-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
[Discussion]Should I get a Quad- or Dual-Core?
- Thread starter Albuquerque
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2005
- Location
- Concord, NC
Here ya go!
You were right! The min frame did drop a bit. I doubt a higher speed CPU will get the min much higher, though.
You were right! The min frame did drop a bit. I doubt a higher speed CPU will get the min much higher, though.
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2005
- Location
- Concord, NC
Well...now it looks like min fps is pretty flat w/ more CPU speed. I re-ran the 8.5 multi w/ results more in line w/ the rest of the tests.
Video 8800 GT, CPU E8400
Crysis bench
2.5 Ghz
/14/2008 5:31:58 PM - XP
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX9 1024x768, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=3, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: High
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 44.62s, Average FPS: 44.82
Min FPS: 10.91 at frame 145, Max FPS: 65.96 at frame 953
Average Tri/Sec: 44331952, Tri/Frame: 989119
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.93
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 36.61s, Average FPS: 54.63
Min FPS: 10.91 at frame 145, Max FPS: 70.81 at frame 998
Average Tri/Sec: 54639328, Tri/Frame: 1000182
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.92
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 36.54s, Average FPS: 54.73
Min FPS: 10.91 at frame 145, Max FPS: 72.56 at frame 101
Average Tri/Sec: 54830404, Tri/Frame: 1001749
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.92
TimeDemo Play Ended, (3 Runs Performed)
==============================================================
Completed All Tests
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
6/14/2008 5:31:58 PM - XP
Run #1- DX9 1024x768 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 54.68
3.16 Ghz it levels off for my video card
6/14/2008 9:29:50 PM - XP
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX9 1024x768, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=3, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: High
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 39.49s, Average FPS: 50.65
Min FPS: 26.46 at frame 141, Max FPS: 69.36 at frame 985
Average Tri/Sec: 50073764, Tri/Frame: 988601
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.93
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 33.95s, Average FPS: 58.91
Min FPS: 26.46 at frame 141, Max FPS: 72.73 at frame 100
Average Tri/Sec: 58929808, Tri/Frame: 1000310
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.92
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 33.94s, Average FPS: 58.93
Min FPS: 26.46 at frame 141, Max FPS: 72.73 at frame 100
Average Tri/Sec: 59007240, Tri/Frame: 1001288
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.92
TimeDemo Play Ended, (3 Runs Performed)
==============================================================
Completed All Tests
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
6/14/2008 9:29:50 PM - XP
Run #1- DX9 1024x768 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Avera
If i had SLI it whoud be better.
Crysis bench
2.5 Ghz
/14/2008 5:31:58 PM - XP
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX9 1024x768, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=3, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: High
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 44.62s, Average FPS: 44.82
Min FPS: 10.91 at frame 145, Max FPS: 65.96 at frame 953
Average Tri/Sec: 44331952, Tri/Frame: 989119
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.93
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 36.61s, Average FPS: 54.63
Min FPS: 10.91 at frame 145, Max FPS: 70.81 at frame 998
Average Tri/Sec: 54639328, Tri/Frame: 1000182
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.92
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 36.54s, Average FPS: 54.73
Min FPS: 10.91 at frame 145, Max FPS: 72.56 at frame 101
Average Tri/Sec: 54830404, Tri/Frame: 1001749
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.92
TimeDemo Play Ended, (3 Runs Performed)
==============================================================
Completed All Tests
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
6/14/2008 5:31:58 PM - XP
Run #1- DX9 1024x768 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 54.68
3.16 Ghz it levels off for my video card
6/14/2008 9:29:50 PM - XP
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX9 1024x768, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=3, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: High
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 39.49s, Average FPS: 50.65
Min FPS: 26.46 at frame 141, Max FPS: 69.36 at frame 985
Average Tri/Sec: 50073764, Tri/Frame: 988601
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.93
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 33.95s, Average FPS: 58.91
Min FPS: 26.46 at frame 141, Max FPS: 72.73 at frame 100
Average Tri/Sec: 58929808, Tri/Frame: 1000310
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.92
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 33.94s, Average FPS: 58.93
Min FPS: 26.46 at frame 141, Max FPS: 72.73 at frame 100
Average Tri/Sec: 59007240, Tri/Frame: 1001288
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.92
TimeDemo Play Ended, (3 Runs Performed)
==============================================================
Completed All Tests
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
6/14/2008 9:29:50 PM - XP
Run #1- DX9 1024x768 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Avera
If i had SLI it whoud be better.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2005
- Location
- Concord, NC
Can you run it at a higher rez? You might as well run 3DMark06 if you're going to run at that rez.
There's no point in buying a high end graphics card if you're going to run 1024x768.
Crysis is a demanding game, I only have a $175 8800 Gt and my frame rates drop to much, if i had more money to spend i would get a better graphics card or two, the graphics card is holding me back real bad, I did have a cheaper graphics card and i had to run on medium to low and the graphics sucked in crysis, so I'm vary content now.
When your playing a game you should try and keep your minim FPS above 30 FPS for completive play, so you can see what's happening in the game.
Download Crysis_Benchmark_Tool- http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?det=1791
When you test just leave your FSB the same and lower your multiplier.
Last edited:
I just dowloaded new Nvidia drivers and you can see now that the video card was holding me back.
8800 GT video, CPU E8400
3.16 Ghz
8/2/2008 1:55:58 PM - XP
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX9 1024x768, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=2, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: High
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 39.43s, Average FPS: 50.73
Min FPS: 27.89 at frame 143, Max FPS: 64.37 at frame 980
Average Tri/Sec: 50180352, Tri/Frame: 989255
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.93
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 35.75s, Average FPS: 55.95
Min FPS: 27.89 at frame 143, Max FPS: 66.54 at frame 995
Average Tri/Sec: 55970280, Tri/Frame: 1000391
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.92
TimeDemo Play Ended, (2 Runs Performed)
==============================================================
Completed All Tests
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
8/2/2008 1:55:58 PM - XP
Run #1- DX9 1024x768 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 55.95
3.34 Ghz
8/2/2008 2:14:22 PM - XP
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX9 1024x768, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=3, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: High
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 39.73s, Average FPS: 50.34
Min FPS: 28.96 at frame 142, Max FPS: 63.84 at frame 977
Average Tri/Sec: 49773064, Tri/Frame: 988671
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.93
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 35.77s, Average FPS: 55.91
Min FPS: 28.96 at frame 142, Max FPS: 66.65 at frame 993
Average Tri/Sec: 55928080, Tri/Frame: 1000408
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.92
TimeDemo Play Ended, (2 Runs Performed)
==============================================================
Completed All Tests
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
8/2/2008 2:14:22 PM - XP
Run #1- DX9 1024x768 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 55.9
3.8 Ghz
8/2/2008 2:36:13 PM - XP
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX9 1024x768, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=2, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: High
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 38.63s, Average FPS: 51.77
Min FPS: 31.67 at frame 148, Max FPS: 65.26 at frame 1003
Average Tri/Sec: 51194460, Tri/Frame: 988885
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.93
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 35.85s, Average FPS: 55.79
Min FPS: 31.67 at frame 148, Max FPS: 67.41 at frame 1023
Average Tri/Sec: 55799760, Tri/Frame: 1000091
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.92
TimeDemo Play Ended, (2 Runs Performed)
==============================================================
Completed All Tests
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
8/2/2008 2:36:13 PM - XP
Run #1- DX9 1024x768 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 55.79
3.8 Ghz I can now play at a higher resolution.
8/2/2008 2:42:57 PM - XP
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX9 1400x1050, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=2, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: High
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 53.79s, Average FPS: 37.18
Min FPS: 29.59 at frame 149, Max FPS: 45.31 at frame 985
Average Tri/Sec: 36620300, Tri/Frame: 984819
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.93
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 51.32s, Average FPS: 38.97
Min FPS: 29.59 at frame 149, Max FPS: 46.38 at frame 992
Average Tri/Sec: 38820564, Tri/Frame: 996083
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.92
TimeDemo Play Ended, (2 Runs Performed)
==============================================================
Completed All Tests
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
8/2/2008 2:42:57 PM - XP
Run #1- DX9 1400x1050 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 38.97
8800 GT video, CPU E8400
3.16 Ghz
8/2/2008 1:55:58 PM - XP
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX9 1024x768, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=2, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: High
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 39.43s, Average FPS: 50.73
Min FPS: 27.89 at frame 143, Max FPS: 64.37 at frame 980
Average Tri/Sec: 50180352, Tri/Frame: 989255
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.93
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 35.75s, Average FPS: 55.95
Min FPS: 27.89 at frame 143, Max FPS: 66.54 at frame 995
Average Tri/Sec: 55970280, Tri/Frame: 1000391
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.92
TimeDemo Play Ended, (2 Runs Performed)
==============================================================
Completed All Tests
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
8/2/2008 1:55:58 PM - XP
Run #1- DX9 1024x768 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 55.95
3.34 Ghz
8/2/2008 2:14:22 PM - XP
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX9 1024x768, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=3, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: High
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 39.73s, Average FPS: 50.34
Min FPS: 28.96 at frame 142, Max FPS: 63.84 at frame 977
Average Tri/Sec: 49773064, Tri/Frame: 988671
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.93
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 35.77s, Average FPS: 55.91
Min FPS: 28.96 at frame 142, Max FPS: 66.65 at frame 993
Average Tri/Sec: 55928080, Tri/Frame: 1000408
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.92
TimeDemo Play Ended, (2 Runs Performed)
==============================================================
Completed All Tests
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
8/2/2008 2:14:22 PM - XP
Run #1- DX9 1024x768 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 55.9
3.8 Ghz
8/2/2008 2:36:13 PM - XP
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX9 1024x768, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=2, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: High
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 38.63s, Average FPS: 51.77
Min FPS: 31.67 at frame 148, Max FPS: 65.26 at frame 1003
Average Tri/Sec: 51194460, Tri/Frame: 988885
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.93
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 35.85s, Average FPS: 55.79
Min FPS: 31.67 at frame 148, Max FPS: 67.41 at frame 1023
Average Tri/Sec: 55799760, Tri/Frame: 1000091
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.92
TimeDemo Play Ended, (2 Runs Performed)
==============================================================
Completed All Tests
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
8/2/2008 2:36:13 PM - XP
Run #1- DX9 1024x768 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 55.79
3.8 Ghz I can now play at a higher resolution.
8/2/2008 2:42:57 PM - XP
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX9 1400x1050, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=2, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: High
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 53.79s, Average FPS: 37.18
Min FPS: 29.59 at frame 149, Max FPS: 45.31 at frame 985
Average Tri/Sec: 36620300, Tri/Frame: 984819
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.93
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 51.32s, Average FPS: 38.97
Min FPS: 29.59 at frame 149, Max FPS: 46.38 at frame 992
Average Tri/Sec: 38820564, Tri/Frame: 996083
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.92
TimeDemo Play Ended, (2 Runs Performed)
==============================================================
Completed All Tests
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
8/2/2008 2:42:57 PM - XP
Run #1- DX9 1400x1050 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 38.97
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2005
- Location
- Concord, NC
wingman, I'm not sure why your having so much trouble running the benchmark at higher rez. It ran fine on my 8800GT, before I got my GTS. I was only getting about a 3fps difference b/n the 2 cards.
I'm still not sure what you're trying to prove showing all these low rez bench's which are obviously going to be more CPU dependent than running at a higher rez.
Look above...my runs are at 1680x1050 DX10 64-bit w/ one 8800GTS-512. The 8800GTS-512 is not that much better than a GT such that you wouldn't be able to run the benchmark.
Can you do me a favor and just run at 1680x1050 at different CPU speeds (only changing the multi)? It doesn't matter how low the fps are...you're not actually playing...I just want to see what happens. Or even try running 1400x1050 at some lower CPU speeds.
I'm still not sure what you're trying to prove showing all these low rez bench's which are obviously going to be more CPU dependent than running at a higher rez.
Look above...my runs are at 1680x1050 DX10 64-bit w/ one 8800GTS-512. The 8800GTS-512 is not that much better than a GT such that you wouldn't be able to run the benchmark.
Can you do me a favor and just run at 1680x1050 at different CPU speeds (only changing the multi)? It doesn't matter how low the fps are...you're not actually playing...I just want to see what happens. Or even try running 1400x1050 at some lower CPU speeds.
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2008
- Location
- Toronto, Canada
1280x1024 is certainly doable on an 8800GT with High and even Very High settings for me, thats in XP though so DX9 very high settings.
Even a higher clocked dual core won't help any if your GPU bound, or bound by anything else for that matter, RAM, resolution, etc.
CPUs just aren't that demanded on for gaming in general, long as you have a decently clocked dual core, its all about the GPU. In most cases, some games are more CPU bound ie Source games.
Even a higher clocked dual core won't help any if your GPU bound, or bound by anything else for that matter, RAM, resolution, etc.
CPUs just aren't that demanded on for gaming in general, long as you have a decently clocked dual core, its all about the GPU. In most cases, some games are more CPU bound ie Source games.
Honestly, I think sometimes people put too much emphasis on the processor's frequency...
True, stock vs. stock, a E8400 Wolfdale has a significantly higher frequency than a Q6600 Quad (3.0 versus 2.4 GHz), but the Q6600 still processes much more data per cycle; which is the whole point of overclocking to begin with.
And in the process, gives you a better multitasker and some future-proofing to boot...
The only real advantage that I can see to get a Dual Core is the higher FSB's allow for faster memory, so that sounds like a good scenario for a dedicated gaming rig....
True, stock vs. stock, a E8400 Wolfdale has a significantly higher frequency than a Q6600 Quad (3.0 versus 2.4 GHz), but the Q6600 still processes much more data per cycle; which is the whole point of overclocking to begin with.
And in the process, gives you a better multitasker and some future-proofing to boot...
The only real advantage that I can see to get a Dual Core is the higher FSB's allow for faster memory, so that sounds like a good scenario for a dedicated gaming rig....
Then why did you get the GTS that must be a waste of money for you? Thanks for saying that, it makes me feel good that i did not purchase a GTS
Because in real world gaming you need a low rez to get Some decent FPS in crysis with 8800GT.
What purpose does that serve, they have $600 video cards for that.
jason what point are you trying to make
A=Spend more money on your cpu than your video card.
B=If you don't have much money buy a cheap dual and a cheap video card.
C=Maybe buy vary expensive quad and a vary expensive 2 x video cards.
D=Save your money on the quad get a cheep dual and vary expensive 2 X video cards.
My point is if your in the intel CPU post and you want to save money, get dual core cpu for games, also if you run crysis overclock the CPU and adjust your video card for acceptable frame rates, I think the industry standard is 30 FPS minim.
3.0Ghz E8400
8/3/2008 3:10:23 PM - XP
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX9 1400x1050, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=2, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: High
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 54.91s, Average FPS: 36.42
Min FPS: 23.86 at frame 140, Max FPS: 43.57 at frame 1786
Average Tri/Sec: 35907204, Tri/Frame: 985808
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.93
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 51.15s, Average FPS: 39.10
Min FPS: 23.86 at frame 140, Max FPS: 45.61 at frame 984
Average Tri/Sec: 38939520, Tri/Frame: 995847
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.92
TimeDemo Play Ended, (2 Runs Performed)
==============================================================
Completed All Tests
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
8/3/2008 3:10:23 PM - XP
Run #1- DX9 1400x1050 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 39.10
This is real world pic with crysis below at minim 18 FPS 1600X1200 and the game play sucks at that res, O sure it's fine when nothing is shooting at you.
Attachments
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2005
- Location
- Concord, NC
Then why did you get the GTS that must be a waste of money for you? Thanks for saying that, it makes me feel good that i did not purchase a GTS
Glad to help!
Or you can turn some settings down. On an LCD I'd prefer to run native rez and turn some settings down as opposed to lowering the rez. On a CRT, though, I'd look to strike the best overall balance.
Crysis is the only game you need to turn down the settings w/ the 8800GT, though. I used Crysis as an example b/c it really punishes systems. It runs fine on my machine at 1680x1050, and it also ran fine at that rez w/ my GT (med-high settings).
Maybe I'm the only one who runs Crysis at 1680x1050, but I figured most guys on here w/ fairly recent hardware ran it at higher than 1024x768.
My point is that you can't make a general statement about dual vs. quad in gaming when you're running benchmarks at such a low rez...especially if only one game forces you to run that low rez.
What I have shown is that it makes little difference in Crysis if you're running a quad or a dual at 3 or 4GHz if you have a single GPU and run at 1680x1050. That may change w/ SLI/X-fire or in other games. If someone w/ an SLI/X-fire rig could run some tests...
So, at least for the above scenerio, I'd say if you're running 1680x1050+ then it doesn't matter if you have a 3.4-3.6GHz quad or a 4GHz+ dual. Both CPUs have their pros and cons depending on the situation. Get whichever one you want. Either will work just fine.
Crysis is the only game where I think fps in the 20's can be acceptable.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Location
- Chambersburg, PA USA
Quad- or Dual-Core
Thank you for your clear answer. I have saved big bucks knowing that I need Dual-Core to more effectively play my games. I am not one bit interested in "scores."
Thank you for your clear answer. I have saved big bucks knowing that I need Dual-Core to more effectively play my games. I am not one bit interested in "scores."
- Joined
- May 12, 2008
I could not decide so I built 2 rigs, basically the same except 1[Quad] had pc power and cooling 850 ssi turbo p/s, EVGA8800GTX [g80] and a X3210 and at that time 2 x1 gb Ballistix with those D9XX modules, evrything else was the same.
The 2nd one had a OCZ GameXStream 600w p/s, MSI NX8800GT OC 512mb [G92] vid card, and a E8400 wolfie. Same ram as above,everything else was the same.
Both ran superb, both o/c'd well to. I had them hooked up to a KVM switch tith 3 monitors which allowed me to have dual monitors with whichever one I was using at the moment.
Like I said both were great builds for everyday use and gaming. At that time both were tested with xp-90 h/s and 92mm tornado with fan controls and then I tested them each with UltraChillTec pelts too.
I had to make a decision which to keep, naturally at this point I kept the quad, the only changes I made were to change the Ballistix 2x1gb to 4x1 single bank Gskill as to not stress the NB as double bank sticks would and changed the H/s/f to a Arctic Cooler freezer. Runs great. The only changes I might do is get that new Arctic Cooling Accelero Xtreme 8800 VGA Cooler and maybe down the line somewhat maybe a newer 45nm Quad.
Thats it, I'm done for now, the 8800GTX is still a beast [although a hot one] and that new cooler looks like thats really all I need. A newer quad is debatable right now
I my experience most folks will do fine with a dual-core unless a quad is absolutely necessary right now. Oh, the guy I sold the dual core to is thrilled with it, he can now play all the games he used to try to play in his old rig.
The 2nd one had a OCZ GameXStream 600w p/s, MSI NX8800GT OC 512mb [G92] vid card, and a E8400 wolfie. Same ram as above,everything else was the same.
Both ran superb, both o/c'd well to. I had them hooked up to a KVM switch tith 3 monitors which allowed me to have dual monitors with whichever one I was using at the moment.
Like I said both were great builds for everyday use and gaming. At that time both were tested with xp-90 h/s and 92mm tornado with fan controls and then I tested them each with UltraChillTec pelts too.
I had to make a decision which to keep, naturally at this point I kept the quad, the only changes I made were to change the Ballistix 2x1gb to 4x1 single bank Gskill as to not stress the NB as double bank sticks would and changed the H/s/f to a Arctic Cooler freezer. Runs great. The only changes I might do is get that new Arctic Cooling Accelero Xtreme 8800 VGA Cooler and maybe down the line somewhat maybe a newer 45nm Quad.
Thats it, I'm done for now, the 8800GTX is still a beast [although a hot one] and that new cooler looks like thats really all I need. A newer quad is debatable right now
I my experience most folks will do fine with a dual-core unless a quad is absolutely necessary right now. Oh, the guy I sold the dual core to is thrilled with it, he can now play all the games he used to try to play in his old rig.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2003
My question is:
I am trying to build (or already built - just deciding on what CPU to leave in there) an HTPC. Should I use a Q6600 G0 or an E7200? (I have both available and probably will sell the one I don't use) I will most likely give it a nice overclock, but nothing crazy.
I don't know much about video/audio editing and whatnot, but want to get into storing many many movies on that machine. It's in a mid-tower case with plenty of airflow, 2gb of ram (could always dump 4gb if needed), plenty of HDD space on a raid5, and a 550W Antec that should hold up well.
I am trying to build (or already built - just deciding on what CPU to leave in there) an HTPC. Should I use a Q6600 G0 or an E7200? (I have both available and probably will sell the one I don't use) I will most likely give it a nice overclock, but nothing crazy.
I don't know much about video/audio editing and whatnot, but want to get into storing many many movies on that machine. It's in a mid-tower case with plenty of airflow, 2gb of ram (could always dump 4gb if needed), plenty of HDD space on a raid5, and a 550W Antec that should hold up well.
Go with a dual core. You really do not need a quad for watching movies and the added heat a quad brings is not welcome in an HTPC, which you want as quiet as possible.
A mid level dual will be plenty for playing movies.
The only thing that may change my suggestion is if you plan to do a lot of video editing on the machine, however you usually dont need that to just watch movies you transfer or download.
