$500 budget gaming computer - Page 6

Originally Posted by Art Vanelay 

In most games, core clock speed is the limiting factor of a processor, so going to a processor with the best single threaded performance should be more important than the number of cores.

Originally Posted by MisterFred 

It's shifting a lot less than people think. See Skyrim, Diablo 3 and anything Blizzard makes, and the general non-reliance on CPU of many games. And of course LoL, whose massive success will bring down the system requirements of many future games.

Originally Posted by mushroomboy 

Skyrim was TERRIBLY optimized, there was even an article where a guy basically calls bethsheda out. I wouldn't even bother to mention it as being worthy of optimization. Though I guess if you wanted to lock 2 cores in the bios and overclock the Phenom II you might get some decent results at a lower price range. However, unless that's the game the player plans to use constantly I'm going to say it's probably not a very big concern.
As well as most Diablo 3 benchmarks show most processors do fairly well across the board. It's not really a CPU intensive game either, but for those that are/will be your better off not going for an dual core solution.
As I said, an i5 would compete, but does have a price difference. Unless he is willing to pay for an i7 you won't see anything terrible different than using a Phenom II.

Originally Posted by MisterFred 

Whether or not Skyrim & Diablo 3 are optimized or hard to run is irrelevant. They remain examples of (new) games requiring only dual-core processors. And of clock speed being more important than number of cores. A pure dual-core will remain a capable gaming processor for at least three or four years to come, probably longer, and an i3, with its 4 threads, will remain better than the AMD processors on account of its higher IPC, faster per-core performance, and lower system cost.
There simply is no major trend in the gaming industry of games needing quad-cores. People who think that will be the case assume software will follow high-end hardware as a matter of course, and experience shows that just isn't so.
Virtually all games using dual cores only became the norm when virtually no single-core processors were being sold anymore. Dual-cores remain a high percentage of the market, so games will continue to be written to perform adequately on them.

Originally Posted by mushroomboy 

Your right for the most part, but most games running today don't really get the results you see in Skyrim. Diablo 3 pretty much plays the same across every processor, so really your using a poor example with that one. There are also talks about Skyrim using x87 optimizations instead of SSE, which caused it to be TERRIBLE. I doubt you will see many examples like that where the game is so CPU bound today.
Not to mention, your not going to be using a graphics card that can really utilize the chip. Your limiting future upgrade paths, since the platform will be dead sooner than AM3+. i expect PD and probably the next variation to still run on it. I'd rather roll the dice on a possibility than taking a platform that will knowingly be dead sooner than later.
We really aren't arguing what's the better deal if you had the money, Your still looking at an i3 costing ~40 more than a PHII, and what ~$20 less than an APU. I don't expect the experience to be that much better for $40, there are better places to spend that money.
[edit] If you think about it, $40 is half the price of a PHII, you getting the extra performance's worth for half the cost of the other CPU? Doubtful.

Originally Posted by MisterFred 

My original point is that an i3, or really any dual-core, will be just as good if not better as a Phenom II x4 in the years to come - in response to your assumption games will begin to all benefit from a quad core (as they do now from dual-cores). The point is, a dual-core plays it better than a phenom II x4, and newer games are likely to follow this trend. I'm not sure you even remember what the original point you're arguing against is. So again, who the hell cares how skyrim is optimized?
Buying a Phenom II x4 will not magically make future games optimized. And gamers do not suddenly say "oh my goodness, look how poorly optimized that game is, I don't want to play it!" No, they buy Skyrim and play it because it's a good game. And an i3 costs less than a Phenom II x4, if you're going to overclock the PII (and if you're not going to overclock it, why buy one), it plays games better, and no, nervous Nelly, a dual-core will not suddenly become unusable in two years.
AMD Phenom II X4 965 = $110 at newegg
Intel Core i3-2100 = $120 at newegg ($40 more, what kind of fanboi wish juice are you drinking??)
decent overclocking 970 mobo = ~$70ish
cheapo H61 mobo = $50
hey, whaddya know, the i3 is less expensive. And more so if you take into account cooling.
Trying to be the last guy to post will not make you right when you are simply wrong.

Originally Posted by mushroomboy 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113188
I was looking at referbished gear, if they are going with the idea of a used GTX 460 (also suggested by others) it's not really that far off to go referbished at newegg. My bad for using those numbers.
I wasn't trying to be the last guy to post, I was simply stating that I don't really see duals making it very far in the long run. They have already been out quite a while, while I'm aware performance for many games isn't on par I highly doubt your going to see a dual core processor as something to want to get. You still ignored my statements about upgrading on a dead platform, so for the minimal gain you get for an i3 you lose out on a lot more potential on an X4. As well as you've yet to really muster up any other scenarios outside of the major 2 games, in which one of them was a really pointless gesture.
You don't even account that at the resolutions most benchmarks for games are running. With the current selection of suggest graphics cards, I don't see there to be much of a problem with the user getting any any problems. Your not going to be running this at 1920x1080 with full detail. So how much of a difference in FPS are we talking about in those games? Not to mention, those benchmarks ran with background stuff? The second you start doing more things, the more problems you have.
The argument isn't even well versed, if the guy were to shut everything down and benchmark games yeah. Then go for the dual core and when the situation changes sooner than later don't cry about only getting a dual core processor. Cause that's what will happen, you can't predict the future and neither can the buyer. So I would still suggest him to prepare for it. I don't care if he gets an i5 over PHII, cause they are better. Just for the money I can't justify buying a dual core CPU. Sorry.
[edit] And the cheapest i3 refurb is still 90, so it's a $30 dollar difference. My bad, that's still money he could spend on more ram or something. Either way, that's still about half the price of what I posted. Can you justify the price for performance difference, especially since one can scale better than the other? I'm sure you'll post something like "but in games it doesn't matter". Yeah, right now it doesn't, will that be the same tomorrow? Cryengine scales, Frostbite scales, will source2 scale?
Also, if you look at the benchmarks your bragging about 3fps. 3fps? I decided to look after this edit, curiosity got the best of me. ~3fps difference? Now seriously, that's the best you can come up with? You should have said StarCraft II or something. I'm also sure prices on AMD dropped so well due to problems with performance. For $64 you can't be too surprised at what it does. Also note, you don't even talk about how the opsys might play out with a quad vs a dual, should I bring in programs that actually do well with threading? Or will the argument be "of course they work better, they have more cores and can handle more threads"?