Faster Dual Core vs Slower Quad Core

AMDRadeonHD · Aug 5, 2013

In games like Counter-Strike: Source, the game uses two cores maximum (If I am not mistaken). Does that mean that a better dual core that has a better single core performance (For an example: i3 3220 vs fx 4300) will definitely run it better? And one more question, I noticed that Counter-Strike: Source has a "Multicore Rendering" option, does that mean if I choose "On" the game will utilize all cores? Thanks for the answer!

Sn1992-1361850 · Aug 5, 2013

U must be reading that people say that "theres no need for eight core there is no game foreseable future that could even utilize 4 cores at their full potential"
This statement is UNTRUE

Even present games like crysis 3 utilizes full 6 cores of phenom ll 1090t so u ll need a eight core for future proofing
This is the reason that future consoles like xbox1 and ps4 wuold be having 8 core

I wud suggest u a fx 6300 instead of 4300 its price lesser than the i3
Its 109$ for best deal

ur6beersaway · Aug 5, 2013

I3 is better= http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i3-3220-vs-AMD-FX-4300

Go fx 6300

AMDRadeonHD · Aug 5, 2013

Sn1992-1361850 :

I won't play modern games, they're are boring to me... So, would a CPU with a better single core performance run this game better than a slower single core performance fx 4300 or 6300? I am not a Intel fanboy, I just want an answer.

Sn1992-1361850 · Aug 5, 2013

I would go for 6300

ur6beersaway · Aug 5, 2013

4745454b · Aug 5, 2013

Seeing as an x4 chip is slightly above the x6 chip I'd say its a wash. It's clocked 400MHz faster, but if it really needed all 6 cores then the x4 would have been slower.

Think of it this way if it helps. Even if a game needs two cores to work, more cores can/will help as the windows processes can use them instead of the cores that are playing the game. I'd say 4 cores are needed minimum. 8 cores might be needed in time, but we aren't there yet. (Yes the next consoles will have 8core CPUs, but they are bobcat cores which are very small.)

Best way is to look at the pic I posted. You have one big group at the top from the 3470 and up. You then have a middle grouping from the A10-5800K or so to the FX-4170. After that you have all the lower end stuff from the A10-5500 on down. Because they are in groups you won't be able to tell the difference between the PhII x4 980 and the i7-920. Or tell the difference between the 3470 and the 8350. The results they give are just to similar. Notice that in the examples I gave some of them are four core chips while others aren't. This is because you CAN'T judge performance just looking at core count. I really hope people learn this as I'm getting tired of people saying you need an 8 core chips once the new consoles are out. We might move that way, but its a ways out.

Edit: Seeing as you only care about CS:S what CPUs are you considering? Source came out when the P4 was around. You shouldn't have problems playing it on anything that came out probably 5 years or more ago. You are over thinking this.

AMDRadeonHD · Aug 5, 2013

4745454b :

Seeing as an x4 chip is slightly above the x6 chip I'd say its a wash. It's clocked 400MHz faster, but if it really needed all 6 cores then the x4 would have been slower.

Think of it this way if it helps. Even if a game needs two cores to work, more cores can/will help as the windows processes can use them instead of the cores that are playing the game. I'd say 4 cores are needed minimum. 8 cores might be needed in time, but we aren't there yet. (Yes the next consoles will have 8core CPUs, but they are bobcat cores which are very small.)

Best way is to look at the pic I posted. You have one big group at the top from the 3470 and up. You then have a middle grouping from the A10-5800K or so to the FX-4170. After that you have all the lower end stuff from the A10-5500 on down. Because they are in groups you won't be able to tell the difference between the PhII x4 980 and the i7-920. Or tell the difference between the 3470 and the 8350. The results they give are just to similar. Notice that in the examples I gave some of them are four core chips while others aren't. This is because you CAN'T judge performance just looking at core count. I really hope people learn this as I'm getting tired of people saying you need an 8 core chips once the new consoles are out. We might move that way, but its a ways out.

Edit: Seeing as you only care about CS:S what CPUs are you considering? Source came out when the P4 was around. You shouldn't have problems playing it on anything that came out probably 5 years or more ago. You are over thinking this.

ok and theres an option in the options menu thats called multicore rendering, does that mean that the it will utilize all cores to render the game?

Sn1992-1361850 · Aug 5, 2013

Yeah they do

k1114 · Aug 5, 2013

Source engine only uses 1 core unless that option is enabled. You'd be maxing the game with either cpu (with a decent gpu of course). The engine is just so old, it isn't very demanding.

AMDRadeonHD · Aug 5, 2013

k1114 :

wow so that means that it will use all six cores to run the game, it will be such a big fps boost!

AMDRadeonHD · Aug 5, 2013

i loved this game, it ran 10 fps min., 60 fps avg. and 100 fps max. with hd 4350 512mb ddr2 4gb ddr2 800mhz ram and pentium e6300 2.8ghz until it crashed, now im stuck on 945gm chipset celeron m 1.6ghz and 512mb ram, it rns css at 5 fps 640x480 all low + fps cfg lol

4745454b · Aug 5, 2013

From what I've been told it won't make a difference either way. But I lack a low end machine to test it on. Even my laptop has more power then what you are dealing with. If you are using the 945G I suggest a video upgrade.

k1114 · Aug 5, 2013

It wouldn't use all 6 cores simply because it's so less demanding it doesn't need to. The fps increase is negligible, you'd be above 60fps anyways. It hardly uses 2 cores with the option on.

AMDRadeonHD · Aug 5, 2013

k1114 :

I will probably use an AMD FX-6300 with a Sapphire Radeon HD 6670 1GB GDDR5, so I think it is needed, because I need to make sure I will get 60 fps minimum on 64 players Zombie Mod/Zombie Escape servers with huge maps, so I can use V-Sync and get rid of that horrible screen tearing, and the resolution will be 1360x768.

k1114 · Aug 5, 2013

The 6300 is the better choice, you just won't see it use all the cores.

AMDRadeonHD · Aug 5, 2013

k1114 :

people said that you can make it use how many cores you want by using the command -thread "number of cores"

Sn1992-1361850 · Aug 5, 2013

its told from the start 6300 is the best choice he can have

4745454b · Aug 5, 2013

Again, disagree. I'd rather go with the 4170 and the 7750 over the 6300 and 6670. He's getting to much CPU and not enough GPU for games. Though this is source so doesn't matter much.

k1114 · Aug 5, 2013

Both the 6300 and 4300 are cheaper than a 4170 so doesn't make sense why he would lower the gpu or even get a discontinued cpu. Is there another thread, because you are the only one who has even mentioned the 4170 and 7750.

I never said it can't use all cores, I said it won't.

Sn1992-1361850 · Aug 6, 2013

4170 a big no
Bulldozer architecture that is not at all good

Sn1992-1361850 · Aug 6, 2013

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/300/AMD_FX-Series_FX-4170_vs_AMD_FX-Series_FX-6300.html

ur6beersaway · Aug 6, 2013

What if he just used the 6300?

4745454b · Aug 6, 2013

I meant he doesn't need a 63xx chip. A 4xxx chip will work just fine.

Faster Dual Core vs Slower Quad Core

Honorable

Dignified

Honorable

Honorable

Dignified

Honorable

Titan

Honorable

Dignified

Titan

Honorable

Honorable

Titan

Titan

Honorable

Titan

Honorable

Dignified

Titan

Titan

Dignified

Dignified

Honorable

Titan

Share this page