I've been saying it all along, you don't need a Quad for gaming
![]()
1 - 20 of 91 Posts
2
Quote:
Many people have been saying this for years. I remember when I first got my e8400 there were all kinds of questions on here about if people should get an e8400-8500 or a q6600. It has always been a big back and forth debate.
Let me put it this way. I'm a video game developer, and I'm flat out telling you that there are only a handful of games that will use more than a couple of threads/processes at a time. With most games, you will NOT benefit from more than two cores unless you have a lot of stuff going on in the background in your OS.
Now, that being said, it has been proven that if you want to do something like Tri-SLI or quad-fire at extreme resolutions, you will benefit quite a bit from a fast quad-core or higher.
Originally Posted by almighty15 I've been saying it all along, you don't need a Quad for gaming
|
Let me put it this way. I'm a video game developer, and I'm flat out telling you that there are only a handful of games that will use more than a couple of threads/processes at a time. With most games, you will NOT benefit from more than two cores unless you have a lot of stuff going on in the background in your OS.
Now, that being said, it has been proven that if you want to do something like Tri-SLI or quad-fire at extreme resolutions, you will benefit quite a bit from a fast quad-core or higher.
Quote:
I remember it as well from a few months ago in a news thread. I believe they found that 3 cores was the happy balance for the price. My guess is that with an OS running, you have the equivalent of two free cores for any game.
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? |
3
Quote:
Somebody has never played GTA4
![]()
AFAIK tho, that's pretty much the only game where you NEED a quad to play it smoothly. Most everything else, a dual is sufficient.
Originally Posted by almighty15 I've been saying it all along, you don't need a Quad for gaming
|
AFAIK tho, that's pretty much the only game where you NEED a quad to play it smoothly. Most everything else, a dual is sufficient.
Quote:
I'm not sure what was linked here, but anandtech had a series of articles in February about multi-GPU setups. Their conclusion matches what you remember. Links:
2-GPU comparison
3-GPU comparison
4-GPU comparison
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? |
2-GPU comparison
3-GPU comparison
4-GPU comparison
3
Quote:
You haven't player Supreme Commander.
![]()
Originally Posted by almighty15 I've been saying it all along, you don't need a Quad for gaming
|
3
Quote:
well... i do play everything else
![]()
Originally Posted by Licht You haven't player Supreme Commander.
|
2
Quote:
Just making a point. It's game dependant. RTS will use the CPU heavily. Everything else, well, CPU rarely matters.
Originally Posted by darksideleader well... i do play everything else
|
3
Quote:
I have
![]()
Might not play as fast as a Quad but I never get lower then 30fps....
Originally Posted by Licht You haven't player Supreme Commander.
|
Might not play as fast as a Quad but I never get lower then 30fps....
2
Quote:
FPS aren't the problem. It's time-lag. The SC:FA group here on OCN (i got us a thread up if you would like to join in) takes it very seriously. When everything is moving incredibly slow, life sucks.
Originally Posted by almighty15 I have
Might not play as fast as a Quad but I never get lower then 30fps.... |
I wish I could find a pentium III board with a PCI-E slot so I could put in a GTX295
![]()
Quote:
re cache size, i found that it is overblown. moving from a E2160 to a Q6600 at the same clockspeed (3ghz), i was expecting some increase in crysis framerates due to cache. nothing. where i was getting 30fps, i was still getting 30fps.
IMO this cache argument is way overblown. if you clock the CPU by 600-800 mhz imo it makes the CPU fast enough to forget that it doesn't have much cache, lol.
though it's nice to see people debunking this claim of 'i7 at 4ghz' when for the most part it doesn't really help. GPU > CPU when it comes to games.
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. |
IMO this cache argument is way overblown. if you clock the CPU by 600-800 mhz imo it makes the CPU fast enough to forget that it doesn't have much cache, lol.
though it's nice to see people debunking this claim of 'i7 at 4ghz' when for the most part it doesn't really help. GPU > CPU when it comes to games.
Note this is a bottleneck test - improved CPU performance can still improve game frame rates depending on how many cores the game is optimized for, etc
![]()
1 - 20 of 91 Posts
