Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Quad or Dual Core for upcoming games?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
June 26, 2007 10:49:05 PM

Well I've looked at LOTS of sites and read hundreds of forum posts all over the place. I'm still unsure.

I'm going to buy a new CPU, MB, RAM and Vid Card this month or next, no later than next though. I don't mind spending $500-600ish for a CPU. I already have a 1920x1200 24" WLCD. I want to play Hellgate, UT3, etc, the newest FPS's. I'm not a WoW type gamer. New vid card will likely be an 8800GTX 768MB.

I was thinking of just getting an E6700 this month, and with the quad-cores current benchmarks so close to it, I have to wonder how much of a difference there will be over the next year or two.


So, what's your suggestions?

Thanks.
June 26, 2007 11:47:37 PM

quad core is a necessity for future games since Crysis game utilize any spare core on the system. This game has same Far Cry engine which shows awesome special effects and movements.
June 27, 2007 12:47:01 AM

So would I be better off going with a q6600 @ almost five hundred vs. an E6700 @ about three-twenty?

Or, wait for the releases come the end of July?
Related resources
June 27, 2007 6:04:09 PM

Quote:
quad core is a necessity for future games since Crysis game utilize any spare core on the system. This game has same Far Cry engine which shows awesome special effects and movements.


You know i heard this very same thing when the dual core AMd's came out Back then it was like "you must get dual core , games in the future will use multicore being multithreaded blah , blah ,blah) The future came and went all the way from the 3800x2-PD805 to the Fx-62-D940 and no games took a real advantage you would have been just as well served with a good single core back then. everyone is stuck in the 2 vs 4 core thing now. Same damn thing.
How many games out today take full advantage of dualcores?

So i would say go with a e6700 and go with a good motherboard for some overclocking if the e6700 is not up to the task (lol). buy a better video card or a second video card even go for more ram.

And if were you i would wait as long as possible till you can no longer play what you want on your current system.
June 27, 2007 7:40:17 PM

Quote:
Quote:
So i would say go with a e6700 and go with a good motherboard for some overclocking if the e6700 is not up to the task (lol). buy a better video card or a second video card even go for more ram.

And if were you i would wait as long as possible till you can no longer play what you want on your current system.


:)  I'm currently running an Intel DG865 mainboard, a socket 478 2.8Ghz P4, 1GB DDR-400, Radeon 9800Pro-128MB. I can't even play CoD2 at more than 640x480@15fps. CS plays great, HL2/CSS runs at about 50fps most of the time, but nothing newer runs well.

I'm tempted to get the E6700, but I don't overclock. Not worth taking the chance since I usually keep a system for 2-3 years.

Thanks for the info.
June 28, 2007 1:08:25 AM

Oh yea you need a new pc or maybe just a video card upgrade to tide you over.
As far as over clocking , you don't need to do right off the bat, its just in case you need it (that's why I put the lol earlier there is not much if anything that can tax a e6700). A mild over clock should not hurt the cpu life (IMO)

I am kind of (slightly) in your same boat I want to upgrade my second system (P4 3.0ghz sckt 478 with a bfg 6800 agp and 1 gig 400mhz) But I over clocked the cpu and video card to give me some more time.. I just want to wait to have more video card options as I see the dx10 to be more of a dilemma then dual or quad core
June 28, 2007 3:32:08 PM

Quad-core prices will drop soon in coming of 45nm CPUs and new processors from both AMD and Intel. You'll see the Q6600 for about $300. When is soon? I have no idea, but maybe August/September at the earliest, January at the latest.

Yes, it is the same BS that we were told when AMD released it's dual-core. But this time, there actually is proof of it: Crysis. Supposed to run 15-20% faster PER CORE when run on 64-bit. You can see why it'd be faster, then. This is just one game, but will be a blockbuster and the game that everyone will be upgrading their rigs for.

~Ibrahim~
June 28, 2007 11:28:45 PM

Quote:
quad core is a necessity for future games since Crysis game utilize any spare core on the system. This game has same Far Cry engine which shows awesome special effects and movements.


You know i heard this very same thing when the dual core AMd's came out Back then it was like "you must get dual core , games in the future will use multicore being multithreaded blah , blah ,blah) The future came and went all the way from the 3800x2-PD805 to the Fx-62-D940 and no games took a real advantage you would have been just as well served with a good single core back then. everyone is stuck in the 2 vs 4 core thing now. Same damn thing.
How many games out today take full advantage of dualcores?

So i would say go with a e6700 and go with a good motherboard for some overclocking if the e6700 is not up to the task (lol). buy a better video card or a second video card even go for more ram.

And if were you i would wait as long as possible till you can no longer play what you want on your current system.

DITTO :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!:
June 28, 2007 11:44:38 PM

I'm aiming for purchase this month or next. Fall/Winter is too long to wait. However, I might get a motherboard where I can just upgrade the CPU.

Crysis is a BIG factor in what I want. Less than 60fps is not acceptable to me. It really annoys me that so many benchmarks so these top of the line systems only pushing 40-50fps. When the heck did THAT become acceptable??!?!??!

Is Crysis the only upcoming game to fully use 2+ cores?
June 29, 2007 12:09:56 AM

Who knows? Buy the parts that WON'T change prices rapidly first, like the PSU, case, optical drives, cooler, etc.

Leave these parts until the very weekend you are going to build: GPU, CPU, memory. Don't wait too long in between because you might find that this memory doesn't like the motherboard, etc. and it'll be out of refund-eligibility time. This way, you won't suffer any turmoil when you find out that prices have dropped and you just spent $100 too much or something.

Don't dare think that those FPS are going to be the same when it is released. Crytek is making *huge* improvements to the code for better playing. Don't even think about those alpha demos. They're rubbish in FPS, especially considering the systems they were being played on.

No, by this time next year, I can almost guarantee any major game will use dual-core.

Right now, Supreme Commander gets HUGE performance increases when you get more cores, Crysis (of course), UT3 (I think), and a few more.

~Ibrahim~
June 29, 2007 9:33:23 PM

The GPU is far more important than the CPU for gaming. That E6700 will be fine for some time to come, and it has some nice overclocking headroom in case you manage to find a game where the CPU is a major bottleneck (think Supreme Commander... with 8 players). That quad CPU likely won't be utilized, at least not fully, in most games anyway, so why spend more than $100 extra on it?

I have an E6600, and it runs amazingly. Your E6700 will be fine, and I would wager that you'll be upgrading from that single 8800 GTX long before your CPU causes any problems.

And wth is with you saying less than 60 FPS being unacceptable while you yourself are running a 9800 Pro? A good card, to be sure, but really, it's been a while since any game has gotten 60 FPS on one of those... and I should know, I used to have one.
June 30, 2007 6:26:02 PM

If he has the option, I would go for the quad. Only if it doesn't hamper anything important, the GPU, for instance, like you mentioned.

I've been hearing from numerous places that quad-core prices will go down, but if he can't wait, the E6600 should be dandy. It'll be a walk in the park getting it over 3GHz with decent cooling.

~Ibrahim~
June 30, 2007 8:28:32 PM

Quote:

And wth is with you saying less than 60 FPS being unacceptable while you yourself are running a 9800 Pro? A good card, to be sure, but really, it's been a while since any game has gotten 60 FPS on one of those... and I should know, I used to have one.


Um, there's not a game I play which I don't get 60fps or better. Sure, HL2/CSS sometimes drops below that, but on those two I run 800x600 so it happens very rarely.

But that's my concern. I can't believe that people accept 15-20fps. Come on, not even movies run that low and everyone complains about 15fps digital video recording.

One of the reasons I've put off buying a new rig over the past year is because I hate the thought of not being able to get new games to run at 1024x768 (or better yet 1280x720 since I have a 24" WLCD) and 60fps or better. That's also why I haven't bought most recent games (CoD2, FEAR, PREY, etc.)

I know it's business, but it's sad that GPU companies KNOW their cards won't be able to cut it even two months after they've been released. The greed is screwing us all. I'd rather go back to the days of significant updates every 12-14 months which game devs can't bog down then this "new card every few months which ends up being obsolete weeks after it's released" crap.
June 30, 2007 9:47:38 PM

Uh, I get 60FPS average on FEAR at 1280x1024 with everything maxed out (AA, AF, soft shadows, etc.) with my rig in the sig. That is in Vista, however. So you can add a few frames for what you'd get in XP.

Um, who do you know that accepts 15FPS? No 3D game is playable with that FPS, lol. 30FPS is a good minimum for all games. 60FPS is recommended because FPS will vary and it's easier when it dips from 60FPS versus from 30FPS. Some people prefer 60FPS because they can 'tell'. I, for one, have a moderate amount of trouble telling the difference between 30FPS and 60FPS.

~Ibrahim~
July 5, 2007 6:48:13 PM

Like I said:

Quad-core prices will drop soon in coming of 45nm CPUs and new processors from both AMD and Intel. You'll see the Q6600 for about $300.

~Ibrahim~
!