Is Quad Core Worth It? What's the prediction of future games using quad core?

[RoloMather]

If I build a computer in the next 6 months, would building using a Quad Core be better for gaming and general activities? I would put a SSD and a good vcard on it.

So just wanting to know how many games will utilize quad core in 2010 and beyond.

Thank you for answering.

 

[Arkaign]

Yes.

That is all.

 

[Markfw]

Yes.

That is all.

+1

 

[cbn]

If I build a computer in the next 6 months, would building using a Quad Core be better for gaming and general activities? I would put a SSD and a good vcard on it.

For the most part a quad core is the way to go.

When comparing Intel Core i3 to Athlon II x4 things get a little fuzzy though.

 

[Reliant]

Yes.

 

[cbn]

So just wanting to know how many games will utilize quad core in 2010 and beyond.

The quad optimization seems to improve all the time. However, one of the best reasons to buy chips like Core i5 750 over Core i3 lies in the superior IPC in dual threaded games.

 

[cbn]

Yes.

That is all.

Yes.

Not really. Cores aren't the whole story.

 

[MalVeauX]

Heya,

Yes.

If you look at a lot of new games, from Crysis to the new DX11 games, having a Quad helps on top of having a high clock. More and more, it will matter.

Very best,

 

[cbn]

Yes.

If you look at a lot of new games, from Crysis to the new DX11 games, having a Quad helps on top of having a high clock. More and more, it will matter.

Very best,

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3704&p=12

Speaking of Crysis. The top CPU is actually a LGA 775 dual core. The next fastest group are the Nehalem quads with Turbo mode. Slower than that are the various 32nm dual cores with HT. Athlon II quad core from AMD brings up the rear.

 

[bobsmith1492]

I had major, major improvements in Supreme Commander moving from a C2D 2.8GHz to an i5, stock clocks. Faster RAM might have been part of it though, and more cache.

 

[amenx]

Supcom is quad optimized, thats why.

 

[lopri]

I tested Supreme Commando years ago on a Q6600 and there was zero improvement over an E6600. I had a screenshot with Task Manager open but I can't find it now. But it isn't surprising that i5 provides better performance over C2D.

Nevertheless, I think the time for quad-core is here finally in 2010. Not because it is necessary to have one but because there is no reason not to have one. A cheapest quad starts at below $100 and for $200 you can get one of the best performing quads. Both AMD and Intel have excellent power management for their latest products, so sans extremely rigid budgets and thermal restrictions, a quad-core is just as good as any dual-core and it will only get better over time.

 

[Skott]

As far as Intel CPUs go I think quad is a good investment now if you get an i5 or i7. I personally wouldn't bother with the other Intel Quads. I expect more games to come out this year that will take advantage of quad cores and certainly the games beyond will as well. People are doing more multitasking now these days and the more multitasking a person does the more the quad performs. Dual core is not dead yet but I think it's now starting down that road of becoming obsolete. More people will move to quad more than ever now. Especially once the economy turns and people start upgrading again.

 

[RussianSensation]

Nevertheless, I think the time for quad-core is here finally in 2010. Not because it is necessary to have one but because there is no reason not to have one. A cheapest quad starts at below $100 and for $200 you can get one of the best performing quads.

I agree with lopri on this one. Today the price differential between a Quad Core processor is very low in the context of the overall system cost ($80-100). However, it provides that extra smoothness when running multiple tasks (especially if you plan to get an SSD, then you'd want a fast processor to let it all out )

I even thought in the days of Q6600, it was worth it to pay $140 over E6400 or even E8400 for 2 more cores. A friend of mine purchased his E6400 in summer of 2008, while I upgraded to a Q6600. Now his is seeing 100% cpu utilization by running Linux and Windows in virtualization mode, despite having overclocked his processor to 2.66ghz. He now wants to upgrade to a quad core. Unfortunately the Q9550 is >$200. So he would have been better off getting a Q6600 way back and overclocking it, because the cost to upgrade on S775 is even more now than the price differential was back then.

So now, there is little reason to NOT get a quad core for an extra $80 if you keep the system for at least 2 years, that's just $40 a year...I mean come on!

Eventually more and more games will take advantage of multi-cores

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,698761/Dragon-Age-Origins-CPU-benchmarks-75-percent-boost-for-quad-cores/Practice/

E6600 2.4ghz (65nm dual core) = 18 min / 28 average
E8400 3.6ghz (45nm dual core) = 28 min / 44 average
Q6600 2.4ghz (65nm quad core) = 31 min / 50 average
Core i5 750 2.66ghz (45nm quad core) = 44 min / 70 average
Q6600 3.6ghz (65nm quad core) = 46 min / 72 average
Core i7 920 3.5ghz (45nm quad core) = 57 min / 90 average

 

[cbn]

Dual core is not dead yet but I think it's now starting down that road of becoming obsolete.

I often wonder how much stronger these Core i3s could have been if Intel didn't cripple the memory performance.

Hyperthreading appears to scale quite well for gaming in Windows 7.

The bright side, of course, is knowledge that 32nm Xeon quad cores w/ HT *may* have some mileage left in them when eight threaded games finally debut.

 

[nyker96]

I don't know about all games but few months ago bough Dragon Age, moved from E7200@3,5 to a 620 x4@3,25 and saw a very noticeable improvement this game, all the studdering points gone, I think the quad raised minimum FPS to above 30 in some really tough scenes.

 

[cbn]

Eventually more and more games will take advantage of multi-cores

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,698761/Dragon-Age-Origins-CPU-benchmarks-75-percent-boost-for-quad-cores/Practice/

E6600 2.4ghz (65nm dual core) = 18 min / 28 average
E8400 3.6ghz (45nm dual core) = 28 min / 44 average
Q6600 2.4ghz (65nm quad core) = 31 min / 50 average
Core i5 750 2.66ghz (45nm quad core) = 44 min / 70 average
Q6600 3.6ghz (65nm quad core) = 46 min / 72 average
Core i7 920 3.5ghz (45nm quad core) = 57 min / 90 average

I don't know about all games but few months ago bough Dragon Age, moved from E7200@3,5 to a 620 x4@3,25 and saw a very noticeable improvement this game, all the studdering points gone, I think the quad raised minimum FPS to above 30 in some really tough scenes.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3704&p=13

Dragon Age Origins.

Here is another example where simply going by "core count" confuses the issue of CPU performance in games.

The game scales 75% faster with a quad core over dual core yet Core i3 dual core w/ HT is faster than Core 2 quad core and Athlon II quad core. Core 2 duo E8600 @ 3.33 Mhz brings up the rear.

 

[MagickMan]

The game scales 75% faster with a quad core over dual core yet Core i3 dual core w/ HT is faster than Core 2 quad core and Athlon II quad core. Core 2 duo E8600 @ 3.33 Mhz brings up the rear.

The Q8400 is a pretty crappy C2Q, though.

 

[Orubasarot]

...

 

[nyker96]

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3704&p=13

Dragon Age Origins.

Here is another example where simply going by "core count" confuses the issue of CPU performance in games.

The game scales 75% faster with a quad core over dual core yet Core i3 dual core w/ HT is faster than Core 2 quad core and Athlon II quad core. Core 2 duo E8600 @ 3.33 Mhz brings up the rear.

you are right, the i3 does seem to do very well in DAO, but I was comparing against my old e7xxx which is an older architecture as the benchmark link also shows an e8xxx is slower than x4 620. but i3's superiority in games seems quite dominant.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3704&p=13

Dragon Age Origins.

Here is another example where simply going by "core count" confuses the issue of CPU performance in games.

The game scales 75% faster with a quad core over dual core yet Core i3 dual core w/ HT is faster than Core 2 quad core and Athlon II quad core. Core 2 duo E8600 @ 3.33 Mhz brings up the rear.

Turbo Mode and Hyperthreading is what helps the Core i3 get past the cache-crippled quad cores like the Athlon 630 and C2Q Q8400. And by looking at those benches, Dragon Age must also like Intel's new architecture over everything else as you can tell by the i7's performance advantage. Whereas you take a game like Batman: AA, and the Phenom II 965 actually competes with the i7s instead of being left in the dust. So Dragon Age (as well as a lot of games) really likes Nehalem and Clarkdale's IPC.

 

[cbn]

Whereas you take a game like Batman: AA, and the Phenom II 965 actually competes with the i7s instead of being left in the dust.

Is there any game that actually favors AMD under Windows 7?

Maybe we should look at those comparisons to keep things fair.

 

[Hey Zeus]

I often wonder how much stronger these Core i3s could have been if Intel didn't cripple the memory performance.

Hyperthreading appears to scale quite well for gaming in Windows 7.

The bright side, of course, is knowledge that 32nm Xeon quad cores w/ HT *may* have some mileage left in them when eight threaded games finally debut.

I have a feeling that the first 32nm clarkdale's are just a "Test" phase for intel and that a clarkdale with something like the I5's memory controller will be revised.

IMO the memory controller isn't that big of an issue. It's the lack of L2 cache. If this chip had atleast 2 megs of it would be a whole different animal

 

[joseps75]

I believe you are in the right track. I am browsing this thread because I plan to build a box with an Intel core i7 860, a Win 7 prof . I like to read ideas in this forum just so I can do it right the first time. I am not yet sure which is the most economical mb to use. Anandtech has a good review of i7 860. I am currently running 4 quad boxes in distributed computing. This new i7 860 I am going to build will replace one of my boxes which I shipped to my granddaughter last xmas. I'll appreciate any input from you guys. Thanks joseps

 

[dguy6789]

Is there any game that actually favors AMD under Windows 7?

Maybe we should look at those comparisons to keep things fair.

I wasn't aware that there was any game that favored AMD. Windows 7 doesn't arbitrarily make AMD's stuff run slower. I do know that Windows 7 increases performance on Intel processors because it manages hyperthreading better than Vista, but that's not in any way unfair. Are you suggesting that people should run tests not on Windows 7?