The latest data set published in the Steam Hardware & Software Survey suggests that processors with four cores are, five years after their introduction, ready to capture the top spot in gamer popularity.
Dual-core CPUs still lead the ranking with a 46.49 percent share, but the segment has declined more than 2 points from 48.71 percent in July. In contrast, quad-core processors have climbed from 41.37 percent to 45.02 percent in the same time frame. All other core counts do not play significant roles: Single-core chips are at 5.52 percent, six-core CPUs at 1.47 percent, triple-cores at 1.39 percent and eight-cores at 0.07 percent.
Intel dominates the Steam charts with a 73.90 percent, trending slightly up from July (72.72 percent), while AMD is down to 26.10 percent. Processors with clock speeds between 2.3 and 2.7 GHz account 40 percent of all Intel gamers (18 percent are between 2.7 and 2.99 GHz; 13 percent are between 3 and 3.29 GHz), while 25 percent of AMD gamers use CPUs with clock speeds between 3 and 3.29 GHz, and 21 percent use processors ranging from 2.3 to 2.69 GHz.
Trouble running black ops? The game uses almost exactly the same engine as MW2.
I understand you might be having trouble in BF3 and GTA4 but definitely not GTA:SA, I mean C'mon my old Sempron 1.6GHz played that back in the day (With a 7600GS).
Still, Been on quadcore CPU's since 2007. But I DO own systems with 2 cores and they still perform admirably.
amd's got some nice shares...quite possibly they have 100% lead in triple core segment.
They are going to utilize the all the avialable 4 cores in playing game. They release different patchs like one for 2 core or less systems (there are a lot gamers with 2 core cpus & few single core pcs) and another optimised for 4 core more core/thread cpus. Games will run more smother with all the available cores/threads used.
The cpu's still kicking strong its only my grapics card letting it down, old trusty G 6600
Trouble running black ops? The game uses almost exactly the same engine as MW2.
I understand you might be having trouble in BF3 and GTA4 but definitely not GTA:SA, I mean C'mon my old Sempron 1.6GHz played that back in the day (With a 7600GS).
Still, Been on quadcore CPU's since 2007. But I DO own systems with 2 cores and they still perform admirably.
That... I'm having trouble believing that.
I do know that most Athlon IIs and prior CPUs max out at 3.3Ghz-ish, but there IS market for 3.3Ghz + in AMD. I'm one with a 4Ghz PhII and I'm very sure all my friends have their Phenoms at at least 3.6Ghz. Where's the statistic for that? Is it such a lil' number? 8(
Anyway, I'm sure it works for Intel too; there's tons of folks with their i5's past the 3.6Ghz mark.
Cheers!
So glad I got 1 a couple years back... But the company I bought it from, unfortunately, no longer exists...
RIP ClubIT... Your giveaways and pension for super cheap components will be remembered and missed...
for more numbers go to steam hardware survey
Of course, this shift to quad-cores doesn't mean a whole lot to most gaming, given that most games show no real benefit in moving beyond two cores, at least as of yet.
Given that Intel never really made a consumer-level 3-core CPU, that's not surprising.
As for comparing clock speeds, it depends way too much on the architecture: on the flip side, on a core-for-core basis, an old Northwood-era Celeron could clock 2.4 GHz, but would be inferior to even a 1 GHz Phenom II. That ratio you use only really works if you're looking at the CURRENT "enthusiast mainstream;" i.e, i5 & i7 Sandy Bridge CPUs vs. the Phenom II or FX. Obviously, the Pentium and Celeron lines get noticeably worse performance-per-clock, and even among Steam users likely account for a large portion of the market. (as Gamers != Enthusiasts)
Well, it's not entirely this, actually. Rather, it's Intel's design philosophy, which clearly shows from die photographs, is that they're focusing less on "more cores," and more on the "uncore." Looking at a Sandy Bridge CPU reveals that the actual die area taken up by cores is a small minority: non-core fixed-function units (such as the memory controller, various extra accelerators, not to mention the embedded GPU in the SB chips) take up a much more significant portion of the die space compared to Nehalem, and even moreso compared to Core 2.
AMD appears to be taking the opposite approach: aside from integrating the NorthBridge into the CPU, the FX-series focuses a lot less of the non-cache part of the die on the "un-core" stuff, and in fact appears to remain relatively close to the level found with the older Phenoms and Athlons.
To get the FPS from a rig it's best to match your CPu and GPU. It will do you little good if you put a GTX 480 on a single core, if it would even be compatible with that older MB. Same goes for building a Core i7 and putting some $50 video card with it.