Sounds like you need to find better games or better people to play with, IMO.Gaming gets old though... For the first time in my life, I don't really care about upgrading my computer. I have no plans to upgrade my GTX 280. Heck, I don't even have plans to setup my desktop after the move. This laptop I use with a SU7300 handles what I need too, even King's Bounty: Crossworlds for when I decide that gaming is not so boring, only to find out that it is boring again.
The article shows quite the trend - it'd be foolish to build a gaming rig with a dual core now. One thing I did notice that was completely off was their BF: BC2 results - the must have only used single player to benchmark because that game absolutely chugs on a dual core in multiplayer.
:thumbsup:
More and more games will take advantage of 4 and even 6 cores. It's only a matter of time. It will come quicker than dual-core owners expect just like all single core A64 processors became obsolete in a matter of months once games suddenly went dual-threaded.
I realize it's 0AA, but still impressive.
I'm glad somebody posted that article because it's quite pertinent to this discussion. Here's the full link: http://www.techspot.com/review/324-medal-of-honor-performance/
Yes, quad cores make a difference, but even an E8500 is pulling 66 FPS. It's a shame no AA was used, especially given it's a DX9 engine, which makes it relatively lightweight these days. Use 2560x1600 with some AA and you'll quickly flat-line those quads down to dual-core levels.
So yes, if you're building a new gaming rig today then most certainly get a quad, but existing owners of fast dual-core processors should have no fear of upgrading their graphics card if they run their games at the highest playable settings.
I’ve just finished my i7 870 tests and aside from one game showing a slight performance gain, it was no faster than my i5 750 because my GTX480 completely bottlenecks me in almost every case.
The Tom's benchmarks seem to all bottleneck with the GPU with just the 2 processors, but GPUs increase in performance so fast that won't be the case for long. And this is just a GTX460 768mb, not even the 1gb version!
I have a 2.4ghz C2D, and it's bottlenecking even my 8800GT in most newer games. If I had spent a few more bucks for a C2Q back in 2007, I wouldn't even have to upgrade my CPU for another few years!
Quad core = cheap future proofing... especially since the most demanding games (BC2, Dragon Age, etc) are the ones that CAN utilize the multi cores.
How could you pass up a 4 year lifetime for a CPU? Hex core would be even better, but they cost much more from Intel.
I think what would be more useful for CPU vs GPU bottlenecks would be to find the minimum level of CPU required for decent performance (with some focus on minimum frame rates too).
Take for instance this article:
http://www.techspot.com/review/324-medal-of-honor-performance/page9.html
Once you hit quad cores you get a hefty boost, but the Core 2 Quad Q6600 isn't fast enough. An Athlon X4 645 though manages to basically equal everything from an i7 to an X6 because then it's GPU limited.
So minimum CPU performance level where you start to get almost zero gains is an X4 645, but if you are on a dual core it might be worth upgrading.
Most games do end up GPU limited, once you get a 'fast enough' CPU, and it's determining what level of CPU is 'fast enough' which is important. Testing with a Core i5 or Core i7 doesn't really tell you that (as the previous page shows where a Core i7 going from 2GHz to 4GHz only nets 9% performance increase).
In this way the THG original article is kind of useful by varying the number of cores, but you also need to compare across architectures.
Games also get more demanding, especially now since DX11 (e.g. multi-threaded rendering, tessellation, etc). For old games, you should be cranking the settings on a decent monitor.The Tom's benchmarks seem to all bottleneck with the GPU with just the 2 processors, but GPUs increase in performance so fast that won't be the case for long. And this is just a GTX460 768mb, not even the 1gb version!
If you check the 1st and 2nd links I posted, you will see that a 4850, a considerable faster card than a 8800GT most of the time gets no extra performance going from a Pentium E6300 to a core i7 920.
Of course when I moved from an Athlon X2 6000 to a Phenom II 555 with 4 cores the Dragon Age FPS almost doubled. I'll have to try the Phenom II with 2 cores vs 4 cores. But of course Dragon Age is probably the best gaming example of core scaling.
I think that's the key phrase. What really matters is the few times the quad core does help. My old c2d might be good enough for most games most of the time, but BC2 is unplayable with any settings at native res, and Dragon Age is playable but not fluid.
I think that's the key phrase. What really matters is the few times the quad core does help. My old c2d might be good enough for most games most of the time, but BC2 is unplayable with any settings at native res, and Dragon Age is playable but not fluid.
On the other hand, most of the time having a more powerful GPU helps more.
What if for example I don't play any of the handful of games that can use 3 or 4 cores and I have a Core 2 Duo plus a 8800 GT (or similar performance CPU/GPU) and I can only afford either a GPU upgrade or a CPU upgrade?
Of course if someone is building a new system it makes sense to buy a quad core, especially considering that are some pretty cheap ones. The only time it makes some sense buying a dual core is if you getting a phenom II X2 and are gambling on unlocking the 3rd/4th core.
And then lets imagine someone in your case. What is the best upgrade (imagining you had a small budget)? Getting a powerful/expensive quad CPU and keep the 8800 GT or getting a cheaper quad CPU and getting a more powerful GPU?
You said your CPU is bottlenecking your GPU in some newer games. But if you had that Core2Quad it would be your GPU bottlenecking your CPU in newer games! Probably Core2 Quad + 8800GT would have much lower performance in more games than your Core 2 Duo paired with a card like a 6850/GTX460.
PS: All the above assume you want to play with the highest possible IQ settings, with the exception of crazy amounts of AA or stuff DoF or crazy shadow modes, etc.
Thats Why I think You should get a real fast CPU right at the start of your build then upgrade the GPU through its lifetime as that wont last you as long as a CPU.
For example. What would be more useful today? a Q6600 or an 8800GTX?
I'm glad somebody posted that article because it's quite pertinent to this discussion. Here's the full link: http://www.techspot.com/review/324-medal-of-honor-performance/
Yes, quad cores make a difference, but even an E8500 is pulling 66 FPS. It's a shame no AA was used, especially given it's a DX9 engine, which makes it relatively lightweight these days. Use 2560x1600 with some AA and you'll quickly flat-line those quads down to dual-core levels.
So yes, if you're building a new gaming rig today then most certainly get a quad, but existing owners of fast dual-core processors should have no fear of upgrading their graphics card if they run their games at the highest playable settings.
Ive just finished my i7 870 tests and aside from one game showing a slight performance gain, it was no faster than my i5 750 because my GTX480 completely bottlenecks me in almost every case.
then you are not playing very many modern games. Red Faction Guerrilla, Ghostbusters, Prototype, GTA 4, Dragon Age and a few others will show just how much better having a faster cpu can be. btw just because your cpu isnt being maxed doesn't mean an i5/i7 could not deliver a faster and/or better experience.Thats the reason why I'm keeping my E8400 going. I hardly ever see the CPU maxed out in ANY game I play.
then you are not playing very many modern games. Red Faction Guerrilla, Ghostbusters, Prototype, GTA 4, Dragon Age and a few others will show just how much better having a faster cpu can be. btw just because your cpu isnt being maxed doesn't mean an i5/i7 could not deliver a faster and/or better experience.
and again just because a cpu is not fully topped out does not mean a faster one would not be better. and nobody is telling to buy a new rig.I don't play any of those games.
BC2 doesn't even top out.
I understand I5/I7 is better....so is 580GTX over my 460, but guess what, although it will run smoother the graphics quality will not be noticeable in BC2. I already max it out with my set up. I also max out all other games I currently play.
What's the point of spending $600-1000 on a new rig?