Dual or Quad better for gaming

Yes - If you're not significantly multitasking, then a faster dual core would be the choice for gaming - with the understanding that gaming performance is primarily driven by graphics rather than Processor.

A deeper answer will mention that it also depends on what kind of games you like to play. If there's significant AI - like in certain FPSs and newer RTS games - then there can be benefit from more cores available to run those threads. But as mentioned in the other thread, this is highly dependent on how well the publisher coded for multithreading.

most quad cores will overclock to the point that the benefit of the dual core is eliminated for gaming....and the quad core is much better for multitasking. So unless you ONLY game with nothing going on in the background, and can't afford the extra $50 or so for a quad core I would recommend a quad core

These days I think quad cores have a slight advantage over dual cores, as more and more games make use of the extra cores. However, many games usually hit a graphics bottleneck first, which is why I'm not jumping at them just yet. My E8400 is still good enough for now. If I had to upgrade right now though, I would probably go for a quad core instead.

As Scotteq said, it really depends on what games you play. If you like sandbox-type games, they tend to be heavy on the CPU and you will see significant improvements on a quad core compared to dual core, even at higher resolutions.

I do, that's why I have two machines.

At a clock rate of 3.0 or better, the vga card is much more important for gaming than the cpu.
At that level, overclocking is good for bragging, but it will not net you as much increase
in FPS as a better vga card will. Today, very few games can make use of more than two cores.
Flight simulator X and supreme commander are exceptions. It is not a trivial matter to code multi threaded programs,
and game vendors will not sell too many games that require quads to run.
I don't see this changing in the next couple of years.

Net: a faster duo for the increased clock speed.

dual core for games all the way.

Dual cores are useful for budget builds only.With a medium end or high end build using a dual core CPU makes no sense.

True enough, but you can get to 3.0 with a duo cheaper.
If cost is not an issue, then certainly get a high clocked quad.

Right now, a higher clocked dual core is generally better for gaming. Still, more games are starting to take advantage of more than one core and DX11 is being designed to better take advantage of multiple cores. Of course if MS delivers on that or not is anyone's guess .

i upgraded to quad core. phenom 2 x4 810 at 139.00 at newegg.com. it's a 2.6ghz, socket am3.

i was like you and thought about getting a dual core, but for future games i went quad core.

upgrade with mainboard was like 250.00 total.

You suck you fat ass noob, this isn't a celebrity magazine! No one gives a *** about that so usefull info.

Get a quad core , the newest quad cores can actually easily reach above 4+ GHz, which makes them competitive with the dual cores at the same speed, because remember... If a game can use 2 cores it a quad core will still work well just 2 cores than can/will be used for other stuff like antivirus software and such so you can search your system for badassware while gaming Because it seems like people are thinking "Hey, quad cores need a program to use 4 cores omgz, with dual x2 core i can play 2 core in gaming, wow gaming i run cool game for super speed overclock quad core suck my ballz!" Better to invest in a quad core as it will give you more power in the future!

WHOOPS missed it.

@OP
Your triple core core cpu is running at 2100mhz
Min recommend for games is 2500

It would be nice if you could swap out that triple for a Phenom II Triple 720BE

Everything would be the same only faster, and it oclox like crazy too. Also faster overall throughput.

I don't know your mobo - but check with manufacturers cpu compatibility list, if possible, and consider a faster triple core than the slow one you have. Vidcard is plentiful. It's your stock clox. And that triple you have will not oclox very much either. If the 720 fits, problem solved.

Alt choice = dualcore = Phenom II 550 BE @ 3.1 Ghz, also oclox.

Alt choice PhII Quad - but it's a waste for gaming - won't use all those cores.

Quad is useless - you already have most of a quad with your existing triple - it's the clock speed causing limited data throughput to GPU.

quote from OP
AMD Phenom X3 8450|eVGA nForce 730a|eVGA GTX 260 SC| Corsair DDR2800 2GBx2|Acer19" and HP 21" Dual| n52te Gamerpad

LOL, all I said is that it was useless info, that doesn't help the OP's question And then you think I am some kind of poor communist, lol I got several machines at home, and I don't try to be some big e-dick n00b

You suck

....didn't learn the first time, apparently. Rated down again.

Good points.

- although I find myself wondering if we are still in the same thread. I thought we were perhaps in the ultimate sandbox, the Coliseum in ancient Rome, watching 2 gladiators try to kill each other - or some similar cluster f...

And we wonder how communication can be difficult.

Running a Q6600 @ 3.6 Ghz, 8gig ddr2 and a 8800gtx xxx edition on a 22" monitor. Runs anything on the market just now at max settings without a hiccup on vista 64bit and the rigs pushing 2 years now.
Dual or quad why worry really, long as you can slap a good GPU in there with it for now at least there os no real benefit that you can masure with your eyes imo.
On paper yes but the minor difference aint always going to translate into real world results.

I don't question the honest expression of your opinions.


Just the Delivery.

True, but you can disable hyperthreading on core i7, which gives you 4 threads

Ok

Jay - Not that I do or don't support the upcoming Dual Cores - I've said elsewhere they're pretty damned interesting. Particularly for home/gaming use, which is what I intend on using the new box for. But at the moment it's on paper and little previews, and I just don't want to toss opinions when I feel the picture is incomplete. There is a very nice article on Anand on it, but the i5 isn't the only thing in the pipeline, yah?

I simply haven't made up my mind if I want an i7, or an i5, or if AMD is going to pull a surprise victory and get (my) next build. And if it's not settled in my own head, then I don't want to tell someone else what to do...

One potential problem is that the clarksdale 32nm duo 's will have integrated graphics. That is not bad, even useful. But the motherboards that currently have integrated graphics can not be overclocked well because the graphics part can not be overclocked much, if at all.. Otherwise, I would be encouraged. The i5 quads will still be built on the 45nm process, and should perform quite like the i7. Now, if you wait for the i9 gulftown 32nm 6 core cpu, I think you could expect something more. I think intel is missing a good opportunity here for a gaming specific cpu.

I don't know - Chopping one of the memory controllers off of an i7, and putting a 16x PCi 2.0 bus on~die where the memory controller used to be sounds like pretty good value~add in a gaming rig. In theory, at least, that should cut latency way down and help ensure best possible throughput to/from the first PCi slot. I'm just waiting to see some production(ready) silicon on a couple production mobos...

Integrated graphics? On~die or not, I'll avoid like the plague. That's business class stuff, and not somethign I'd consider for one of my own rigs.

Those 8800gtx cards will still run hard for awhile. I have had mine almost a year and a half. And i am thinking of getting a qaud core for my upcoming build, using a a dual core on this rig which as been great thus far.

A lot more funny then you think. I remember mentioning that before it was even on intel's planning map. Not sure who it was, but I was basically called crazy an idiot for mentioning this by several people. Not sure if that was you, but you sure was involved in the debate.

Btw, people are still waiting for that myth of multiple core gaming? LOL!

One thing I find funny is that fact that dual core is enough for most multitasking to be done smoothly. Also, why do people recommend a quad core for gaming and background processes as the best option when a high clocked dual core with nothing in the background is the best option? When you have anything running in the background besides normal things (I have to say this because there are always @#$#@#%@) it doesn't really matter that much when you are using a quad core or dual core, the limitation is lowered by a lot anyways. Quad cores don't work in the way that people think they do.

Only people that need a quad is a serious professional developer who can't afford a multiple cpu system. Even that is questionable.

This is not a good idea due to needed revising, cooling methods and complications. Discrete performance graphics should always be kept as an add on due to constant changing of graphics.

Unless they want to change the whole platform around create something different and get rid of add on graphics cards. Even then, it doesn't make sense. Graphics constantly change anyway and is very expensive. This idea I can see only leads to more limitation and problems then graphics already have so far. What are they trying to do? Take the fun totally out of computers for gamers by doing this? Mobos don't run hot enough, let alone from overclocking already?