How necessary is a quad-core for future proofing?

[EricVPI]

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?

 

[biorhythm]

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.

 

[Wolfshadw]

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

 

[plguzman]

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

 

[EricVPI]

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

 

[andybird123]

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.

 

[aevm]

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.

 

[chadsxe]

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.

 

[killz86]

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.

 

[drysocks]

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.

 

[Hatman]

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.

 

[jrnyfan]

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]

 

[EricVPI]

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?

 

[Hatman]

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

 

[EricVPI]

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

 

[intelamduser]

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.

 

[EricVPI]

Okay, so a 2 core proc should be more than enough for gaming for the couple of years?

If that's the case I will probably get a penryn core 2 duo instead of the quad version...

 

[derek2006]

If you want full enjoyment out of the game at full settings get the quad.

 

[yomamafor1]

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?

Absolutely not.

For 8800GTS comment, its also not true. Q6600 basically performs on-par with its dual core counterpart E6600. Unless you game at low resolution (1280x1024 ~ 1024x768), CPU's performance is a non-factor.

 

[jaguarskx]

If you want full enjoyment out of the game at full settings get the quad.

What a load of crap.

I admit I'm considering a quad core for myself, but it will not be for gaming purposes. A dual core is enough to enjoy any game. You just need a very fast video card.

Yeah, yeah Crysis and Alan Wake will "take advantage" of quad core, but how well will they effectively use it?

 

[dashbarron]

Hi ericvpi, I'm glad you posted this board!! I'm with the same dilemea as you.

I want and need a new computer, but I'm not sure to buy one now, or be patient and wait until early 2008 for Penryns to be released. I've thought long and heard and tried to figure out the solution, so maybe you and I can find the answer together.

Looking at the specs, a Quad 6850 barely beats a Duo in any game. When you see multithreaded applications, the Quad pulls ahead by a nice little cushion. Now, I'm a gamer for sure, but I tend to play my old favorites a lot, besides some of the newest releases, and something like Crysis is quite intimidating looking. And like you, I have been stuck between the 3.0GHZ Duo or the 2.4 Quad, and for me, it's a price issue; it sounds like it may be the same for you! It's a very, very tough choice to make, especially since the 2.4Quad is a lower bus then the duo (1333 to 1066 respectively).

So, there are two good options I believe feasible for you, my long-sought friend: Either purchase a Duo and stick it out gaming and hence forth for as long as you can (which may be quite a long while!) and purchase a nice new Quad Penryn when prices drop in the future when you need one, which may not be to 2009 (if you're not too disgusted with some supercharged Nephram processor or such). Or, you can purchase the 2.4GHZ Quad, and be safe-guarded against the full use of SLI graphics, and if you're like me, like to have multiple applications running while I play a game on occasion, or want a computer for the purposes of longevity (4 years+) and want to make full use of those future games that are quad-expectable.

So if you don't want to have to waste a perfectly good Duo in the future of upgrading, and want to squeeze the longest life out of your upcoming computer, I've dissected it's probably best to go with a Quad 2.4, even with the lower bus, and lower core speed.

I hope I've helped. Good luck my friend, let me know what you decide!!

 

[yomamafor1]

What a load of crap.

I admit I'm considering a quad core for myself, but it will not be for gaming purposes. A dual core is enough to enjoy any game. You just need a very fast video card.

Yeah, yeah Crysis and Alan Wake will "take advantage" of quad core, but how well will they effectively use it?

Quad core will benefit by running multiple tasks in parallel. In game, there are numerous tasks that needed to be taken care of: environment rendering, AI, physics..... In the old single core days, these tasks must be lined up through the pipeline of the processor. In quad cores, these tasks can be split to four cores, and work simultaneously. You'll see a boost in performance in some resources intensive game.

http://extreme.pcgameshardware.de/showthread.php?t=2197

So far most game engines have exploited task parallelism to take advantage of multiple cores. Separate tasks are identified and executed on different cores. Typically the game engine is considered a pipeline and this pipeline is broken up into multiple steps/tasks, where each step runs on a different core. For example QUAKE 4 breaks the pipeline into two steps:

1. game code + renderer front end
2. renderer back end

Going to three cores you can split the pipeline further:

1. game code
2. renderer front end
3. renderer back end

Going to even more cores the pipeline can be broken up further, or other parts of the code can be split off and run in parallel:

1. AI code
2. effect physics
3. game code
4. texture streaming & de-re-compression
5. sound engine
6. renderer

 

[nhobo]

'Future proofing' is an oxymoron.

 

[Belinda]

Next couple of years forget about CPU cores or highend graphics cards for flinging sh*t at the fan.
It's going to boil down to OS or lack of too few programs running native 64. Newer games are just going to be loving using half a Gig or even a gig of video memory, add to that large complex programs and they going to be running out of available RAM to use in 32. Years time a fair few of games are going to be swapping stuff in and out of RAM all the time. Roll on the death of 32 bit OS's
Didn't MS initialy say there next OS was going to be just 64 bit then retract that??? I seem to remember soemone from MS saying there would be 32 bit after the the only 64 speech.

 

[jaguarskx]

Quad core will benefit by running multiple tasks in parallel. In game, there are numerous tasks that needed to be taken care of: environment rendering, AI, physics..... In the old single core days, these tasks must be lined up through the pipeline of the processor. In quad cores, these tasks can be split to four cores, and work simultaneously. You'll see a boost in performance in some resources intensive game.

It will take time for games to be optimized for for quad cores.

Oblivion is an example of a game designed to take advantage of dual core CPUs, but at best a dual core only improved performance over a comparable single core CPU by less than 10%.

Will games someday be optimized to use all four cores? Yes, someday, but I really doubt that day will come within the next two years. Most games aren't really optimized for dual core CPUs today.