How many CPU cores for gaming?

Langers2k7

Langers2k7

New Member
Aastii said:
It would seem 2 games so far have been thrown up for it being "necessary" to have a quad core CPU. Because there are so few at the minute, I can't see how you can justify getting a quad or hex core CPU. As was illustrated, the vast majority of popular games don't need a quad, so why spend the extra for it if just for gaming?

I would still rather have a quad though, better for the future and better for multitasking outside of games

=EDIT=

I also just thought, I know for a fact that WoW benefits from quad core processors, as I have seen fps increase with quad over tri over dual core processors, and that is a very VERY popular game :p
Click to expand...

To be honest though, you'd have to have a pretty damn slow dual core for it to be bottlenecking on WoW, a quad just wouldn't be worth it imo. You can max WoW out on a low-end Pentium E-series, and still get 60fps locked out with a half decent GPU.
 
Aastii

Aastii

VIP Member
Langers2k7 said:
To be honest though, you'd have to have a pretty damn slow dual core for it to be bottlenecking on WoW, a quad just wouldn't be worth it imo. You can max WoW out on a low-end Pentium E-series, and still get 60fps locked out with a half decent GPU.
Click to expand...

oh I know that, before I changed my whole system I was getting medium settings on my e6750, but that was only because my 8600gt was holding it back after the update to the graphics that came with wotlk.

At full settings with my system now with tri core, in raids and cities I would be getting ~40fps, once I had unlocked the 4th core, at the same clock was getting constant 60. It is by no means a hardware intensive game, but it is programmed for multiple cores was my point
 
Okedokey

Okedokey

Well-Known Member
I knew this thread would get some discussion going ;)

Custom PC / Bittech is extremely reputable IMHO, just get one of their mags and see.

The point I think is, that when buying hardware for gaming, generally speaking, a quad core will do little and clock frequency (still) has the edge.

Aastii, as usual makes great points... :)

In think that (as usual) it comes down to "what am I exactly using this computer for?"

That question relates to everything from RAM to CPU to monitor size right?

ps, nice system butters
 
Last edited:
M

Moan

New Member
played bfbc2 on dual core 3,0ghz settings high 1280x1020 resolution AA2x no lag so all these 6 core processors are pretty useless to me true they will be better in the future.
 
Last edited:
Intel_man

Intel_man

VIP Member
Moan said:
played bfbc2 on dual core 3,0ghz settings high 1280x1020 resolution AA2x no lag so all these 6 core processors are pretty useless to me true they will be better in the future.
Click to expand...

Go any higher and your FPS will drop like a mofo.
 
mihir

mihir

VIP Member
Moan said:
played bfbc2 on dual core 3,0ghz settings high 1280x1020 resolution AA2x no lag so all these 6 core processors are pretty useless to me true they will be better in the future.
Click to expand...

Try Microsoft Flight Simulator X - Acceleration and you will curse your Dual Core
 
M

Moan

New Member
Intel_man said:
Go any higher and your FPS will drop like a mofo.
Click to expand...

i dont think i really need higher resolution or AA it doesn't really effect my gameplay and graphics still look awesome, when i had AA16x it only lagged a bit when there was smoke and dust.
 
Intel_man

Intel_man

VIP Member
mihir said:
Try Microsoft Flight Simulator X - Acceleration and you will curse your Dual Core
Click to expand...
He would literally shoot himself. lol

Moan said:
i dont think i really need higher resolution or AA it doesn't really effect my gameplay and graphics still look awesome, when i had AA16x it only lagged a bit when there was smoke and dust.
Click to expand...
Go get a bigger monitor besides a small 17/19".
 
2048Megabytes

2048Megabytes

Active Member
mihir said:
Try Microsoft Flight Simulator X - Acceleration and you will curse your Dual Core
Click to expand...

Flight Simulator X definitely ran better with a Quad-Core Phenom II over an Athlon 7750 Processor on my system. I gave up on Flight Simulator X and moved on to another flight simulator after having to reinstall it about nine times. The program kept crashing on me. (Anyone interested in buying Flight Simulator X Deluxe Edition for $15?)

Anyone ever try X-Plane 9 Flight Simulator? I've been playing with it a few days and I'm very impressed with it.
 
mihir

mihir

VIP Member
2048Megabytes said:
Flight Simulator X definitely ran better with a Quad-Core Phenom II over an Athlon 7750 Processor on my system. I gave up on Flight Simulator X and moved on to another flight simulator after having to reinstall it about nine times. The program kept crashing on me. (Anyone interested in buying Flight Simulator X Deluxe Edition for $15?)

Anyone ever try X-Plane 9 Flight Simulator? I've been playing with it a few days and I'm very impressed with it.
Click to expand...

I will buying Flight Simulator soon.

(what I will be doing to get flight simulator is illegal to talk about in forums)`
 
Drenlin

Drenlin

Active Member
Should have thrown a Source game in there. IIRC, Valve updated it to use as many cores as you have available.
 
Aastii

Aastii

VIP Member
Drenlin said:
Should have thrown a Source game in there. IIRC, Valve updated it to use as many cores as you have available.
Click to expand...

but with a dual core you can get very high FPS in any source game at full settings, why would you need more? You would see an improvement if it is coded for more cores, but if you are already getting decent fps, why bother?
 
Drenlin

Drenlin

Active Member
In current games, sure, but that engine will be around for a long time, and is capable of far more than what most of those games do. It'd be a good reference for CPU performance, I think.
 
Aastii

Aastii

VIP Member
Drenlin said:
In current games, sure, but that engine will be around for a long time, and is capable of far more than what most of those games do.
Click to expand...

How were they meant to benchmark non-existant games of the future :p

Sorry, I may not be understanding you properly
 
Mez

Mez

Active Member
I might just get me a cheap phenom X3 O_O... compared to the quad, and six core cpu's they are practically the same.
 
tlarkin

tlarkin

VIP Member
Alien! Where? said:
I might just get me a cheap phenom X3 O_O... compared to the quad, and six core cpu's they are practically the same.
Click to expand...

For now, but what happens in 6 months from now, or 1 year from now? When all the developers use engines that are aware of multiple cores? Then what happens?

I don't think multi core support is really far off to be honest. I think it is right around the corner actually for most games.
 
Aastii

Aastii

VIP Member
tlarkin said:
For now, but what happens in 6 months from now, or 1 year from now? When all the developers use engines that are aware of multiple cores? Then what happens?

I don't think multi core support is really far off to be honest. I think it is right around the corner actually for most games.
Click to expand...

They will still make it so you can max it on a quad. They don't make it so the game needs the bleeding edge of technology straight away. Dual core/Quad cores have been out for 5 years now near enough, and dual core is still ok for gaming, not great, but alright, and the first consumer quads will still handle any game you want them to right now, so I don't think you will see tri or quads disapearing or becoming obselete any time soon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top