Quad-core CPUs About to Surpass Dual-cores for Gamers

Awe yeah, reppin a Phenom X3 8400 2.1Ghz and 3gb DDR2. ._.

those are some nice numbers to look at. however, the ghz numbers are easy to misunderstand - intel's 2.7 ghz is roughly equivalent to amd's 3.2 ghz.
amd's got some nice shares...quite possibly they have 100% lead in triple core segment.

it's good that quad-core is almost in the lead. Many people don't really play cpu intensive and gpu intensive games. Simply because for most of the people it's costly and expensive in where they live.

Phew atlast !!!!!
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.

this is why intel is stopping at 4 cores at the moment and not going 6 or 8 in their mainstream,because the market as of now clearly shows that quad cores is where the main stream market is right now and even 4 cores is plenty of cores for most users at the moment.

I'm still on a dual core, but I do have trouble running the newer games (CoD Black Ops, MW3, BF3, GTA 4 AND SA). I plan on upgrading to Ivy Bridge next summer.

woo hoo I'm int he 5.52% rocking a single core, mines the trusty old pentium 4 3.4ghz,.
The cpu's still kicking strong its only my grapics card letting it down, old trusty G 6600

Been on 4 cores since 2007. No more dual cores for me.

Good for everybody!

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.

in MY definition of "gamers", most of them USE Quad-Cores, not Dual-Core.

"...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."

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!

My specs is way out , outdated

Q6600 G0 FTW!!!


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

To me, this sounds like we're finally starting to phase out all the Core2Duo E8400s that were so popular a few years back. For all the hype over how great a deal for high-end gaming the i5 2500K is, this is practically nowhere near what the E8400 got. Even though it had a locked multiplier, it still overclocked very well.

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.

I have been faithful to my first Quad core cpu, the Phenom II x4 945, for quite some time now. She has never let me down. Sadly you will be replaced with an i5 2500k soon

Doesn't do us any good (Q9650 here) as long as they continue to write for the kiddie consoles then give the PC games half ass ports instead of taking a little more time and write some code for the PC.

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.

Been on 4 core since the Q6600 came out, never looked back. Ok maybe a bit when I saw the OC numbers coming out of the E8400s but thats it.

Meh, you can rock that Q6600 up to 3.2 GHz on air cooling with no voltage increases if you really want...

So allmost half of the gaming machines still have two or less cores. No wonder why there normally is not support for more than two cores in the games...
*sigh* Have to wait until we have 90% or more with four or mo cores. Can take some time though.
If I don't remember wrong, the situation is allmost as bad in GPU department?

Well hopefully next gen consoles have 4 or more cores, that will kick 4 core support into high gear. If not, then yea, it'll be YEARS before there is widespread support. Even now though, the xbox has a triple core and PC versions still usually don't take advantage of it, so who knows.

I was on a Q6600 clocked at slightly over 3 ghz with 4 gigs of 800mhz ram. Now I'm on an i7 940 which I OC to 3.2 ghz (air cooled) and 6 gigs of DDR3 ram at 1820 mhz. This computer is at least 60% faster then the Q6600 was, in terms of how long it take for video compression and file encryption. (and gaming is much improved over the Q6600)

I was running it at 3.6, 1.45vcore and 2 120mm radiator (400lpm pump). I was getting 75°C under load.

;-)

The E8400 @4.0+ was still beating it at the time due to poorly threaded games.

Good to hear those metrics... But I am unfortunately a couple YEARS away from a new system build...

I switched a year ago for a 2500k@4.5, worth every penny.

My Q6600 was chocking a GTX 470 at 85%.

i remember in '07 when everybody was saying they were future proofing with wuad cores. i laughed, telling them they''ll keep adding cores forever. i should have listened.

Oh yea! rockin' the Tri-Core! Who's the oddball? ME!

Good to be part of the 1.54% who has upgraded beyond a Quad Core CPU. My Q6600 served me well for years but it was running out of ummph, enter i7-970. If you thought a QuadCore did well on games you've never used a Hexacore wow it just laughs at everything, a modern shooter like Black Ops does even break 15% CPU usage while playing. There is no substitute for raw power, I'll be happy when these dual core processors are all relegated to being used in toaster ovens.

I'm running a Hexa-core...