I've been saying it all along, you don't need a Quad for gaming
|Some of you have commented on my use of an E6850 processor in my reviews, and have questioned whether it could be limiting my results in some way.|
Also historically many tech forums contain a proliferation of people extolling the virtues of quad-core over dual-core for gaming. Others go even further and imply that unless you have a quad-core i7 overclocked to 4 GHz, you'll be CPU limited.
I believe this is simply untrue, and I also believe CPU requirements for gaming are vastly overblown for real world situations. I've long argued that any decent mainstream dual-core platform is capable of taxing a graphics system just as good as the fastest quad-core CPU, providing you always run your games at the highest playable settings like I do.
Originally Posted by NoDestiny
I swear I saw a review that compared 2, 3, and 4 cores. 4 cores usually came out on top, but barely ahead of 3 cores (as in, very little difference, if any) and a decent amount ahead of dual cores (as in, tri core seemed worth it).
Anybody know which one that is?
Originally Posted by CallmeRoth
Dual's are sufficient. However I think looking at Cache size and Clock speed is still important.
Having sufficient core number is great and all but if you cant get the info in and out of the chip fast enough it really doesn't matter.