Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why do people keep buying quad cores for gaming?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
January 14, 2013 12:25:15 PM

Anywhere you read, you'll find everyone is recommending quad cores for gaming, and they will always claim that dual core i3's will bottleneck. Even on the blizzard starcraft 2 forum the people who have "developer/programmer" under their username will keep repeating the same thing: "buy an i5-2500k, it will make all your problems go away"
But when I saw the real world benchmarks, an i3 with the same clock as a quad core i5 or i7 always performed exactly the same. I was disturbed with these results, so I tested it out myself with my i5-2500. I measured the average fps with these games at the lowest graphical settings to make sure my GTX 580 wasn't the limiting factor, only the CPU: starcraft 2, GTA 4, Skyrim. I then went into BIOS and disabled two cores, and then measured the fps in these 3 games again, and I actually got a higher average fps!(well it was mostly due to the fact that turboboost was going up to 3.6GHZ because two cores were disabled, while it only went up to 3.4 Ghz when all cores were enabled). So my own tests confirmed it, there's no such thing as a game that uses 4 cores, and added to that there never will be, cause games are more and more being developped for consoles and being ported to PC's, so quad core optimization will never happen in 99% of games anytime in the future.
So why's the internet so full of inaccurate information?
January 14, 2013 12:31:18 PM

Try loading a 4v4 replay in SC2, playing BF3 on 64 player maps, playing MMOs in crowded places...

Also there's no such thing as a PC just for gaming. You'll always want to do more with it, hence why you've bought a PC over a console in the first place.

Oh and 'lowest graphical settings' in SC2 would assume you downed physics, reflections and particles which are CPU bound which makes your benchmark irrelevant. I can play SC2 on my old Athlon 64 x2 4200+ at 720p and lowest settings at 60fps just fine as well...
m
0
l
January 14, 2013 12:37:14 PM

Soda-88 said:
Try loading a 4v4 replay in SC2, playing BF3 on 64 player maps, playing MMOs in crowded places...

Also there's no such thing as a PC just for gaming. You'll always want to do more with it, hence why you've bought a PC over a console in the first place.


I fail to see the first point. If I run the game without vsync and at lowest graphical settings the CPU will perform at the maximum for that game, so how is 4v4 replay or 64 player maps any different?
And you're assuming people never buy PC's only for gaming, which is horribly inaccurate.
m
0
l
Related resources
January 14, 2013 12:40:04 PM

dssdghthd said:
I fail to see the first point. If I run the game without vsync and at lowest graphical settings the CPU will perform at the maximum for that game, so how is 4v4 replay or 64 player maps any different?
And you're assuming people never buy PC's only for gaming, which is horribly inaccurate.

I edited my first post and to answer your question, more units = more processing power required. Then there's also a mothership cloaking that guts fps, even though not as bad as it used to.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
January 14, 2013 12:46:43 PM

Now open browser with 5 tabs (have youtube in one of them), skype and something else that you use. You'll see that performance will drop.

Such thing wouldn't happen with a quad core. You should also remember that overclocking on K-series CPUs increase performance tremendously. Dual cores don't have that privilege.

Anyway, I personally don't recommend quad cores unless the budget allows. For $600+ builds, it would be a shame to go with i3.
m
0
l
January 14, 2013 12:46:56 PM

Soda-88 said:
I edited my first post and to answer your question, more units = more processing power required. Then there's also a mothership cloaking that guts fps, even though not as bad as it used to.

I specifically said I ran the game at lowest graphical settings, as in I left the "CPU intensive" marked setting at ultra.
You're still just writing stuff without proof. Mothership cloaking may be CPU intensive(It's a very nice fact to know), but how exactly does it have anything to do with quad cores being different than dual cores? You think the mothership can use another core by itself?
m
0
l
January 14, 2013 12:51:12 PM

Sunius said:
Now open browser with 5 tabs (have youtube in one of them), skype and something else that you use. You'll see that performance will drop.

Such thing wouldn't happen with a quad core.

Anyway, I personally don't recommend quad cores unless the budget allows. For $600+ builds, it would be a shame to go with i3.

Whenever there's a recommendation on the internet here what is said:
"Get a dual core i5 if you want to play games, an i3 will bottleneck, an i5 will outperform it by a huge margin"
Here's what is not said:
"Even though dual cores will perform the same in games as quad cores and you only want to use it for gaming, you should get a quad core because it will really increase you non-gaming multitasking speed, like opening multiple tabs on your browser"
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
January 14, 2013 1:15:24 PM

the fact that you got more fps when you disabled the 2 cores running at higher speeds tells you the cpu speed is a limiting factor for that game not the core count.
starcraft and many other games only use 2 threads so wouldnt show any difference in real world performance but switch to frostbite engine games and you will see your system choke while using a dual core.
it really does depend on the engine your cpu is running as to what effect it has on performance.
bfbc2 for instance will stutter badly on any dual core cpu and limit the gpu to 50% or less, bouncing from 45 fps down to 5 and back again constantly... switch to a slower cpu but with a higher core count and this issue disappears... why? threading... not all games use multiple threads but a lot of new 1s do... where this is showing up is in the fx cpu's they suffer a lot more with single threaded games than multi threaded because there single threaded performance is so poor. as time marches on more and more games will use the advantages that multithreading brings. so just because its not used by the majority of games, dont discount it as you will see more of it in the future.

if your gonna complain about something at least make sure you have the correct basic info...
and just for reference. games developed on pc as the primary platform will often perfom better on a quad. as oppsed to games developed for consoles then ported back to pc with most of the console optimizations still in place... this is lazy programming not a hardware issue.
your rite when you say the internet is full of wrong information, as you have just proven by your post...

m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
January 14, 2013 1:21:55 PM

The latest games take advandtage of more than 2 physical cores. Which means you will get better performance with a quad-core or a hexa-core. Battlefield 3 for example takes advantage of hexa-core CPUs.

m
0
l
January 14, 2013 1:35:33 PM

HEXiT said:
the fact that you got more fps when you disabled the 2 cores running at higher speeds tells you the cpu speed is a limiting factor for that game not the core count.
starcraft and many other games only use 2 threads so wouldnt show any difference in real world performance but switch to frostbite engine games and you will see your system choke while using a dual core.
it really does depend on the engine your cpu is running as to what effect it has on performance.
bfbc2 for instance will stutter badly on any dual core cpu and limit the gpu to 50% or less, bouncing from 45 fps down to 5 and back again constantly... switch to a slower cpu but with a higher core count and this issue disappears... why? threading... not all games use multiple threads but a lot of new 1s do... where this is showing up is in the fx cpu's they suffer a lot more with single threaded games than multi threaded because there single threaded performance is so poor. as time marches on more and more games will use the advantages that multithreading brings. so just because its not used by the majority of games, dont discount it as you will see more of it in the future.

if your gonna complain about something at least make sure you have the correct basic info...
and just for reference. games developed on pc as the primary platform will often perfom better on a quad. as oppsed to games developed for consoles then ported back to pc with most of the console optimizations still in place... this is lazy programming not a hardware issue.
your rite when you say the internet is full of wrong information, as you have just proven by your post...

Okay fine, so one game you mentioned does use 4 cores, but still most modern games don't, like the ones I tested that claim they use 4 cores but really don't. And most games today and in the future are being developped for consoles and merely being ported to PCs.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
January 14, 2013 1:47:36 PM

dssdghthd said:
Okay fine, so one game you mentioned does use 4 cores, but still most modern games don't, like the ones I tested that claim they use 4 cores but really don't. And most games today and in the future are being developped for consoles and merely being ported to PCs.


I disagree. The PC has begun getting more popular compared to the last few years.

http://www.gamefront.com/is-pc-gaming-making-a-comeback...

m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
January 14, 2013 2:28:09 PM

lol there are a lot more than just 1 game... every frostbite engined game needs a quad...
thats bfbc2, bf3, moh and they are jut the 1s from dice. crysis 2 works better on a quad but that uses 3 threads and 1 of them is audio (notice in the options it has a high and low quality audio) so no its not just 1 game there are many. more and more in fact... just because there not usable on every game it doesn't mean there not needed as for the rest of your argument its flawed. all games are written on pc. then ported to console then some are ported back to pc with console code left over... this is what causes the porting issues. purley lazy programming on the publishers part... so in this case particualrly i want more cpu than i can use just in case i need it...

as the saying goes. its better to have and not need than to need and not have.
i would much rather have a quad and only use 3 threads than have a dual and try to run a game that needs 4 threads.

if you want to save money and risk bottlenecking then thats your choice. but people like me that know that building a balanced pc is a much better option for longer gaming life. just look at the reality of this forum. you dont see me asking why am i getting low fps on this or that game. while many who have much newer hardware are. reason. i built a balance pc when they didnt...
its not just because i know more... its because i put into practice what i know...
i wouldnt pair up a i3 2120 with a gtx 680 because i know sooner or later i would run into issues... this is called experiance, something you cant read on a website but have to learn for your self by doing...
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
January 14, 2013 2:33:49 PM

HEXiT said:
lol there are a lot more than just 1 game... every frostbite engined game needs a quad...
thats bfbc2, bf3, moh and they are jut the 1s from dice. crysis 2 works better on a quad but that uses 3 threads and 1 of them is audio (notice in the options it has a high and low quality audio) so no its not just 1 game there are many. more and more in fact... just because there not usable on every game it doesn't mean there not needed as for the rest of your argument its flawed. all games are written on pc. then ported to console then some are ported back to pc with console code left over... this is what causes the porting issues. purley lazy programming on the publishers part... so in this case particualrly i want more cpu than i can use just in case i need it...

as the saying goes. its better to have and not need than to need and not have.
i would much rather have a quad and only use 3 threads than have a dual and try to run a game that needs 4 threads.

if you want to save money and risk bottlenecking then thats your choice. but people like me that know that building a balanced pc is a much better option for longer gaming life. just look at the reality of this forum. you dont see me asking why am i getting low fps on this or that game. while many who have much newer hardware are. reason. i built a balance pc when they didnt...
its not just because i know more... its because i put into practice what i know...


^ +1
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
January 14, 2013 5:51:20 PM

dssdghthd said:
Whenever there's a recommendation on the internet here what is said:
"Get a dual core i5 if you want to play games, an i3 will bottleneck, an i5 will outperform it by a huge margin"
Here's what is not said:
"Even though dual cores will perform the same in games as quad cores and you only want to use it for gaming, you should get a quad core because it will really increase you non-gaming multitasking speed, like opening multiple tabs on your browser"


"On the Internet it's said". This sentence is flawed is so many ways I don't even know where to start.

Let's do it like this: find one of my posts where I say i3 will bottleneck appropriately priced GPU (up to HD 7870/GTX 660).
m
0
l
January 15, 2013 4:21:47 AM

HEXiT said:
lol there are a lot more than just 1 game... every frostbite engined game needs a quad...
thats bfbc2, bf3, moh and they are jut the 1s from dice. crysis 2 works better on a quad but that uses 3 threads and 1 of them is audio (notice in the options it has a high and low quality audio) so no its not just 1 game there are many. more and more in fact... just because there not usable on every game it doesn't mean there not needed as for the rest of your argument its flawed. all games are written on pc. then ported to console then some are ported back to pc with console code left over... this is what causes the porting issues. purley lazy programming on the publishers part... so in this case particualrly i want more cpu than i can use just in case i need it...

as the saying goes. its better to have and not need than to need and not have.
i would much rather have a quad and only use 3 threads than have a dual and try to run a game that needs 4 threads.

if you want to save money and risk bottlenecking then thats your choice. but people like me that know that building a balanced pc is a much better option for longer gaming life. just look at the reality of this forum. you dont see me asking why am i getting low fps on this or that game. while many who have much newer hardware are. reason. i built a balance pc when they didnt...
its not just because i know more... its because i put into practice what i know...
i wouldnt pair up a i3 2120 with a gtx 680 because i know sooner or later i would run into issues... this is called experiance, something you cant read on a website but have to learn for your self by doing...


Where can I find the "high five" button?
+1


Game technology will constantly evolve just like it always has. The number of threads we will use will increase, just like it has. People want bigger, faster more shiny and pretty things, and so it is done.
m
0
l
January 15, 2013 6:14:36 AM

Imho, the stubborn OP misinterprets a lot of posts and feels "attacked" and moves in defensive position...

Also with PC gaming in general, a lot of titles are console ports anyway, which are very much CPU bound.
The numbers keep increasing so it is wise to choose a quadcore when gaming.

For example Borderlands II,
I have a laptop with an i5 460m and Radeon 5870m (which should handle everything at 1440x900)

So I was playing borderlands but everything seemed to be in slow motion, stuttering and especially when effects would come into play...

So i kept an eye on my CPU and noticed it was 100% in use all the time when playing. (even on lowest graphics! and resolution)
Swapped it out for an i7 840QM and voila, Turned every setting back to max and CPU had more room to breath due to 4 cores and 8 threads. And the games performance FPS tripled and was much stabler overal.

Also FPS benchmarks tend to be run when the computer is IDLE and nothing else is on in the background.
While an average user has a Anti Virus running, internet explorer, media player, widgets and a crapload of programs...
They all eat CPU cycles... but you don't see that in benchmarks ;) 

Balance is the key when building PC's.
For example,

My desktop consists of an i5 2500k heavily overclocked to 4,8ghz and two Geforce GTX670. Primary use: gaming, multitasking, video editing, and browsing.

My HTPC: i3 2225 (HD4000 graphics for XMBC)

You have to find the right balance for your workload.
And with quadcore optimized programs such as video editing software, games, and other software in general it's wise to go quadcore, especially when looking at long term usage. :hello: 
m
0
l
January 15, 2013 7:47:10 AM

i3 2100 and GTX 460 here.......I DON'T FEEL RESTRICTED AT ALL :D 
m
0
l
January 15, 2013 7:54:06 AM

It's people like you who say "we'll never use that" that hold us back.

Quad cores are becoming the norm meaning more games will develop for them.

In answer to your console port argument. What about the next gen? They are looking at APU's and the like which rely on heavily threaded gameplay.
m
0
l
January 15, 2013 7:54:07 AM

Even if a game is only using 2 threads, isn't it reassuring that you have spare cores for Windows/AV/background tasks to do their thing in rather than taking resources away from your game??
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
January 15, 2013 8:13:21 AM

+1 to mi1ez. And don't forget Crysis 3. I know it's not out yet but there are alpha benchmarks out (give it a Googling) and i5/i7 do perform significantly better. i3 is a genuinely good processor though and I wouldn't mind having one at all if I was on a limited budget.
m
0
l
January 15, 2013 8:32:13 AM

+1 to sam_p_lay
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
January 15, 2013 8:50:17 AM

Just browsing to see if I can max Medal of Honor (not Warfighter) on my setup and came across this:

http://www.techspot.com/review/324-medal-of-honor-perfo...

Look at the difference between i3 and i5. I'll admit that you don't need as much framerate as the i5 is putting out, but it demonstrates nicely how a game from three years ago was making good use of four cores.
m
0
l
January 15, 2013 8:53:40 AM

Not sure if OP is trolling or just stupid.

Many sites, including this, repeatedly show that quad-core CPUs give better gaming performance that dual ones, especially at higher settings.

Not sure what the problem is.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
January 15, 2013 10:02:41 AM

bemused_fred said:
Not sure if OP is trolling or just stupid.

Many sites, including this, repeatedly show that quad-core CPUs give better gaming performance that dual ones, especially at higher settings.

Not sure what the problem is.



+1

But especially, STREAMING. Try streaming with a dual core any game that actually needs CPU to work, and then see how choppy your stream will become.

Sure, mostly dual cores are ok for gaming, but there are notable exceptions. If you dont see them, good for you.
m
0
l
January 15, 2013 1:33:35 PM

You're essentially future proofing your system a little bit by going for the extra cores. There was a time when PC games didn't even utilize one core, now most utilize two, but very few utilize four. In the next couple years more and more will start to use four cores. Some games are very reliant on good processors, such as WoW. Most games heavily rely on the CPU for producing long draw distances as well.

It's also worth to mention that the Processor market moves a great deal slower than the graphics card market. A high end card one year going for 1k, goes for 500 the next year. So, dropping a chunk of change on a good processor will actually turn out to be less money over time than an expensive GPU.

We all know that when the new systems come out (most likely next fall) the PC graphics will make a leap as well, would you rather have the 1k GTX 690 when that happens or the i7 hex core processor? I'd take the hex core anyday, considering a 300 dollar GPU can obliterate any game on the market at 1080p. (GTX 660ti)
m
0
l
January 15, 2013 1:47:26 PM

AMD's A-series chips has the better GPU's on the quad core ones. That let's you crossfire with a dedicated GPU for better performance then the video card can do on it's own. Plus I have a first gen A8 in my laptop and that can run Skyrim with it's on-chip GPU just fine.

Plus like it has been said before. Open a few programs like Firefox, Chrome, Skype, Pidgin, all of you security/utility programs, and your game. That is where having 4 cores can help.

Also of note. The game Planetside (1 not 2) was developed when single core was the only CPU's out. When dual cores came out those who had it glitched in a way that when both cores were used for the game it would let them move around so fast that no one could kill them (but it was also imposable for them to target others).
m
0
l
January 15, 2013 2:00:24 PM

Well, unless you are running a dual monitor set up I don't see a good reason to have a bunch of other applications running while you are playing a game. Even on a good processor, you could be potentially be taking away performance.

The time is quickly approaching where most games will utilize a four core GPU, even if they don't require it. Having a better processor will prolong the life of your GPU as well.
m
0
l
January 15, 2013 4:36:45 PM

When you split hairs, does it matter if you split them into 2 or 4?


migrax
m
0
l
January 15, 2013 6:35:09 PM

migrax said:
When you split hairs, does it matter if you split them into 2 or 4?


migrax


Hey shut up! I want a virtual 8 per strand. That way it won't look like I'm balding. :sol: 

PS Why are all the smiley faces hairless?
m
0
l
May 21, 2013 11:13:31 AM

dssdghthd said:
Anywhere you read, you'll find everyone is recommending quad cores for gaming, and they will always claim that dual core i3's will bottleneck. Even on the blizzard starcraft 2 forum the people who have "developer/programmer" under their username will keep repeating the same thing: "buy an i5-2500k, it will make all your problems go away"
But when I saw the real world benchmarks, an i3 with the same clock as a quad core i5 or i7 always performed exactly the same. I was disturbed with these results, so I tested it out myself with my i5-2500. I measured the average fps with these games at the lowest graphical settings to make sure my GTX 580 wasn't the limiting factor, only the CPU: starcraft 2, GTA 4, Skyrim. I then went into BIOS and disabled two cores, and then measured the fps in these 3 games again, and I actually got a higher average fps!(well it was mostly due to the fact that turboboost was going up to 3.6GHZ because two cores were disabled, while it only went up to 3.4 Ghz when all cores were enabled). So my own tests confirmed it, there's no such thing as a game that uses 4 cores, and added to that there never will be, cause games are more and more being developped for consoles and being ported to PC's, so quad core optimization will never happen in 99% of games anytime in the future.
So why's the internet so full of inaccurate information?


I am SOOO friking tired of people saying quads arnt worth it. I felt compelled to reply to offset the spreading of misimformation. Quads DEFINATELY, without any doubt are the CLEAR choice. You will still hear people like you who will for various misguided reasons try to guide people otherwise. I will give just one example. I had an E6600 dual OC'd a bit, humming along nicely and first got a new GTX-670 when they first came out (love it). anyway, the E6600 would NOT run BF3 smoothly or without brief stops. By smoothly I mean 60fps in most scenes, on resonable settings (which dont have that much impact anyway). At similar clocks speeds to my E6600, I tried a Q6700 but ended up with a Q9650 and now all is awesome. ALSO, I can have WAY more IE tabs open without IE crashing/slowing etc. Even if I didn't need quad for the game, I would NEVER go back and NEVER get a dual. I wish this whole deadend debate would just die. so sick of it. QUADs are NOT 'future proofing' you need them NOW, like a year ago. Just because you might be able to create a scenario where a 2 core does something as well is NOT good reasoning. WHY on earth would you recommend something that is only useable 'sometimes' and 'if you arent running other programs'? SERIOUSLY! P.S. wanna buy my E6600?
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
May 21, 2013 2:41:56 PM

You're sick of the debate and wish it would die, yet resurrected a thread about it that ended in January?
m
3
l
June 5, 2013 2:27:37 PM

I understand what the OP is saying when he mentions games are particularly driven by console standards (unless their PC specific like Total war) but when he says consoles will and only use 2 cores .....???

The new Xbox 720 (or One as its being called) uses 8 cores, so does the new Sony so game developers will follow suit.

Multi-core gaming is on its way but I'm playing it safe and still going for high Ghz within a certain class of CPU as you can't go wrong with more Ghz.

At the moment I have a 3.4 quad, if Rome Total war 2 demands more I'll go 4-8 core 4+Ghz then that will end any issues.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
June 6, 2013 1:47:55 AM

Its increadible how much anger and hate people throw in when they write on the internet.

Elturisto, you are comparing the cpus wrong. IF you want to compare dual vs quad compare something that makes sense. How about you compare a Q6600 vs a i3?

As a rule of thumb, if you are getting 40+ fps you should not even be considering bottlenecks.
If you DO get unplayable frames you check your componenets online and find out wich is underperforming.
Anything more than that, and its just an Ego fight.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
June 6, 2013 1:57:41 AM

Argh now we're gonna have a "you can/can't see the difference between 40fps and 100fps" war.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
June 6, 2013 2:00:13 AM

Since thats 100% subjective, I would not call that a war, but rather an opinion. I like that better.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
June 6, 2013 2:55:53 AM

Nobody ever argues that as opinion. You've been on here long enough to see these - article-sized posts full of links to flashing light perception tests etc. I'm actually in the 40fps camp, but plenty of people on here believe you can see way more.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
June 6, 2013 4:59:52 AM

I think you can see more and probably enjoy it more as well, its just that i value steady fps over high amount of fps :D .

Check this out :http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

In theory it proves BEYOND any doubt that there is a huge inprovement from 30 to 60 fps right? Well, how about you are a bit critical about what you see and you notice that the cubes move at diferent speeds in the gifs.

Yes, that test has been totally biased to make you belive that it indeed DOES make a diference (the way you can tell the speeds are diferent is becouse the timing on the cubes moving up and down changes).

This dosent mean 60 fps is same as 30, but means you have to be carefull with your claims.

A more "real world" example : http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=535863

Take your own conclusions :D .
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
June 6, 2013 5:18:35 AM

Agreed about framerate consistency! To be honest, I think the only value in quantifying this is for the purpose of discussing with others (hard to be precise about HOW smooth something is without putting a number on it). When I'm adjusting settings for best quality at smooth framerates, I won't ever be using a framerate counter - I'll just be looking at the fluidity of the motion and responsiveness of movement and making my decisions based on that. I think a steady 40fps is what I'm seeing though when I see performance I'm happy with.
m
0
l
June 6, 2013 11:14:16 AM

I don't think there's a war I think there are people who value game quality and those that don't .... I'm in the former.

There IS a difference between 40fps and 60+fps and that difference is that a lot of today's games use VSync which every game I've ever used it on is set at 60fps, what happens when it consistently drops below 60? you get frame stuttering and lag so how people can say that 40fps is acceptable on modern games is beyond me.

Even on eye alone there is a difference not so much between 40-60 but 40 compared to 80fps when VSync is off it noticeable to me, but ultimately this is settled more along the VSync usage then anything else.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
June 6, 2013 1:46:15 PM

Yeah obviously you'll never actually be seeing 40fps when v-sync is enabled. For this kind of discussion, assume v-sync is disabled.
m
0
l
June 6, 2013 3:09:51 PM

sam_p_lay said:
Yeah obviously you'll never actually be seeing 40fps when v-sync is enabled. For this kind of discussion, assume v-sync is disabled.


Fair enough but for gamers certain games are unplayable without VSync so as it's a requirement especially with popular games I don't see how you can discount it for example .....

On Black Ops 2 my system with VSync disabled can do from 60fps up to 150+fps and everything in-between, now with that sort of aggressive frame changing happening even though it's lovely to see 100+fps, for a fast moving game like Black Ops it leaves the game practically unplayable hence why there's VSync, VSync locks your fps at 60 because that's the industry standard.

I don't know what happens if you can't reach 60 on VSync but I'm guessing it's not great so for me I need it thus I can't discount it.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
June 7, 2013 2:26:44 AM

Haha not because it's the industry standard. Because it's synced to a 60Hz refresh rate. Obviously if your framerate never drops below 60fps then you use v-sync. If it never exceeds 60fps, you never use v-sync. That's why games/drivers allow the user to set it on an application basis. It's only if the framerate in a game both drops below 60fps and significantly exceeds it that the choice becomes more tricky.

Point is though that it's not relevant to a discussion that's about perception of smoothness and what framerate is required to create the illusion of fluid motion. And that's a discussion that the two sides will never agree on anyway. It doesn't help that technical limitations (such as the refresh rate of the monitor or framerate of a demonstration video) inhibit side-by-side demonstration comparisons.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
June 7, 2013 5:26:56 AM

Well, I used to think i could tell the diffference between 10-20 fps increments but after doing some "blind testing", well not blind, but i hope you know waht i mean, i found out i cant.

If i get 2 games running on 50 or 100 fps id prefer the 100 but if i get the 50 instead, 3 minutes later i wont have a problem with it.
In other words, i dont need high fps to enjoy a game.
m
0
l
June 7, 2013 8:06:10 AM

while you may be correct that some games do not take advantage of 4 cores newer games are now taking advantage of 4 physical cores people recomend 4 cores for future proofing we have bf3 and dragon age origins which are widely played that need 4 cores for max performance and it should be noted now that consoles are making leaps to use quads hell the new consoles are using a 8 core
m
0
l
June 7, 2013 8:16:51 AM

I did find it strange that Xbox and Sony made an immediate leap to 8 cores from dual but when I saw the specs I can see why.

Its a lot cheaper to have a 1.2 - 1.6ghz 8 core than to have a quad which will need 3.4Ghz off the bat for next gen gaming.

TBH it's good news for us PC gamer's because the head room we'll have on our multi cores (most of us get 3ghz+) will be huge compared to what the consoles use, however the consoles shift toward multi core gaming basically means our muti core investments will now start to pay off performance wise.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
June 7, 2013 8:18:46 AM

Mate, the PS3 also has 8 "cores", and its far infirior to the PC CPUs.
m
0
l
June 7, 2013 8:31:26 AM

cats_Paw said:
Mate, the PS3 also has 8 "cores", and its far infirior to the PC CPUs.


technically its more related to a quad with hyperthreading considering the use the term modules this confuses alot of people and as for the cores being less then a cpu thats not nessary true its based on the fx chipset viresha most likely since bulldozer was plain bad at scheduling its data
m
0
l
June 7, 2013 8:41:16 AM

Diamond-HP said:
I did find it strange that Xbox and Sony made an immediate leap to 8 cores from dual but when I saw the specs I can see why.

Its a lot cheaper to have a 1.2 - 1.6ghz 8 core than to have a quad which will need 3.4Ghz off the bat for next gen gaming.

TBH it's good news for us PC gamer's because the head room we'll have on our multi cores (most of us get 3ghz+) will be huge compared to what the consoles use, however the consoles shift toward multi core gaming basically means our muti core investments will now start to pay off performance wise.



Yes thats also true that we should see more quad games coming out at the end of the year.
my only worry will be for the new consoles the temperatures of the 8 core and the power draw they have a huge impact in desktops however i also recon well be seeing them at max performance in consoles due to with new consoles they can write better support for the 8 cores

m
0
l
July 1, 2013 11:35:48 AM

Here's a question I'd love to know the answer to ......

Do you think Games developers will actually bring out 8 core games and will 4 cores like most of us have be enough if they do?

I just feel that Sony and Microsoft had to have spoken to games developers unless they just thought more cores will attract spec junkies?

Their either doing it for bragging rights or they actually have had dialogue with game companies who told them 6-8 core gaming can be done?
m
0
l
July 1, 2013 12:22:08 PM

Diamond-HP said:
Here's a question I'd love to know the answer to ......

Do you think Games developers will actually bring out 8 core games and will 4 cores like most of us have be enough if they do?

I just feel that Sony and Microsoft had to have spoken to games developers unless they just thought more cores will attract spec junkies?

Their either doing it for bragging rights or they actually have had dialogue with game companies who told them 6-8 core gaming can be done?



To be accurate there not really 8 cores there 4 modules packed with 2 smaller cores unlike the 6 core phenom which is actually 6 physical full cores however the phenom tech was at its maximum.

games are only now starting to transfer to a 4 core design only a handful of games at present quad

well be seeing for the next couple of years more quad games coming out since the 8 cores basicly behave like a quad.



m
0
l
!