Gaming PC anything I should change?

[Nagasama]

rofl? it doesnt perform as well as a yorkfield quad in gaming applications. the same way a yorkfield OC'd to 3.6ghz doesnt perform as well as a wolfdale at 3ghz. there are at least 10 games that support multithreading out right now, but they dont have a massive advantage over a dual core. besides that, the OP never mentioned overclocking. not everyone does it. not everyone wants to.

 

[1337_JohnN]

"

3.0GHz>3.6GHz>5.0GHz?!

Ok, if a game only supported 2 cores, would it utilixe 2/4 cores?

 

[Nagasama]

ok...i dont get your question...
but let me try to see if i can answer it anyway...
if a game is written for 2 cores, then you can still play it on a quad (obviously), but you wont get any real tangible benefits.
if a game is written for a quad, you can still play it with a dual core, but you will see a noticable (usually) difference in performance between a dual and quad.

 

[1337_JohnN]

UMm.. so a quadcore clocked at 4GHz is better at playing games than a dualcore at 3,00GHz?

 

[Nagasama]

it depends on the game and how the code is written.

 

[1337_JohnN]

Ok, but if both a quadcore, and dualcore play a game that uses only one core, and they are both 3GHz, will they perform the same??

 

[jester070993]

so would the core i7 be better or worse for gaming?

 

[1337_JohnN]

Should be better, if you clock high enough.

 

[jester070993]

ok so would you recommend getting it now?

 

[Nagasama]

so, what happens if you get a dud that doesnt clock high? do you think that all chips will hit 5ghz with just anyone pokin around on it? no, thats a rare case and, more importantly...someone who knows what they are doing.
im tellin ya, benchmarks show the i7 lacking in gaming performance compared to yorkfield. certainly behind a similarly clocked wolfdale.
i say stick with the yorkie man. brand new tech like i7 will have kinks that haven't even begun to be worked out yet with end-users.