Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is a 2.33ghz quad core better than a 2.4ghz dual core?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 6, 2012 1:44:13 PM

I recently bought Battlefield 3 for my pc and all of my system's hardware is better than the requirements on the case except this:

I have a Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q8200 @ 2.33GHz and the game requires a 2 GHz Dual Core (Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz or Athlon X2 2.7 GHz).

I am running the game on it's lowest settings, but even in the singleplayer campaign mode I am experiancing very bad stutter. To the point where I am considering returning the game.
a c 113 à CPUs
January 6, 2012 1:48:54 PM

Is the CPU very busy? Is your GPU powerful enough?
a c 79 à CPUs
January 6, 2012 2:00:39 PM

your cpu is fine, what is your GPU?
Related resources
January 6, 2012 2:04:15 PM

I am only running the game and have closed all unnecessary backround programs.

The GPU required is 512MB GeForce 8800 GT or higher and I have a 1024MB GeForce 9600 GT.

The game requires 2GB of RAM and I have 4GB. Since I'm not running any backround programs, RAM usage is also low.
a c 79 à CPUs
January 6, 2012 2:11:50 PM

your 9600Gt is weak, and is ismilar to an 8800GT, so i'd say that was your problem. Can you monitor cpu and gpu usage whilst gaming in afterburner and a gpu widget? and pop out and have a look at which one is most maxed?
January 6, 2012 2:39:47 PM

What are the frame rates you're getting with the game currentl;y?
January 6, 2012 3:31:05 PM

The quadcore is obviously better.

It's like comparing the GTX 295 to one of the newer cards. The newer cards have a SINGLE PROCESSOR. Whereas the GTX 295 is dual core.

Sure the newer cards can run more things with better graphics but overall the 295 has better capabilities.
January 6, 2012 3:54:25 PM

I too have the same processor coupled with a GTX460 . I definitely feel the Quad core isn't that good a processor . My brother bought me F1 2010 and my rig could hardly manage 30-35 fps . Even when i toned down the settings to low , i couldn't experience any gain in the FPS . So the Core2Quad obviously isn't a beast ....

But in your case the video card seems to be the weakest link .....

What resolution do you game at ??
a c 83 à CPUs
January 6, 2012 5:00:51 PM

Alos said:
I am only running the game and have closed all unnecessary backround programs.

The GPU required is 512MB GeForce 8800 GT or higher and I have a 1024MB GeForce 9600 GT.

The game requires 2GB of RAM and I have 4GB. Since I'm not running any backround programs, RAM usage is also low.


9600GT is weaker than the 8800GT, it may have a bigger number but it was the midrange product of the 9000 series while the 8800 was high end of the 8000 series.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-9600-gt,1780-12.html

Your 9600GT is similar to my 5670, I have it paired with a 3.5Ghz Athlon II X4 and find the game unplayable, it'll technically run at a really low resolution but is too ugly to want to look at.
January 6, 2012 6:34:16 PM

loneninja said:
9600GT is weaker than the 8800GT, it may have a bigger number but it was the midrange product of the 9000 series while the 8800 was high end of the 8000 series.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-9600-gt,1780-12.html

Your 9600GT is similar to my 5670, I have it paired with a 3.5Ghz Athlon II X4 and find the game unplayable, it'll technically run at a really low resolution but is too ugly to want to look at.


Ahh, the age old bigger is better thrown out of the window. Again.

Thank you all very much, since I posted this I tried to give the game one last go before making up my mind about returning it, and it won't even load up... :pfff: 

I just hope that I can convince the GAME store clerk that it's the disk's problem, not mine, so that I can either get a refund or exchange it for another game.

Once again, thanks to all. :) 
a c 79 à CPUs
January 6, 2012 7:16:11 PM

Alos said:
Ahh, the age old bigger is better thrown out of the window. Again.

Thank you all very much, since I posted this I tried to give the game one last go before making up my mind about returning it, and it won't even load up... :pfff: 

I just hope that I can convince the GAME store clerk that it's the disk's problem, not mine, so that I can either get a refund or exchange it for another game.

Once again, thanks to all. :) 


although oddly the 9600gt is 2 ranks above the 8800Gt in the hierarchy charts, but they are rule of thumb type measures.
a b à CPUs
January 6, 2012 10:45:19 PM

imtiax said:
The quadcore is obviously better.

It's like comparing the GTX 295 to one of the newer cards. The newer cards have a SINGLE PROCESSOR. Whereas the GTX 295 is dual core.

Sure the newer cards can run more things with better graphics but overall the 295 has better capabilities.


Say what? The GTX 295 is destroyed by most mid range 400 and 500 series models and they cost less an do DX11.
January 7, 2012 1:57:09 AM

87ninefiveone said:
Say what? The GTX 295 is destroyed by most mid range 400 and 500 series models and they cost less an do DX11.

That is so true.
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2012 2:02:20 AM

imtiax said:
The quadcore is obviously better.

It's like comparing the GTX 295 to one of the newer cards. The newer cards have a SINGLE PROCESSOR. Whereas the GTX 295 is dual core.

Sure the newer cards can run more things with better graphics but overall the 295 has better capabilities.
you literally have no idea what you are talking about...
January 7, 2012 5:45:49 AM

imtiax said:
The quadcore is obviously better.

It's like comparing the GTX 295 to one of the newer cards. The newer cards have a SINGLE PROCESSOR. Whereas the GTX 295 is dual core.

Sure the newer cards can run more things with better graphics but overall the 295 has better capabilities.


If something supports two GPUs. But 295s are ageing, and in some games fail badly. But there are a couple games a 295 still performs well in. GTX580 sort of speeds in Crysis 1 and Warhead. But other than that there isn't much it does too well in.
!