Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

How long would Core 2 Duo last?

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Core
Last response: in CPUs
Share

When will the Core 2 Duo (2.13Ghz) be not enough?

Total: 62 votes

  • less than 3 Years
  • 52 %
  • 3 years
  • 21 %
  • 4 years
  • 9 %
  • 5 years
  • 20 %
July 2, 2006 5:45:57 PM

I know that the core 2 duo series is not yet even out, but I was wondering how long would it be before a lets say 2.13 Core 2 Duo would be one of the required minimum cpu needed for gaming? when would it be treated as an absolute minimum spec?
Considering that multicores (not for desktops thou) are coming out next year.

thx

More about : long core duo

July 2, 2006 6:16:50 PM

It probably would last 3 years, but take into consideration that within 3 years Intel's Yorkfield will be available for retail sale with 8 cores and 12MB of L2 cache.
July 2, 2006 7:13:45 PM

I think it depends on consumers and game developer,
We all have our assumption but here's mine I would go with CPU manufacturer's timeframe because they control when to end the production on particular CPUs. Next is when game developer does not want to spend time and money for their game to work slower CPU since customers wanted more extras.

The CPU becomes obsolete when consumers do not want to play the game anymore with the minimum requirement when the playable requirement is only a hundred dollars away to upgrade or less. I still prefer to use my 2 GHz Northwood bought in 2001 even though I have more powerful computers in the house. It still plays the games that I purchase recently. Age of Empire, Dungeon Siege 2, Fable and more.
Related resources
July 2, 2006 7:39:00 PM

Quote:
I know that the core 2 duo series is not yet even out, but I was wondering how long would it be before a lets say 2.13 Core 2 Duo would be one of the required minimum cpu needed for gaming? when would it be treated as an absolute minimum spec?
Considering that multicores (not for desktops thou) are coming out next year.

thx


Well, considering the fact that even today, some to most applications still only require a minimum of 800-1000Mhz processors or faster to run, I would say the core duo mentioned would work fine for at least 5 years or so. Some applications do require more.

Intels can be overclocked anyway which would certainly compensate. The other factor we need to consider here is games nowadays are graphics intensive anyway. You build the machine around the CPU and the faster the other components are, the faster all applications will work in general.
July 2, 2006 9:13:04 PM

I'd say 5+ years because the hardware changes a lot faster than the software. For example, the Athlon 64 has been around for almost 4 years, but there's still no mainstream 64-bit software. My old P4 1.6 could still run most new games with a video card upgrade (it has a GF2 right now). It wouldn't run them well, but they would run, and it's a CPU from 2002.
July 2, 2006 9:52:32 PM

Quote:
I know that the core 2 duo series is not yet even out, but I was wondering how long would it be before a lets say 2.13 Core 2 Duo would be one of the required minimum cpu needed for gaming? when would it be treated as an absolute minimum spec?
Considering that multicores (not for desktops thou) are coming out next year.

thx


I would say more like 5+ years. It all gets down to money. You see, no game manufacture is going to develop a game that only a small percentage of people can play. They all hope the game developed by their company will be the best seller of all time because of the profits. To do that they must have it work with as minimum hardware specs as possible. For example, I have seen an XP 2500 do just fine on Quake 4. In my opinion, it is a lot more dependant on the GPU and not the CPU in most cases anyway. I believe a Core 2 would last a very long time.
July 2, 2006 10:10:48 PM

thank You all for the replies, i was actualy considering geting the 2.4Ghz version of teh core 2 duo, i figured that teh 2x greater catch and that almost 0.3Ghz :wink: would help in its longevity, i was curious in regards to how would everyone treat the 2.1 version, I was planing to be able to use that cpu atleast for that 4 years or so minimum (considering the fast that im using a intel pentium IV 1.7 521 mb ram, and an oldie ati radeon 7500 all in wonder, which were parts of a sony vaio which i got in 2001, and now its 2006 is begining to end :wink: )

I wanted to be able to play crisis in high detail using that cpu, 2 gigs of ram ( i know that gpus are responsible for visuals...but the cpu is also important)and using a 1900xt ...or posibly the dx10 gpu, but that depends when itll come out
a b à CPUs
July 2, 2006 10:12:45 PM

A P3 1000eb with 512mb of ram and a FX5200 video card can just handle battlefield 2 and NFS underground 2 and how olds that cpu? ~6 years?
July 2, 2006 10:21:04 PM

asked this question because on one game (i do not remmeber which one) it said (not the minimal) but recomended requirements are a dual core cpu, so the gaming industry is begining to use the potential of the dual cores already.
July 2, 2006 10:50:09 PM

Quote:
A P3 1000eb with 512mb of ram and a FX5200 video card can just handle battlefield 2 and NFS underground 2 and how olds that cpu? ~6 years?
Hey p3 is awesome ok so f****n awesome that i can still play cod2 with better frames then a northwood at 2.0ghz while it's 500mhz slower using the same gf.
a c 480 à CPUs
July 2, 2006 11:02:39 PM

Quote:
asked this question because on one game (i do not remmeber which one) it said (not the minimal) but recomended requirements are a dual core cpu, so the gaming industry is begining to use the potential of the dual cores already.


Newer games will always push the minimum requirements ever higher. Oblivion is a good example. Basically you will need to replace the CPU and/or GPU when you think it is not fast enough anymore. That could be next year or it could be 2010. It all depends on how high your expectations are.
July 3, 2006 8:18:18 AM

Quote:
I know that the core 2 duo series is not yet even out, but I was wondering how long would it be before a lets say 2.13 Core 2 Duo would be one of the required minimum cpu needed for gaming? when would it be treated as an absolute minimum spec?
Considering that multicores (not for desktops thou) are coming out next year.

thx


Guess 4 or 5 years. Today you can still decently play many games on a 2.6-2.8 GHz Northwood.
CPU technology is no more that of doubling clock rate every 6 months and even programmers are having a hard life keeping up with the new complex processor architectures, so probably conroe, and even the top K8 and PE will survive for some years.
Another thing to note is that the 31 stage presscott was the dead end of netburst; conroe is much similar to the A64 with its 14 stages vs 12.
July 3, 2006 11:29:35 AM

I am posting on a 3yr old Athlon 2000+ at 1.67GHz now, and it games reasonable well with an ATI 7500
July 3, 2006 11:49:09 AM

Core 2 Duo and it's surrounding hardware will easily last more than 3 years. Do NOT however expect to be playing the new games titles in 3 years time on this system at high res with all options turned on.

Core 2 Duo isn't going to be that future-proof - no system is.
July 3, 2006 4:23:47 PM

In 3 years Intel will have its 32nm Nehalem shrink out, so the E6400 - even though its a really great CPU - wont last 3 years.
July 3, 2006 6:35:01 PM

so i gues going for the E6600 wersion (2.4) would adleast ad that hm... half a year of life to it? or not realy? im just curious im stil using my 1.7 P IV, 512 ram, and the old ati all in wonder 7500 which was a sony vaio with minor mods that i got in 2001, and now its 2006, and to be honest about last year about this time i knew i m begining to need a replacement, so i got used to being not able to playnew(er) games at all, or on low setings, or medium low, but to be honest the pc i got in 2001 was not the best i could have done if i would have build one myselfe( it was a gift) so this time i thought that that 1900xt core 2 duo 2.4 and 2 gigs of ram would last me a bit longer, taking under consideration that this system ia quite a bit above average(its not at the absolute top, but still), isnt it?
July 3, 2006 7:44:27 PM

Gaming software will likely be first and fastest to take advantage of dual core. I still think you'll be pretty safe for at least 2-3 years. Aside from gaming though, single cores won't be so easily done away with, even though they will get hard to find as they are phased out. Businesses don't just toss away perfectly good computers just to have the latest and greatest. There is also a lot of legacy stuff going on with software, so business apps won't be so quick to be changing to take full advantage of dual core. Most computers out there are not being used for hard core gaming, they are being used for mundane things like email, web surfing, and business apps. Not any real great benefits I can think of in the near future for dual core here. Most people will adopt dual core processors because that is all that will be available reasonably soon, not because they will specifically want or need one.
July 3, 2006 8:32:18 PM

Quote:
Gaming software will likely be first and fastest to take advantage of dual core...


Renderers and professional software in general take advantage of multithreading since it first appeared as hyperthreading in P4s, before game programmers had started to think about it and because a render loop is a much shorter piece of code to write as multithreaded than a whole game.
July 3, 2006 9:23:24 PM

well, considering intel wants to put out a new architecture every 2 years in their "road to gold" or w/e... it might look like conroe might only be here around for a short amount of time... if intel decides to do that.

but we do not know yet, but technology is advancing real fast, so we cant doubt its abilities either
July 3, 2006 10:48:49 PM

Quote:
In 3 years Intel will have its 32nm Nehalem shrink out, so the E6400 - even though its a really great CPU - wont last 3 years.


Just because there will be something bigger and better doesn't mean that the E6400 won't run games anymore. As long as it has a good VPU, the Conroe should be above the system requirements for a couple of years.

Quote:
Single cores will have little use in the future. Most apps will become multi-threaded needing multiple cores. Especially in gaming, games will be able to be better due to dual cores.


Does that mean that the games won't run unless you have a dual-core CPU?
July 4, 2006 2:43:33 AM

lol thx , i was aiming for info like that, I mean info that would speculate on the aproximate time when a core 2 duo would be "put on the list of absolute minimums" needed to run the game at all, like nowedays my 1.7 pentium 4 is a minimum in many games or close to it (a 1.6 pentium 4) and i had this cpu since 2001, so i wanted to estimate aproximately the lifespan of a cpu which is what? 3 times beter (atleast) than what i have now. Thank You
July 4, 2006 2:52:41 AM

Two years and six months I'd say it would retain it's effectiveness.
July 4, 2006 5:06:26 AM

Quote:
Two years and six months I'd say it would retain it's effectiveness.


I agree since Intel now says it on a two year product cycle. I guess they mean the 4 core version and then then the 8 core version then what ever replaces that will probably be a totaly new arch. maybe something like Cell but better. so I would say 3 years for being usefull for anything but after that the games will require more then what 2 cores can provide (its possible but untill the time has passed who knows for sure.) 6 years on core based tech ?
July 4, 2006 5:03:24 PM

lol so i gues geting a new pc now (give or take couple of moths) even the high end (or mid highend) will be outdated relatively soon, compared to geting a pc 3 (or 2)years ago :( ...darn and i wanted the build to last me atleast 3 years :cry:  , considering i would spand around $1400 on it.
!