Originally Posted by kschat;12033863
Some games yes, but the majority of the games you see today still do not. Not getting upset, don't worry.
In gaming yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. The only thing that will really make much of a difference is the extra cache.
I agree with this, to an extent.
In gaming, you likely won't notice much of a a difference between an i3 and a Q9550. Remember, if a game supports 4 cores, it also supports 4 threads, which the i3 has. Also, a common OC for an i3 is around 4.5ghz on air. It's also a 32nm chip, meaning it runs super cool and has a much lower TDP, resulting in good overclocking ability.
I don't intend to tear town the Q9550 at all. That is an absolute beast of a chip. If the Q9550 had HT, it'd be an i7. The Q9550 is head to head with the i5 from what I've seen, so obviously it's a more powerful processor than the i3.
But the question here is "IN GAMING." I believe the i3 is generally a better gaming CPU than the Q9550. Here's my logic:
75 % of games only support dual cores. The i3 will outperform the Q9550 in those games due to it's ability to overclock higher than the Q9550. In the other 25% of games that do support quad cores, the Q9550 will outperform the i3. However, not by much, considering if a game supports 4 cores, it also supports 4 threads, like I said. Add in the higher clock frequency of the i3, and you're looking at a pretty even match.
As for cache, the i3's 4MB will definitely suffice just fine.