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

[Nagasama]

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?

what im SAYING is this...
1) no...crysis sucks
2) lol gurusan
3) i'm not part of any crowd. but saying that its a better idea to get a quad core of today to run the applications of tommorow is nonsense. when the applications of tommorow come out, there will be a quad core there to perform said applications. have no fear. who do you think moves faster, hardware designers or software designers? here's a hint...how many new graphics cards have been introduced in the last year? software engineers are BEGGING hardware companies to slow their roll.
i mean, i have a quad core. do i have a quad core because i sit around and search for applications that can use all four cores? no. i have a quad because, well...i wanted one.

 

[macdawg]

and I bet that you wanted that quad b/c of other things, maybe better multi-tasking or faster encoding. Back to gaming....

"Explain to me why pc games still play off single cores then. They have been just recently beginning to support dual cores."

I can run crysis on my 4 year old $1000 pc, on the absolute bare minimum, with a couple pauses per level (since I only have 1 gig ram on that pc) at 800x600 and a lot of tweaking. Crysis is mostly gpu dependent, and at max in game settings even at normal res like 1680x1050 any gpu will struggle to have good fps, but its a fact that multi-core cpu's improve minimum fps in certain areas, which equals smoother gameplay.

If you run Crysis with Particles Quality set to high, there is a considerable difference in Crysis between a single core and dual core because Crysis uses a threaded particle renderer.

 

[Nagasama]

and I bet that you wanted that quad b/c of other things, maybe better multi-tasking or faster encoding. Back to gaming....

well, not really. to be honest, there isnt a huge difference, between this quad i have now and the 5000BE i had awhile back, at multi-tasking. i just like new stuff. it does encode fast as heck, tho. and i can burn a cd lickety-split and get a way better super pi time.

 

[Asianyeti]

This is my new plan, Im getting the E8400 and continue playing wow and NEVER PLAY CRYSIS[(because i think that game is gay and overrated)MY OPINION] then when i switch to a different game in like 3 years ill have more then enough money saved to get something better then a quad core(perhaps a 32-core megasuperrape processor ) And stay content with more then enough needed for WoW.

I am happy :happy:

 

[gurusan]

Seriously, what's all this talk about buying for the future.

By the time a decent number of games actually show gains with quad cores the q6600 will be slow and old anyway and time to upgrade! It's already aging as it's a 65nm processor and is outperformed clock for clock by Penryn/Wolfdale.

 

[baron5]

but when a cpu thats the same or in some cases cheaper than a dual core y not? a q6600 usually o/c's to about 3.4 and still offers great performance. the e8400 is about the same price anyway. it prob had better performace in most games due to the high overclockability, but you get an extra 2 cores for like under $10 more.

 

[gurusan]

yeah but the extra 2 cores don't do much....the new E0 steppings on the wolfdales allow them to clock past 4.5ghz easy on very low voltages...

A Q6600 would have to be clocked to nearly 5ghz to offer the same performance in pretty much ALL games.

 

[baron5]

alot of games coming out are being quad supported. like crysis was and supreme commander. i guess if your just gonna game and thats all, a dual core would offer better performance, not that much better though. At clocks speeds of 3.6ghz +, those processors (quad and dual c2d) are not going to be a heavy factor in bad performance. it really comes down to ur g card at those speeds.

 

[Phanto]

Quad-Core is not required for gaming, a fine Dual-Core will do just fine with any game today.

And in my personal opinion I think if you are planning buying a Quad-Core in the future, go with the new ones (45nm). I know the Q6600 is still a good choice but is obviously cheap because is old, I would prefer saving some more or waiting for price drops and go for the 45nm ones.

 

[veg1992]

Quad-Core is not required for gaming, a fine Dual-Core will do just fine with any game today.

And in my personal opinion I think if you are planning buying a Quad-Core in the future, go with the new ones (45nm). I know the Q6600 is still a good choice but is obviously cheap because is old, I would prefer saving some more or waiting for price drops and go for the 45nm ones.

Not anymore man