Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Core 2 Quad vs i3 in GAMING!!!!(plz reply)

Last response: in Video Games
Share
June 12, 2011 5:44:39 AM

Hello Everybody,
I want to upgrade my cpu,I want to know for gaming which cpu between C2Q and i3 will be better.

I want to play games like BFBC2,COD MW2..BBFC2 wants a Quad Core cpu so far I know,so in the case BBFC 2 c2q is better for sure.
But if I go for any other game like Portal 2,Witcher 2,original Crysis,Crysis Warhead,Crysis 2,Mass Effect 2 or any other upcoming titles like Duke Nukem Forever what should be better....please compare only between i3 and C2Q,I can't go above...
My rig:
4 gb ram
5670 hd 1 gb ddr5
18.5 inch Samsung syncmaster monitor(max res:1360*768)
a c 97 à CPUs
June 12, 2011 8:31:50 AM

As you are interested in playing Battlefield Bad Company 2, definitely go for a fast Core 2 Quad, preferably around 3 GHz. The slower C2Qs will generally not give you good game performance. Most games are not properly multithreaded and won't fully utilize four cores (BFBC 2 is a rare exception), thus it is important that your individual cores are fast, or you will see poor performance in most games, particularly in Crysis and Crysis Warhead, which will only use two cores.

The Core i3 either first or second generation is also not a bad choice for a gaming CPU, and will handle most of the games you listed quite well, the problem is that it is only a dual core, and some of the more CPU intensive games, particularly BFBC2 will not run well with only two cores. If you do go for the i3/new mobo route, the second generation i3 on LGA 1155 is the better choice, as the CPUs are faster on that socket, and it has a future upgrade path, unlike the older LGA 1156 platform.
m
0
l
June 12, 2011 10:07:57 AM

Supernova1138 said:
As you are interested in playing Battlefield Bad Company 2, definitely go for a fast Core 2 Quad, preferably around 3 GHz. The slower C2Qs will generally not give you good game performance. Most games are not properly multithreaded and won't fully utilize four cores (BFBC 2 is a rare exception), thus it is important that your individual cores are fast, or you will see poor performance in most games, particularly in Crysis and Crysis Warhead, which will only use two cores.

The Core i3 either first or second generation is also not a bad choice for a gaming CPU, and will handle most of the games you listed quite well, the problem is that it is only a dual core, and some of the more CPU intensive games, particularly BFBC2 will not run well with only two cores. If you do go for the i3/new mobo route, the second generation i3 on LGA 1155 is the better choice, as the CPUs are faster on that socket, and it has a future upgrade path, unlike the older LGA 1156 platform.


My max res only 1360*768,even after that can't a C2Q or i3 be a common gpu for BFBC 2 and Crysis?even BFBC 2 with mid settings?

m
0
l
Related resources
a b 4 Gaming
a c 89 à CPUs
June 12, 2011 12:18:42 PM

the newer i3 2100's are great for gaming and would best a core 2 quad in most things at the same clock speed. If you already have a board supporting a core 2 quad, it is a viable choice, if building a new system it would be stupid to invest in old tech like a core 2 quad. a core i3 or phenom 955 would be the smarter choice. if your talking about the older i3's(not SB) then unless your into overclocking they suck compared to the same clock rate core 2 quad.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 479 à CPUs
June 12, 2011 2:25:06 PM

Generally speaking, I would not consider going from a C2Q to an i3 to be much of an upgrade. If possible, I would overclock the C2Q a little. If you have the stock CPU cooler that comes with the C2Q, then no more than 300MHz. If you have good CPU cooler then you can overclock it a bit more. Assuming your motherboard will allow you to.

If you are looking to upgrade, I would start with a more powerful video card. As long as the CPU is decent, then the best way to improve performance is with a more powerful video card.
m
0
l
June 13, 2011 3:00:53 AM

as I say before my max res is only 1360*768 and I'm ready to play @1024*768(it is my current res too),it means I am not thinking about HD gaming....even after that may I have to go for better gpu and cpu?I think res is a big factor of current Gaming....my mobo supports C2Q but not i3 but I have no prob to buy a new mobo to play my mentioned games(including BFBC 2).
m
0
l
June 13, 2011 3:03:08 AM

iam2thecrowe said:
the newer i3 2100's are great for gaming and would best a core 2 quad in most things at the same clock speed. If you already have a board supporting a core 2 quad, it is a viable choice, if building a new system it would be stupid to invest in old tech like a core 2 quad. a core i3 or phenom 955 would be the smarter choice. if your talking about the older i3's(not SB) then unless your into overclocking they suck compared to the same clock rate core 2 quad.


do u think i3 2100 can handle BFBC2 @mid settings and 1024*768 res?
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 89 à CPUs
June 14, 2011 3:01:56 AM

^ yes, very well
m
0
l
June 17, 2011 10:27:43 AM

Is the every core of C2Q powerful than the every core of my current cpu Intel Pentinum Dual-Core E5200?I know that my cpu is weak with a compare to a Core 2 Duo but it is not so bad too,It can handle Crysis with 5670 HD and low resolution.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 89 à CPUs
June 18, 2011 8:05:21 AM

core 2 quads have more cache, but they a performance per core is similar to an e5200. If you have a motherboard that suopports a core 2 quad, i would try find a second hand one from ebay. the q6600 is a good choice if overclocking is an option. otherwise try find a 3ghz quad core.
m
0
l
June 18, 2011 8:25:02 AM

iam2thecrowe said:
core 2 quads have more cache, but they a performance per core is similar to an e5200. If you have a motherboard that suopports a core 2 quad, i would try find a second hand one from ebay. the q6600 is a good choice if overclocking is an option. otherwise try find a 3ghz quad core.


I dunno anything about overclocking and dont want to do so,so I should go for a new mobo and i3 2100,I think it is the best option and BFBC 2 looks decent in mid range settings and my res is low too so that is the best I can do.

But a another problem here,my selected gpu is 5670 HD which is a mainstream card and i3 seems powerful,so dont I have bottleneck?
m
0
l
a c 97 à CPUs
June 18, 2011 9:03:16 AM

abar92 said:
I dunno anything about overclocking and dont want to do so,so I should go for a new mobo and i3 2100,I think it is the best option and BFBC 2 looks decent in mid range settings and my res is low too so that is the best I can do.

But a another problem here,my selected gpu is 5670 HD which is a mainstream card and i3 seems powerful,so dont I have bottleneck?


The i3 2100 is more than enough for a 5670, in that scenario the 5670 would be the bottleneck. However, at your resolution most cards above it will not really show significantly improved performance. Anything above a 5770 would almost certainly be overkill for all but the absolutely most demanding games.
m
0
l
June 18, 2011 2:32:45 PM

Supernova1138 said:
The i3 2100 is more than enough for a 5670, in that scenario the 5670 would be the bottleneck. However, at your resolution most cards above it will not really show significantly improved performance. Anything above a 5770 would almost certainly be overkill for all but the absolutely most demanding games.


want to play COD:MW 2,Crysis and even Battlefield 3(don't laugh please) if it comes with a dx10 option.....my current os is win xp sp3 may I need to switch above?I personally don't like vista may be as Im a win xp fanboy,but want now win 7...(my HDD only 160 GB what is very bad config for current PCs,win 7 takes a huge HDD,that is why I never leave my xp,but now Im ready)....
m
0
l
a c 97 à CPUs
June 18, 2011 7:00:08 PM

abar92 said:
want to play COD:MW 2,Crysis and even Battlefield 3(don't laugh please) if it comes with a dx10 option.....my current os is win xp sp3 may I need to switch above?I personally don't like vista may be as Im a win xp fanboy,but want now win 7...(my HDD only 160 GB what is very bad config for current PCs,win 7 takes a huge HDD,that is why I never leave my xp,but now Im ready)....


Battlefield 3 will have no XP support so you will have to upgrade to Windows 7. Windows 7 does not take up a huge amount of HDD space, I run that OS off of a 160GB drive without any trouble. Windows 7 itself takes about 25 to 30 GB. Obviously you would probably want a bigger secondary hard drive to store games, as the remaining space on a 160 GB drive would not be a lot.
m
0
l
June 19, 2011 4:43:23 PM

I have a E8500 @ 3.16 but eveyone is saying to upgrade to a QC for BF3, surley i will be able to run it on meduim levels with my CPU, i have 8 gb ram and a 570GTX FFS !
m
0
l
June 20, 2011 2:19:18 AM

peachy_29 said:
I have a E8500 @ 3.16 but eveyone is saying to upgrade to a QC for BF3, surley i will be able to run it on meduim levels with my CPU, i have 8 gb ram and a 570GTX FFS !


your dual core really powerful and if you sure that BF3 will run with mid range settings I think it is enough but if you want to upgrade cpu I think start a thread and get expert advices..I recommend you to wait for official requirements of BF3(so far I know it has not been released yet).
m
0
l
!