Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › Quad Cores really worth it?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Quad Cores really worth it? - Page 5

post #41 of 61
I use i3s in any standard desktop application, basic workstations and the like.

The i3 is not a toy, it really is a beast.

For my i7 I do heavy photoshop, DVD ripping and editing, and bulk image editing and of course gaming.

The biggest boost in speed is still going to be a SSD. I3, i7, i20 = garbage when it takes 20 mins for windows to load .
Workoholic
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 2600K P8Z68-V PRO NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 G.Skill 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 520 Series ASUS DVD+RW Windows 7 Ultimate 20.1" Samsung 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 Corsair 620 Modular Lian Li V1020B G9x 
Mouse Pad
Custom Cloth Pad 
  hide details  
Reply
Workoholic
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 2600K P8Z68-V PRO NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 G.Skill 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 520 Series ASUS DVD+RW Windows 7 Ultimate 20.1" Samsung 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 Corsair 620 Modular Lian Li V1020B G9x 
Mouse Pad
Custom Cloth Pad 
  hide details  
Reply
post #42 of 61
You make a good point in that the modern bottleneck is data transfer bandwidth as opposed to processing power. The main reason why we see a boost in quad cores as opposed to the i3 variant is more due to clock speeds then extra processing cores. In applications that make great use of the extra cores, the performance benefits are there, but when it comes to gaming, office work, and other minor things, the difference is nearly unnoticeable half the time. Some applications yield a 10 percent gain, sometimes more, but in the end, it is up to the user to see what benefits him and buy for that application.

Sent from a newdel from canoodle.
post #43 of 61
Skyrim.png

Definitely an upgrade.
2500k
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsHard Drive
i5-2500k asus p8p67 Powercolor PCS+ HD 6870 Mushkin Chronos MX 120GB 
CoolingOSMonitorPower
Asetek 240mm Radiator Win 7 3x Dell Ultrasharp U2312HM 850W 
CaseMouse
Xion Predator 970 logitech MX 
  hide details  
Reply
2500k
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsHard Drive
i5-2500k asus p8p67 Powercolor PCS+ HD 6870 Mushkin Chronos MX 120GB 
CoolingOSMonitorPower
Asetek 240mm Radiator Win 7 3x Dell Ultrasharp U2312HM 850W 
CaseMouse
Xion Predator 970 logitech MX 
  hide details  
Reply
post #44 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by B!0HaZard View Post

No, as already said by someone else, 120 Hz vs 60 Hz is easily visible with LCD's (and I can confirm that). There is a difference in the way they show pictures, yes. When a CRT refreshes the picture, the screen goes black before showing a new picture. This means that it needs a decent refresh rate to prevent flickering and is why most CRT's are at least 80 Hz.

This.

I can't tell the difference in framerates beyond a certain point even on a CRT; that's not my rationale for still using one. Anything over 60 is negligible for me just as it is for someone on an LCD. But the image that is generated on a properly calibrated Trinitron tube is noticeably better than all but the very best LCD's, which have only recently achieved parity. LCD's took over the market because they don't weigh 65 pounds and aren't bound to a 4:3 aspect ratio. The one CRT that was made at 16:10 (the Sony FW900) still sells for several hundred dollars used.
     
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Athlon X4 870K 4700mhz 1.63v ASUS A88X-PRO Radeon HD 6970 G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 16GB DDR2133 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Kingston V300 Toshiba 2.5" laptop HDD, 1TB Micron C300 SSD Generic 2TB HDD WL2000GSA1672 (external) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Seagate Momentus XT 500GB ASUS DVD-RW Prolimatech Black Series Megahalems Linux Mint 18 Cinnamon "Sarah" 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 ViewSonic VG2030wm IBM Model M Fractal Design Newton R3 600W 
CaseMouseAudioOther
Phanteks Enthoo Pro Logitech Marble Mouse Behringer UCA222 Upgraded Realistic Minimus-7 speakers, Lepai 20... 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core 2 Duo Mobile T9900 Dell 0G848F Intel Mobile 4 series 4GB Crucial DDR2-6400 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
OWC Mercury Electra 3G 44GB SSD stock DVD-RW Linux Mint Cinnamon 17.1 "Rebecca" 1366x768 WXGA 
  hide details  
Reply
     
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Athlon X4 870K 4700mhz 1.63v ASUS A88X-PRO Radeon HD 6970 G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 16GB DDR2133 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Kingston V300 Toshiba 2.5" laptop HDD, 1TB Micron C300 SSD Generic 2TB HDD WL2000GSA1672 (external) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Seagate Momentus XT 500GB ASUS DVD-RW Prolimatech Black Series Megahalems Linux Mint 18 Cinnamon "Sarah" 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 ViewSonic VG2030wm IBM Model M Fractal Design Newton R3 600W 
CaseMouseAudioOther
Phanteks Enthoo Pro Logitech Marble Mouse Behringer UCA222 Upgraded Realistic Minimus-7 speakers, Lepai 20... 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core 2 Duo Mobile T9900 Dell 0G848F Intel Mobile 4 series 4GB Crucial DDR2-6400 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
OWC Mercury Electra 3G 44GB SSD stock DVD-RW Linux Mint Cinnamon 17.1 "Rebecca" 1366x768 WXGA 
  hide details  
Reply
post #45 of 61
I upgraded from a e8400 @ 4.0ghz to a 3570k@ 4.6ghz. While I did see some obvious improvements, it was nothing too obvious and none of the games I played weren't playable...So what I'm trying to say is, no. You really don't need a quad core at the moment, although it does help gain better frame rates but not to the point where its necessary
post #46 of 61
People are getting off track here a bit... The SB and IB dual cores are just fine in current gaming world when it comes to 95% of games. Yeah, I can say you wont get a significant benefit when playing BF3 or Crysis 2 campaign through...
Oh yeah, there are people who play 64 servers too... That is where the quad core kicks in for the first time, a locked i3 will simply not perform as well as a quad for the same clock. It is all about calculations per second when 64 players are blowing up stuff, if your i3 takes longer to "think" what the players do, you're getting delayed on the actions you see happening. Your FPS might not drop as badly as you'd think compared to the time lost while being bottlenecked.

For SC2? Ignore quads. For single player games? Ignore quads. For almost anything else? Ignore quads. For video editing, 3D and other stuff? Kick it in here. BF3 multiplayer? Quad is your man.

As for OP; your GPU would bottleneck every game that would go that would need the pure computing done by the processor, not worth it. You ened to balance the build to justify a quad core like i5 2500K, it simply wouldn't be worth it (I think you might have better stuff to use your monies on).
post #47 of 61
so i got myself a pentium G630 for my ultra budget gaming rig and pair it with radeon hd7750. so is that ok for mainstream gaming or getting that cpu was a mistake since it doesnt even have hyperthreading ? but its only $70
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Pentium G630 @2.7ghz Gigabyte H61M-DS2 Gigabyte GT730 1GB GDDR5 Kingston 8gb 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
WD Blue 1TB LG  Stock Intel Windows 7 64bit SP1 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell E2014H 20" 1600*900 Intex Corona Spillproof Antec BP450PS iBall Axton 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Logitech G300S Gaming mice None Philips SHP2000 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Pentium G630 @2.7ghz Gigabyte H61M-DS2 Gigabyte GT730 1GB GDDR5 Kingston 8gb 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
WD Blue 1TB LG  Stock Intel Windows 7 64bit SP1 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell E2014H 20" 1600*900 Intex Corona Spillproof Antec BP450PS iBall Axton 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Logitech G300S Gaming mice None Philips SHP2000 
  hide details  
Reply
post #48 of 61
I run an i5 2400 and personally I find those 2 extra cores really useful. So far I haven't noticed many games taking the cpu to 100% usage except one game - Guild Wars 2, this game with many players in same area drives my cpu to 100% and eventually bottlenecks and results in low framerates sometimes. Aside from the game being cpu bound (which means the game uses more the cpu than the gpu) If I had a better processor it probably would have better fps.

I wanted a quad core system since technology runs fast so I kinda got ready for the years ahead. In the end it really boils down to what you need and what you do on your pc. If you don't mind running your games with a little less details your current system will do and you could wait another year before upgrading.

Hope this helps, cheers :-)
post #49 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohit9206 View Post

so i got myself a pentium G630 for my ultra budget gaming rig and pair it with radeon hd7750. so is that ok for mainstream gaming or getting that cpu was a mistake since it doesnt even have hyperthreading ? but its only $70

It should do the trick on low settings. Don't expect it to run every game smooth but I'm pretty sure most will run smooth enough.
post #50 of 61
The reason i recommend quads like the 2500k and its Ivy brother 3570k for gaming builds is value for money. By spending a little more money you get a very substantial performance increase especially when you overclock. Yes a 2500k is overkill today but a good CPU/mobo combo can last a longtime and handle multiple GPU upgrades. If I had gotten a dual core instead of the i7 920 I would probably have had to upgrade by now but my 920 @ 4.0Ghz is still more then enough to power everything on the market and will probably do so for one or two GPU generations more.

Also like others have said powerful quads do come in handy in other applications besides gaming. I do 3D rendering and for that there is no such thing as overkill.
Edited by Bit_reaper - 10/10/12 at 11:12am
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 OC 4.0 GHz 1.35v HT on Asus P6T 1366 SLI Gigabyte GTX 970 OCZ 12GB DDR3 GOLD/Platinum mix 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung Spinpoint F1 1TB Western digital 300GB Western digital Caviar Blue 1TB Samsung 840 EVO 250Gb 
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
generic LG DVD WC'd , Supreme LT, NexXxoS Xtreme III 360, Phob... Windows 7 x64 Samsung 27" LED S27A550B 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
ACER 23" x233H Dell U3415W Logitech G11 Chieftec 850W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Phanteks enthoo luxe Razer deathAdder respawn steelseries Qck Yamaha HTR-6130 AV Receiver 
AudioAudio
Yamaha NS-50B floor tower speakers miditech Audiolink II stereo sound card 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 OC 4.0 GHz 1.35v HT on Asus P6T 1366 SLI Gigabyte GTX 970 OCZ 12GB DDR3 GOLD/Platinum mix 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung Spinpoint F1 1TB Western digital 300GB Western digital Caviar Blue 1TB Samsung 840 EVO 250Gb 
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
generic LG DVD WC'd , Supreme LT, NexXxoS Xtreme III 360, Phob... Windows 7 x64 Samsung 27" LED S27A550B 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
ACER 23" x233H Dell U3415W Logitech G11 Chieftec 850W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Phanteks enthoo luxe Razer deathAdder respawn steelseries Qck Yamaha HTR-6130 AV Receiver 
AudioAudio
Yamaha NS-50B floor tower speakers miditech Audiolink II stereo sound card 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Intel CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › Quad Cores really worth it?