I have been hearing people claim that the quad core cpu's are not good for games. That got me kind of skeptical about going with the quad cores. I am currently debating if I should settle with the e6600 or wait for the q6600 to drop. But if the Q is not good for playing games, I might as well stick with the C2D. I want to know if anyone out there currently have the Q6600 and play games, does it handle it? Keep in mind that my new system will be mainly for games. What should I do? E6600 or Q6600?
Quad core question with CS:S
- Thread starter cquence
- Start date
But wont games run slower? I know the C2D is better for games. Has anyone played any counterstrike games with quad core cpu's?
INTELCRAZY
banned
It will be fine, I dunno why ppl say that. It is basically two E6600's strapped together. I guess they just see it as "if I don't need it, why buy it". One core runs 2.4Ghz with 2Mb cache, that is plenty for CS:S. There will soon be a Quad patch for this.
CG man
New Member
At the moment it's far better to buy Core 2 Duo with the highest Mhz and Cache memory. If you get a quad core all the games will use one core 100% and the second 30% and the other two cores will not get used till the year 2014 when games are coded for quad cores and your quad core processor will have no where near the speed to run any of the quad core games on minimum by then. The most important factor in gaming today is how much data one of the cores can handle all the cores won't just jump in and help put their not programed to.
Multi core processors were created for creating 3D work, sound and video editing and design, these applications are already coded for multi processors. Games developers have to wait to see how much of the market own computers like these before they start making cames mulit threaded. For games it's proving a hard challange for games developers games that are programed for dual core only show at best 10Fos improvement in performance some show 3fps a single processor with 400Mhz more would show far more improvement.
Multi core processors were created for creating 3D work, sound and video editing and design, these applications are already coded for multi processors. Games developers have to wait to see how much of the market own computers like these before they start making cames mulit threaded. For games it's proving a hard challange for games developers games that are programed for dual core only show at best 10Fos improvement in performance some show 3fps a single processor with 400Mhz more would show far more improvement.
Last edited:
INTELCRAZY
banned
BS!! Crysis will support four cores, I dunno about the DX9 Version, but DX10 is.
Last edited:
You know how you guys say to go for the Q6600 to future proof it. But by the time every program or game that is encoded for multi cored processors, I will already be looking to build a new system already. Thats just how I see it, but damn, the Q6600 is going to be only $250! Sorry, I still cant decide. I wanna know if anyone is already playing CS:S or any other game with the Quad core processors, and how is the performance of it.
frost02
New Member
I have a quad.. well take a look at my profile. anyways, i play cs:s, gw, fear,elder scrolls oblivion... well you name it.. and itunes etc.
now look at my gpu.. its not the best..
but ill tell you this
my computer looks better then 360 and ps3 combined... and yes when you play cs:s it runs PERFECTLY.. i mean no lag at all.. wonderful clearity and graphics. the physics on it are good too.
other pros are you can run SOOOOO many programs on it at once. i litteraly loaded up 20 programs... most were games and media players and shit.. and i alt+tabbed all of them.. and when it went to that certain program.. it loaded fast and i could use that program right away...
trust me on this... its WELL worth it to wait
now look at my gpu.. its not the best..
but ill tell you this
my computer looks better then 360 and ps3 combined... and yes when you play cs:s it runs PERFECTLY.. i mean no lag at all.. wonderful clearity and graphics. the physics on it are good too.
other pros are you can run SOOOOO many programs on it at once. i litteraly loaded up 20 programs... most were games and media players and shit.. and i alt+tabbed all of them.. and when it went to that certain program.. it loaded fast and i could use that program right away...
trust me on this... its WELL worth it to wait
CG man
New Member
Just had a good read and proper research their are 10 games planed or already out that support dual core but are not very well optimised for 2 cores but their are 20 games in the works that are coded for quad core and you can tune down the settings if you only have dual core. Apparently Intel and AMD have been getting the games developers to start coding the games for 4x cores early so they don't leave all the multi core computer owners with half their processor performance being used again. This means Playstation and X360 games will look like 1980s graphics compared to next gen PC games when their out. All we need now is 64bit coded games their 4 yrs behind with 64bit.
Games that are not being patch or worked on anymore like X3,Medieval Total war 2, Armed Assault are always going to run better on single faster cores. X3 for example runs far worse on my Dual processor workstation than my single processor comp with the same ram and GPU.
Games that are not being patch or worked on anymore like X3,Medieval Total war 2, Armed Assault are always going to run better on single faster cores. X3 for example runs far worse on my Dual processor workstation than my single processor comp with the same ram and GPU.
Last edited: