Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Dual cores STILL an option for gaming...

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
April 26, 2010 5:41:18 PM

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/blizzard-entertainm...

Cmon guys... can we finally admit that dual cores are still the cheaper/better option at times for gaming? Its ridiculous for people to still be advocating quads in this day and age when the top games are STILL using dual cores in 2010!!!!!!!
a b à CPUs
April 26, 2010 5:47:01 PM

starcraft isn't exactly what the average gamer thinks of as extreme gaming

find a bench for farcry, crysis gta4 metro 2033 etc
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 26, 2010 5:54:13 PM

The cheapest quads have come down in price to around $100. Dual cores range from $40 to $160+

I would take a $100 quad over a $100-$120 dual core any day.

Games such as FarCry2, GTA4, etc do play better with more cores.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
April 26, 2010 6:14:16 PM

You need to build your rig with a purpose in mind. If you are only going to play specific game that do play well on dual core chips then yes the dual core maybe the cheapest. If you are looking at playing any game you want and future games, a quad core is the way to go.
m
0
l
a c 105 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
April 26, 2010 6:22:20 PM

werxen said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/blizzard-entertainm...

Cmon guys... can we finally admit that dual cores are still the cheaper/better option at times for gaming? Its ridiculous for people to still be advocating quads in this day and age when the top games are STILL using dual cores in 2010!!!!!!!


cheaper? ...the E8XXX and i3 are not cheap. AMD Phenom II x2 are more expensive then the Athlon II X3 440. I do agree building a gaming rig with a 3.0ghz+ CPU is still a viable gaming rig option. If you look at the top PC game developers, Bioware, Blizzard, Valve, Bethseda, Obsidian..all of their games can be maxed out with a good dual core and solid video card.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 26, 2010 6:30:29 PM

I totally agree. Still very few games show much of an increase with dual core, and even those games will STILL RUN great on a dual. VERY few games NEED quad core to be playable on enjoyable settings (GTA IV / ?).

Here is a perfect example, the duals keep
up fine even with 5870 crossfire, and even in games that beg for quad core they are still MORE than playable.

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/radeon_hd_...

Blue is right however with quads this cheap its hard to turn them down. However, i'd take a 4.6ghz i3 over a 3.6 athlon ii any day. :)  Unless I played GTA IV maybe...

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 26, 2010 7:09:44 PM

Raidur said:
I totally agree. Still very few games show much of an increase with dual core, and even those games will STILL RUN great on a dual. VERY few games NEED quad core to be playable on enjoyable settings (GTA IV / ?).

Here is a perfect example, the duals keep
up fine even with 5870 crossfire, and even in games that beg for quad core they are still MORE than playable.

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/radeon_hd_...

Blue is right however with quads this cheap its hard to turn them down. However, i'd take a 4.6ghz i3 over a 3.6 athlon ii any day. :)  Unless I played GTA IV maybe...


Why does that site always have the ugliest reviews? [:wolfen18:8] Not saying anything about the information, just that it is not that easy read through. [:boudy:3]
m
0
l
April 26, 2010 7:19:51 PM

Yeah, Starcraft really isn't that extreme of a game. Playing with 60+ FPS on Ultra (granted it is 1680x1050) with a single 250 GTS and a Phenom II 955BE.

With that being said, the only game I am really glad I have my quad for is BC2. That, and my quad helps a lot for school. :) 
m
0
l
April 26, 2010 7:21:33 PM

I am in total agreement my E8600 handles every game a throw at it no problem, my problem is my far to hot to handle 250's why oh why didnt i read the reveiws before buying them(cus they wer cheap and on offer direct from manufacturer).

But haveing said that i am still wanting my quad core yorkie this year some time. I can use the E8600 in my parteners PC then and will only cost me about the same as i paid for my E8600.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 26, 2010 7:22:25 PM

Yeah I know, they do things a little differently. Especially the way the bar graph reflected a combination of minimum and avg fps, not just average. But their data is excellent and they were the first I've seen to properly bench these chips. By properly I mean with completely matching systems on relevant resolutions in a non-bottlenecked situation on a clock-for-clock basis.

+1 on Quad for BFBC2. That game gets surprising performance gains from a quad, but is still playable on a dual. God I love that game. :)  Sure looks great on dx10 1080 4xAA @ 50-90FPS.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 26, 2010 7:46:10 PM

Oh come on, GTA4, BFBC2, Metro 2033 are just a few games that will REQUIRE a quadcore to be maxed out.

Good quadcores that clock over 3.6 GHz start at $100 now.

Hey Werxen, can you finally admit that buying a dual core in this day and age for anything more than $50-$60 is a rip off?

Oh and don't forget Crysis is aided by quadcores and now I can convert videos and play multiple games just fine. Oh any my E6750 @ 3.6 GHz and a friends Athlon II X2 250 would and do lag like hell in Supreme Commander when there are more than two players half way through the game. Don't even try cranking up the settings and physics in CoH with a dualcore either.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 26, 2010 7:47:35 PM

Oh and to clear up a misconception that has already cropped up in this thread, dualcores hurt the minimum FPS, not the average FPS. When the CPU gets bogged down everything slows ways down, it wont show a linear performance hit.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 26, 2010 7:54:17 PM

AMW1011 said:
Oh and to clear up a misconception that has already cropped up in this thread, dualcores hurt the minimum FPS, not the average FPS. When the CPU gets bogged down everything slows ways down, it wont show a linear performance hit.

+1 to that

Dual cores have had their time, but with the price of quads they are pretty much done.
m
0
l
April 26, 2010 8:41:45 PM

ehhh... does that mean my phenom ii x3 suck? i know that processor is like in limbo between dual and quad, but say, it's at 3.5 Ghz, so......
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
April 26, 2010 8:59:28 PM

Lol; FC2, GTA4, BF:BC2, DA:o  are just a few games that clearly benifit from more CPU cores. I could just as easily give a bench that shows Duos getting crushed.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 26, 2010 9:12:46 PM

Dude whoever said Metro needs a quad is stupid - I max it out on 1080p res and only use 80% of my dual core. Also Crysis is still limited to 2 cores - not 4. All benchmarks show roughly the same FPS. Architecture != core count.
m
0
l
April 26, 2010 9:38:15 PM

i think crysis recognizes up to 3 cores only...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 26, 2010 9:50:48 PM

AMW1011 said:
Oh come on, GTA4, BFBC2, Metro 2033 are just a few games that will REQUIRE a quadcore to be maxed out.

Good quadcores that clock over 3.6 GHz start at $100 now.

Hey Werxen, can you finally admit that buying a dual core in this day and age for anything more than $50-$60 is a rip off?

Oh and don't forget Crysis is aided by quadcores and now I can convert videos and play multiple games just fine. Oh any my E6750 @ 3.6 GHz and a friends Athlon II X2 250 would and do lag like hell in Supreme Commander when there are more than two players half way through the game. Don't even try cranking up the settings and physics in CoH with a dualcore either.


Did ya miss the review I posted? In supreme commander the difference between quad and dual is less than 10%. Also, in CoH the dual core i3 actually tops a Phenom II x4.

Also take a look at part 2.

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/radeon_hd_...

In CoH the E8xxx series C2D massively tops the Athlon II, and Supreme Commander seems to prefer even a faster SINGLE core, as you can see the sempron giving the Athlon II a run for its money.

Sometimes (well in gaming its a LOT of the time) higher IPC is more important than more cores. Once you pass 2 cores anyways. Especially an IPC difference like Athlon II and i3.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 26, 2010 10:08:01 PM

Raidur said:
Did ya miss the review I posted? In supreme commander the difference between quad and dual is less than 10%. Also, in CoH the dual core i3 actually tops a Phenom II x4.

Also take a look at part 2.

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/radeon_hd_...

In CoH the E8xxx series C2D massively tops the Athlon II, and Supreme Commander seems to prefer even a faster SINGLE core, as you can see the sempron giving the Athlon II a run for its money.

Sometimes (well in gaming its a LOT of the time) higher IPC is more important than more cores. Once you pass 2 cores anyways. Especially an IPC difference like Athlon II and i3.

As you can see the higher IPC duals are a better decision than slow quads like the athlon iis with very high-end cards. Unless it is a very CPU dependent game like GTA IV.


Well said.
m
0
l
April 26, 2010 11:24:46 PM

All i can say to those people who advocate quads, is that they probably don't pay the electricity bills.
Get my E7200, measured 30 watts consumption, undervolted,
try an E6600, oops, gets to 90W easy.
Just one way of looking at it.
And yes, it's 45nm, and yes, it's fine for gaming.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 26, 2010 11:29:15 PM

Raidur said:
Did ya miss the review I posted? In supreme commander the difference between quad and dual is less than 10%. Also, in CoH the dual core i3 actually tops a Phenom II x4.

Also take a look at part 2.

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/radeon_hd_...

In CoH the E8xxx series C2D massively tops the Athlon II, and Supreme Commander seems to prefer even a faster SINGLE core, as you can see the sempron giving the Athlon II a run for its money.

Sometimes (well in gaming its a LOT of the time) higher IPC is more important than more cores. Once you pass 2 cores anyways. Especially an IPC difference like Athlon II and i3.


Did you read where I stated the difference is in min FPS and slow downs, not straight FPS. Note that this is actually shown in those graphs.

There are no games out there that need straight IPC to be maxed, a 3.2GHz+ clock should do the trick just fine, but there are games that need quadcores. Also with DX11 and Windows 7 we are seeing an increase in the importance of cores.

You can get $70 Athlon II X3s making even the cheapest dual cores irrelevant. So for $100 you can get an Athlon II X4, a Phenom II X3, or an E6600 wolfdale. Obviously, the X4 and the X3 are better deals. For $120 you can get an i3 530, an Athlon II X4, a Phenom II X3, a pretty close tie, except you can get a Phenom II X4 925 or 940 for $20 more, both of which will hang with $200+ quadcores. Anything between $150-$200 is obviously quadcore only territory with the Phenom II 955, 965, i5 750, and the X3440, and soon to be a Phenom II X6 which should clock with the X4s. At the high end, there is absolutely no question of the multi-core dominance.

Are quadcores needed? No. Do people with dualcores necessarily need to upgrade? Probably not. Is there ANY reason to buy a dualcore anymore? No.

This said, don't deny that in a good few games, now, a quadcore will really show some benefit, and in some games, will knock around the dualcores. My 8800 GTS 512mbs are showing some age, though they can play all games on high, not very or ultra high depending on the game, at 1920x1200, I don't go around saying GPU performance greater than dual 8800 GTS 512mbs is useless, it simply isn't true and I don't need to justify my purchases even if I'm still getting great performance or maxing in most titles.
m
0
l
a c 105 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
April 26, 2010 11:37:13 PM

bottom line is only a user can justify what is good for him/her

when Starcraft II launches there will be users running
17" monitor
athlon x 2 dual core
Nvidia 8600GT
2GB ram DDR2 RAM
Win XP
and have a smile from ear to ear

there will also be people with
26" monitor
i7
ATI 5870
6GB DDR3 RAM
Win 7 64bit
screaming their heads of that their PoS PC only gives them 59FPS at the ultimate level
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 26, 2010 11:41:24 PM

I can say for sure that $400 dual cores i5's from Intel are ridiculous...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
April 27, 2010 12:01:49 PM

Raidur said:
Did ya miss the review I posted? In supreme commander the difference between quad and dual is less than 10%. Also, in CoH the dual core i3 actually tops a Phenom II x4.

Also take a look at part 2.

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/radeon_hd_...

In CoH the E8xxx series C2D massively tops the Athlon II, and Supreme Commander seems to prefer even a faster SINGLE core, as you can see the sempron giving the Athlon II a run for its money.

Sometimes (well in gaming its a LOT of the time) higher IPC is more important than more cores. Once you pass 2 cores anyways. Especially an IPC difference like Athlon II and i3.


Do NOT compare different architectures; ICP alone, nevermind cache differences will skew the results.
m
0
l
!