I'm planning on making a new computer (mostly for gaming) sometime around early 2008. I want to use a G9X for my video card (assuming it's 500 or less) but I'm trying to decide on processors.


Is a quad-core going to be pretty much necessary to get the most performance out of my video card? Dual core isn't very future proof? If i were to make a comp now I would have to chose between a Conroe 3.0ghz and a Quad 2.4ghz kenfield.


Opinions?

I'm also planning on upgrading my rig at that time. Personally, I'm gonna go with a Skulltrail mobo as the base for my rig to allow for maximum upgrade options in the future, and then drop in a mid priced quad core with a mild overclock. This will allow me to drop in another processor in the future, if needs must.

As we've moved away from the gigahertz race and towards a core-scaleable architecture hardware wise, programmers have begun to follow suit. They are now optimising programs (especially games) for more cores, rather than speed.

I'd go for a quad-core in Q1,2008. Currently, a dual core xtreme just about beats the fastest quad core and has slightly more overclocking potential in the latest games. But as programmers optimise for more cores, you've theoretically got double the power (like for like) stored in a quad core.

If you're waiting until Early 2008, then take advantage of the Penryn processors scheduled for release in Jan 2008. The Core 2 Quads: Q9550, Q9450 and Q9300 should be out about the time you're looking to build.

-Wolf sends

I'm upgrading to a Q6600 G0 now, and will wait for Nehalem.

If I don't plan to OC, is the stock cooler/heatsink for the Quads okay? I hear mixed things.

At the moment, games will run on any dual core (in fact I'm still running a single core and don't have any problems)... what will happen over the next 6 months is anyones guess... I predict that a decent (or decently overclocked) dual core will be enough for at least a year to come.

However I also predict that a Q6600 will come in to it's own after that time and will continue to be a perfectly acceptable CPU for gaming for around 3 years from now.

From all the information around at the moment, games will start to make use of a quad core, but I don't think they'll max one out for a looong time yet.

@ericvpi: the stock cooler is fine if you're not overclocking, it runs warmer than a dualcore obviously, but well within spec.

Crysis will know how to use a quad core properly. I'd get a quad, for future-proofing. I did get a Q6600 recently, in fact.

Not trying to step on anyones shoes but do you honestly think Crysis would max out a mid to high level duel core. I for one don't at all so I feel like sighting Crysis as being a reason to get a quad core is a little misleading.

I ordered a Q660 for future proof. Because it is a good quad-core from what i have seen. and i dont want to spend money on a quad-core after getting a dual-core so i just got a Q6600 for Future gaming and apps. and i belive i made a good choice.

I'm waiting for my computer to crash and burn before getting my next cpu.
- There is nothing important on it.
- I tinker.
And I believe I made a good choice too.

"Future proof" is a bad measure in deciding what cpu to get. Anything you get will be obsolete next week. Five years from now, there is a very good chance the cpu will still run anything.

This is where most people will get crysis wrong, it may need tons of GPU stats yes but the CPU makes up for it, so now high end graphics isnt just GPU's its a ton mroe to do with teh CPU aswell.

future proofing? wasnt that the mantra of AMD X2's? wasnt that the bandwagon that everyone was hoping on 3 years ago when dual core came out?

lets break this down into what you are asking and what you are really wanting to know. technically, yes, someday programmers will find a way to integrate multi-threaded programs into our daily lives on a continual basis. as it sits now, unless you encode or video edit or something along those lines, a single core works great. barring the occasional program and crysis, there is not a program out there that takes advantage of dual core let alone quad core. you can browse the internet, type letters to grandma in word and watch pr0n with wmp the same as those 'fools' with 'only' one core. the advantages today of quadcores over single core or dual cores are in the architecture and not in the cores. oblivion doesnt care if you have dual or triple or quad, the architecture is such that it has been optimized over last years greatest.

now does a dual or quad core perhaps allow you to multi-task better? sure, set the affinity. does it allow windows to perhaps, randomly, offload tasks to another core thus allowing the primary program to access the other core unobstructed? sure. but let us not confuse the issue here, it is advances in architecture and NOT more cores that allow for better performance in games and other such single threaded programs.

[/my $.02]

Someone told me that even a quad 2.4 will have a CPu bottleneck for gaming unless overclocked to at least 3.0 ghz (assuming you're using a 8800 gtz or something)...is that true?

Maybe if the game uses only 1thread I guess...

And don't 95% of games out right nwo only use one thread?

By the time most software makes use of a quad core cpu, the quad cores available today will be outdated. there is no future-proofing.

If you have a paticular need for more cores and have software which has been developed or want to run multiple programs at the same time then a multiple core will make a difference.

One thing which is not being discussed much is with multiple cores performing multiple tasks becomes complicated when the cores all share the same memory, video, and buses. IMO if you need to do that much processing use a second computer ran from a central consol.