Which CPU is better for gaming?

[Rafterman223]

And why? I've gotten several recommendations for a $250 Q6700 which I hear can be easily overclocked and is a "good price"...but my eyes seem to stray to a $260-$290 Core 2 Duo with a higher clockspeed and bus speed (I've also gotten a recommedation for a duo). My question is which is better for high-end gaming, what are their differences, and why do you think I should get one over the other (don't pay attention to the prices). (PS I also love how these both go with the same chipsets, its much less confusing in decisions).

 

[baditude_df]

Well, It really makes no difference from a performance standpoint as far as I've been able to tell. I've tested the E6750 against my Q6600 at 3.0GHz and couldn't tell the difference. The Duo is going to produce lower temperatures, and therefore be easier to cool with a lower priced HS. That being said, by quad has never given me any temperature issues whatsoever. It's definitely not as bad as its made out to be. If it's strictly for gaming, I would definitely recommend picking up whatever is cheaper. If you find a wicked deal on a quad, make sure it's a G0 Stepping, SLACR spec.

 

[ou_phidelt]

I will say it depends. Right now a higher clocked dual is going to give better performance in gaming. Will there really be a noticable difference between a dual at 4.0 and a quad at 3.6, not really IMHO. Does the quads other benefits make it a better option, yes if you will use them. Otherwise go with the cooler running, power efficient dual. Quads are very nice if you will use all the cores but if not it is just putting out more heat and sucking up more juice without any real benefit to you.

 

[White_Pawn]

The Q6700 is the best . More cores , better long term application . you name it . It is just better to go with a quad core when ever you can .

unless you get an ES E0 8600. 5ghz+...

It depends really. Do you upgrade your computer often? Do you want to make this "last" 3-4 years? How much are you willing to overclock? What other components do you have?

etc. It depends on your personality, as for NOW *right this moment* a 4.2ghz+ e8400 may be faster than a Q6600 @ 3.6ghz for games. In the near future, when games utilize quads, then the quad will win.

If you can cherry pick a stepping... There isn't anything wrong with a C1 Q9450.

 

[wingman99]

In the near future, when games utilize quads, then the quad will win.

In the near future, i was just at the PC stores and could hardly find any games for dual core.

 

[iBP_Rickochet]

Right now, there's no real benefit of four cores over two in gaming. I'm assuming there will be in the future, but as far as I know, there are no games on the horizon with quad core support.

Yorkfield Q9000 series cores do generally have architecture performance benefits over other processors, though.

 

[Neural Net]

Supreme Commander has fantastic Quad Core support, makes a BIG difference going from Dual to Quad core. Expect future games to follow.

 

[White_Pawn]

In the near future, i was just at the PC stores and could hardly find any games for dual core.

what kinda games where you looking for? To my understanding, pretty much all fps games utilize dual-core. Supreme commander, thus far, is the only to use a quad.

 

[LilBuddy]

Right now you will see the most improvement with a higher clock speed. In the future when more cores are prorammed into software the quads will be king.

 

[Nebulous]

Right now you will see the most improvement with a higher clock speed. In the future when more cores are prorammed into software the quads will be king.

I cuncur

 

[Shiggity]

Right this second, I have to say the E8500, because you can get the highest clockspeed with it.

But like others have said, quads will be better in the future.

 

[wingman99]

Quad core is useless for games

Quote http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2006/10/07/quad-core-is-useless-for-games
WE spoke with many developers including some big names and we learned that they can't make much sense out of quad or more core CPUs. They confirm that they can put two cores to good use but not much more. The main problem is that the performance is far from scalable.
You have to spend both time and money to resource the programmer to try to make sense out f the dual core CPU. It takes up to a year to optimise the game for more threads and even if you make the perfect job you can count on twenty to thirty percent performance increase, and this is the best case scenario.

Once you start making the multi threaded game you end up making and having the multithreaded bugs as well.

You can keep one core busy with the physics and collision detection, second core will have to wait for the score to move on with the Artificial intelligence while the third core could possible calculate the graphic data. In this best case scenario you have to realise that the core number two and three would always have to wait for the core number one to finish its job and pass the job to the cores two and three. In this concept there is absolutely no place for quad core as games are non parallel applications. A game developer expert said that you can use the core number four to stream and load the data in the game and this is what the guys at Remedy did at IDF quad core demonstration. But this takes time and money and it is not commonly embraced by developers.

Game developers are in the dawn of dual core programming and now all the sudden AMD and Intel wants them to go quad core. For the time being Quad cores are good for rendering and serves but not for games.

So if you want to play games, you can forget about quad cores, you simply don't need them and can gain just marginal performance out of them. Give the developers some time and this might change, but we are talking quarters not months. µ

 

[jaymz9350]

So if you want to play games, you can forget about quad cores, you simply don't need them and can gain just marginal performance out of them. Give the developers some time and this might change, but we are talking quarters not months. µ

Judging by the 1700+ in his sig (if that is his current cpu) this is why i would recommend a quad, he's looking at years not months or quarters of using this cpu. I'm sure if you would have talked to a game developer when that 1700 was made they wouldn't have seen a purpose for a dual core for gaming.

 

[Mr.Guvernment]

as for quad vs dual:


i can understand if you have a tweaked out gaming rig that does NOTHING but literally game, no AV, no IM's NOTHING else...

but add to the list things i would think most gamers have, at least that i know of and i run....

1. steam running in the back ground / steam friends
2. xfire
3. spybot S&D
4. AV of some sort (for me symantec corp from work)
5. Alt+tab out between rounds for web browsing
6. some music app playing music
7. OS overhead
8. for some, like me TV out and a movie playing sometimes.
9. Ventrillo when playing squad game / servers


and who knows what else i would love for these bench's and site to set up a gaming computer and use it how i would think MOST people have their gaming rigs, not test it like everyone is a hardcore gamer and strips their computer of anything except the OS and the game they play.

 

[Albuquerque]

Mr Gov. had the same reply in the E8400 vs Q6600 thread in this forum, and I responded "bullocks".

Having personally owned both a 4.4Ghz E8400 and my current 3.6Ghz Q9450, I can say unequivocally that the E8400 was faster -- even considering all the software that Mr. Gov suggested above.

 

[Craxbax]

Mr Gov. had the same reply in the E8400 vs Q6600 thread in this forum, and I responded "bullocks".

Having personally owned both a 4.4Ghz E8400 and my current 3.6Ghz Q9450, I can say unequivocally that the E8400 was faster -- even considering all the software that Mr. Gov suggested above.

LOL You wound that E8400 a little tight didn't ya! Push that Q9450 to 4.ghz!

 

[WonderingSoul]

It's plain and simple,

Clocks > Cores.

I don't see why there is such a significant argument here

 

[Neural Net]

It's plain and simple,

Clocks > Cores.

I don't see why there is such a significant argument here

Not really, with they way I use my computer I could not go back to a Dual Core, Quad is the minimum I will ever use now.

 

[OldSkool]

Not really, with they way I use my computer I could not go back to a Dual Core, Quad is the minimum I will ever use now.

You would be correct, if we weren't referring to gaming. Dual cores are best for gaming. Assuming we are talking about running a game and not the other background media player and random other things you might decide to run or alt-tab to. We are referring to games, which at this point in time, scarcely and few and far between even use the two cores on a dually. Although not relevant to the discussion I can say, my E8400 performs without a hiccup while streaming video, downloading songs, browsing the web, and watching a movie all at the same time.

In short, since we are speaking of Gaming specifically, Clocks most certainly are more important than cores at this stage of software development.

@ Trickson - No offense intended, you are welcome to be a fanboy all you want, but facts are facts. Are quads amazing? Yes. Can they outperform duals? In some applications, but not for gaming, sorry. Not yet anyway for the reason stated above.

 

[OldSkool]

Well as far as I see it yes for gaming only dual core is the way to go but really when you talk about todays computer user here on Over Clocker forum most all of us Multi task and OC .
I think it is a preference more than any thing , What you like nothing more than that and that in it's self is subjective .

May I refer you to the title of the thread for the relevance and basis of the discussion

That being said, I do agree with your statement.