So my roommate is making the claim that dual core is actually better than quad core for gaming. I think he's full of it to be honest because it just doesn't make sense to me. And he doesn't really have much evidence to support this. But he's also normally not one to make a claim without at least doing some research first. So I'm wondering if anyone can help clear the air and provide their opinions on this. To specifically state his claim, he argues that quad core is better for multi-threaded processing, such as if one were to use a desktop computer for 3D modeling while a dual core processor is better for gaming because of the way the processes are split between cores. I don't think this is particularly correct, in fact it seems rather illogical to me, but I'd much rather be informed instead of making assumptions. So what are everyone's opinions on this?
Quads are better then dual cores. Years ago a higher clocked dual core would out perform a slower clocked quad core. Because of the fact that programs and games were not coded to use all the cores in a quad. But now since quad core cpu's are the norm, programs and games see improvements in using a quad core over a dual core, even if the quad has a lower clock speed.
His view is like 5 years old. Quad > Dual for gaming.C_Rule
This. Back in 2007 with the early Core 2s there wasn't a discernible difference in games between a dual and quad core. Games are more heavily threaded these days and that's no longer true.
For all games a Quad Core is better than a Dual Core in every instance. Older games that are coded for only two cores will run just as fast on modern Quad Core processors because these new processors are just as fast as the Dual Cores of yesterday. Newer games that are made for four core processors such as Call of Duty: Black Ops and Battlefield: Bad Company 2 will run better on any Quad Core processor no matter the clock speed. The bottom line is that these days a Quad Core processor is the best thing to buy for gaming and will stay that way for at least three more years.
His view was valid at one point, and that was when dual cores had a higher frequency than quads. You could get a dual core at 3ghz and the quad equivalent was like 2.6ghz.
But quads have been around a while, and everything takes advantage of the extra cores.
His view was valid at one point, and that was when dual cores had a higher frequency than quads. You could get a dual core at 3ghz and the quad equivalent was like 2.6ghz.
But quads have been around a while, and everything takes advantage of the extra cores.
and duo is just a term that intel came up with.
The proper term for a 2 core processor is dual.
GummiRaccoon
I agree, the roommate needs to be set straight on this issue. Time to update their knowledge!
His view was valid at one point, and that was when dual cores had a higher frequency than quads. You could get a dual core at 3ghz and the quad equivalent was like 2.6ghz.
But quads have been around a while, and everything takes advantage of the extra cores.
and duo is just a term that intel came up with.
The proper term for a 2 core processor is dual.
GummiRaccoon
whent he very first 2 Core Duos came out i saw it on that TV network that only sells things.
well the rep from intel said that look at it like this, Duo Cores thinks that they are 2 cores in one CPU and trys to operate as a 2 core CPU.
but 2 Core Duos are realy 2 cores inside the CPU so it will run with 2 cores.
Alright, thank you for the advice. I was getting rather annoyed with him telling me that getting a core i7 would be less effective than a dual core for gaming.
Log in to comment