

What I find funny about everyone making a big deal over whether to go with a highly-overclocked quad or an even higher-overclocked dual is that in the games where the CPU actually makes a noticeable performance impact, even the lower framerates are still well over 60, even 70 FPS. You probably won't even notice the difference unless your display has a really fast refresh rate. OTOH, most of the stressful games (especially Crysis) don't show much difference between CPUs as far as framerates go, judging from those charts. In other words, most games are GPU-limited more than anything, and spending a bit more on a better graphics card as opposed to a better CPU would get significantly more bang for the buck in games. Sure, the settings are cranked up to high or so and the resolution is 1650x1080, which means that most of those games will easily be held back by the GPU long before the CPU, but most of you probably don't want to play on medium or low anyway, even if it does bring out the performance delta between CPUs in games. Thus, it comes down to this-if you just want to play games, get a cheap, fast dual, overclock it, and put the savings toward a better graphics card. If you do things like video encoding/transcoding or whatnot that actually max out quad-cores and can afford one without compromising on the rest of your system, get a quad-core with a fairly high multiplier (say, Q9550 or Q9650) and overclock it.NamelessPlayer

Which is why GTAIV is important. It sorts the men(quad cores) from the boys (dual core) and this game is the Future of Gaming on PC whether you like the game or not along with games like Alan Wake with seamless streaming of environment and physics handled by a core and cores processing data that is being fed to the GPU.

Instead of getting the fast dual core and overclocking it, get the same price Quad core plenty there to choose from and overclock it. It will beat any dual core @ any Mhz you care to put it and you are all ready for the future gaming instead of being stuck with a minimum spec CPU you have a recommended one.