Is it required to have quad core for new games now?

[zedman3d]

console graphics are poo

Theyre not that bad, but yeah, PC's own.

 

[Hussein19891]

That's true but console games graphics are generally not as good as pc games. Plus you can use a powerful pc for allot more than gaming.

Yeah but with online play and consoles being the cheaper alternative to computer gaming. Then consumers would be willing to over look the graphic inferiority if it will make it affordable. Besides console graphics are improving and evolving. When it comes to consoles its the games fault for crappy graphics and not the system itself often times. The console graphics will NEVER reach the level of that of a computers. But I mean seriously how realistic do games have to be? Isn't the whole point of gaming to escape reality? Not go right back into it?

*Edit*
Well your right you can use pc's for a lot more then gaming and consoles are just for merely entertainment. Which probably explains this whole media center deal the PS3 and 360 are trying to create.

 

[macdawg]

Crysis is the best looking and most advanced physics on a game; hence it needs more overhead to run. Developers are always trying to get the best graphics they can with least hardware requirements but fact is that more detail needs more power to run.

To answer dual or quad I'd factor in your budget, how long you want to use the rig for etc. You do get a few more frames in most games with a faster clocked dual, but for the long haul I'd sacrafice a few games, take the quad and the benefits of faster encoding/better multitasking/more futureproof.

 

[maroon1]

Is it required to have quad core for new games. And will they ever require it?


Cause I wanted to get Q6600 but i hear E8400 can Overclock alot better and easier.

Also right now Q6600 are bad.

Whats your suggestion (Not interested at all in Nahalem)

Personally I suggest E8400

Because cheaper, runs cooler and faster in current games

At the time games use 4 cores, you would buy a new CPU

 

[Hussein19891]

Personally I suggest E8400

Because cheaper, runs cooler and faster in current games

At the time games use 4 cores, you would buy a new CPU

You got a point by then the Quads will also be a bit cheaper.

 

[Nagasama]

okay...
1) crysis sucks
2) guru, stop bragging about you proliferation of quad ownership
3) whoever said that you should buy a current quad for future requirements is insane. that makes no sense.

 

[veg1992]

okay...
1) crysis sucks
2) guru, stop bragging about you proliferation of quad ownership
3) whoever said that you should buy a current quad for future requirements is insane. that makes no sense.

F the q6600, Phenom B3's overclock better, unless you hit eBay for a used...

but stick with the dual-core's

 

[macdawg]

okay...
1) crysis sucks
2) guru, stop bragging about you proliferation of quad ownership
3) whoever said that you should buy a current quad for future requirements is insane. that makes no sense.

1. Crysis owns
2. dually noted
3. Were you in the same crowd that was initially opposed to dual cores because a higher clocked single core got 3 more fps in games? Some new games are multi-threaded and recommend a dual core, you don't think in the future they will recommend quads?

 

[Hussein19891]

1. Crysis owns
2. dually noted
3. Were you in the same crowd that was initially opposed to dual cores because a higher clocked single core got 3 more fps in games? Some new games are multi-threaded and recommend a dual core, you don't think in the future they will recommend quads?

1. Crysis still sucks
2. ?????
3. Explain to me why pc games still play off single cores then. They have been just recently beginning to support dual cores.

 

[Luke]

oh w/e guys, Yes get a dual core, yes they will always until the end of time perform better, ur right, I'm wrong, quads are pointless right now. I grow tired of this, i give up.