• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Almost 2 years ago - "In 2 years, games will be quad optimized"

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Essenar

Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2008
Location
San Diego, CA
You know what I noticed?

A lot of people still recommending quad cores for gaming builds. The funny thing is, I remember in January 2007 when the Q6600 barely surfaced, a lot of people were getting it, saying things like, "Well I won't have to upgrade my CPU for 3-4 years because in 2 years when games are quad core optimized, my processor will be ready!"

The funny thing is, in about 2-3 weeks, it'll have been 2 years since the Q6600 came out and still, the majority of games are barely even dual core optimized, let alone quad core optimized.

The problem with a lot of the reviews we see for quad core or dual core processors, is that they only over-clock the processor being reviewed. For example, an E8500 review will have the E8500 over-clocked to 4 ghz or something, but they won't over-clock the quad core processors it's compared to. The other problem is that the majority of people running their own benchmarks, use unrealistic measurements. I mean, who plays 3dmark 2006 or vantage?

I just saw a thread where someone said the i7 wasn't worth it, and someone replied saying, "An E8500 will play today's games and yesterday's games well, but a quad core will play today's high end games and tomorrow's games better".

That's funny. Because that's the EXACT same thing people said to me 2 years ago. The truth is, games are not quad core optimized. They're just L2 Cache and Architecture optimized. If you had 8 Pentium 4 cores, it wouldn't best a Core 2 Duo in Source games or the like. Why? Because it's not the cores that makes the frames fly, it's the architecture. What I'm saying is, that basically games today love three things:
1) Architecture
2) L2 Cache
3) Speed

I wish we could have a review, maybe we could request it from Brollocks. The same video-card, settings, motherboard, memory and everything. But the only difference is the processors and they're both maxed out. I want to see a 4.2ghz E8500 versus a maxed out Q6600 (3.6ghz or so). I want to know what provides the best results in REAL games and not 3dmark 06, so I can know fully well what to recommend here on the General Hardware forums, because I'm losing faith in recommending quads when a $120 dual core can hit just as high of a speed and get just as much performance.
 
L2 cache is barking up the wrong tree... L2 only helps when low res gaming, who does that still? when your talking high res with AA/AF the L2 size doesnt matter. the difference between L2 if you are low res gaming is 4-6% increase when you double L2. at min for best gaming a core 2 cpu should have is 2mb's for each set of cores.

i dont know why people suggest quads for gaming but its the endless debate dual vs quad.
 
Yeah yeah it's the great debate. On one hand, you have to overclock the heck out of a
E8x00 to make it worthwhile, and the relationship between CPU clock speed and
overall system performance isn't linear. On another hand, when I do read a recent game
review, or GPU review, the reviewer almost always uses a quad core chip. I think
I would take a quad at 3 ghz or more vs a dual at 4 ghz or more, but that's just me.
 
I always suggest quads over duals, since its the logical progression. Will you use all four cores? Not likely, BUT, you have them if you do get apps/games that support them.
 
CGR,
i would agree but up to a point, if someone upgrades every 6 months. the should stick with duals for at least the next year, unless they just want a quad for the sake of having one. if your someone that just upgrades the gpu but not the cpu/mobo for say 1-3yrs. then a quad core would be something to consider for the long term.
 
CGR,
i would agree but up to a point, if someone upgrades every 6 months. the should stick with duals for at least the next year, unless they just want a quad for the sake of having one. if your someone that just upgrades the gpu but not the cpu/mobo for say 1-3yrs. then a quad core would be something to consider for the long term.

That is a valid point.
 
heh.. interesting thread...

1. You see, those that arent overclockers really tend to keep their computers a lot longer than, lets say...us.
2. There are a lot more games that can use more than two cores that are out now as opposed to 2 years ago.
3. An i7 isnt worth it TO ME. Its barely faster than a Yorky unless you have high end SLI/TRI, or Crossfire/X. An e8500 will do just fine.
4. As far as a review, no offense, but I hope he doesnt follow the details of your request. Your testing method listed is fundamentally flawed.
4a. If you are testing, the test needs to be at the same clock speeds for each cpu. I mean a big giant DUH for a game that doesnt use more than 2 cores that the faster clockspeed and arch is going to win.
 
Last edited:
I'm happy with my Q6600 for gaming. Go ahead, get your dual core and be done with it. Seriously, yes, the dual core have had the upper hand in general. That overlap is ending and transitioning to multi-core platforms. Any high-tech game out right now will perform better with quad core. Any game currently running better on dual core, runs very nearly as well on quad. If you want the 10% better framerate on yesterdays games and on current dual core titles, then go nuts with the dual.

-D
 
3. An i7 isnt worth it TO ME. Its barely faster than a Yorky unless you have high end SLI/TRI, or Crossfire/X. An e8500 will do just fine.

Ummm.... that doesn't make any sense. So, for those of us that want the best performance, you'd obviously go with an SLI or Crossfire config. From what you write, if you go for the SLI or Crossfire config, you'd want an i7. If you just want a single GPU and mediocre performance, get the Yorky or Core 2 Duo?

I think you worded that wrong or something.:screwy:
 
Re-read that... ;)

More so the TRI SLI and CrossfireX rigs are what benefit the i7 at this point. Yorky doesnt have the power to bench rigs like that. About anything less than that, say GTX280 and HD4870 Crossfire/SLI is just fine from a Yorky standpoint.

The e8500 comment means games will play just fine with that and was in reference to a line in the first post.

With me now??
 
Last edited:
i see it as if you're upgrading your rig 8X00 is the way to go for a gamer. but if you're starting from scratch i7 is the way to go :/
 
Where's the performance though?

In most benchmarks I see, the only advantage quads have over duals in games is mostly only a marginal performance difference. Like 2-3% or 2-3FPS.

In some rendering/encoding situations a higher clocked dual performs better. I saw an E8400 and E8500 performing better than the Q9550 at stock speeds relative to the clock speed.

I just feel like today it's the same story as yesterday. I feel like i7 is the first quad to really show noticeable difference in speed over duals, and it's not really a fair comparison because there's no dual core i7.
 
When I was last really into the computer scene it was the "single core or dual core?" question, while single core was phasing out. Quad cores were avalible at the time, but I didn't see it catching on extremely fast because dual cores hadn't been out for longer than six months, thus my purchase for an A64 X2.

I totally agree with your original post that it is primarily the architecture. As far as I'm concerned, until I see a huge difference otherwise, it has been that way since the historical Intel vs. AMD debates when Athlons were first released.
 
most reviewers use overclocked quad core to eliminate any potential bottlenecks when it comes to measuring the total performance of the graphics card - they often don't expect everyone to have an intel extreme cpu, and do it so the cpu doesn't become the limiting factor.

i have a quad core because i do some very heavy multi tasking (and gaming, obviously), and didn't want the inconvenience of purchasing a dual core cpu and finding it's not as good for what i need it for.

unfortunately everyone seems to make new cpu's like the i7 so tempting you actually get to believe it'll make a difference in end gaming experience. you only need to run a 3dmark 06 cpu test to see how far down the chain the cpu is when it comes to 3d rendering (overclocked q6600 to 3,2Ghz barely manages 3 frames...)
 
most reviewers use overclocked quad core to eliminate any potential bottlenecks when it comes to measuring the total performance of the graphics card - they often don't expect everyone to have an intel extreme cpu, and do it so the cpu doesn't become the limiting factor.

If I follow that logic, then, doesn't that say that quads have a place in
gaming? Isn't that like saying they are concerned that a dual won't be
able to shovel data to the GPU fast enough?

i have a quad core because i do some very heavy multi tasking (and gaming, obviously), and didn't want the inconvenience of purchasing a dual core cpu and finding it's not as good for what i need it for.

Yeah, assuming I have $180 to spend on my CPU, I think that I might
kick myself later for not going with the quad. For a cheap system, though
duals are just fine.
 
Back