Quad Core Vs Duo. Still the same result?

[Meresgi]

Been looking into this, but most articles are find are from 2007 to 2008, and a lot changes pretty fast with computers for that information to be reliable to me.

My question is, is it still better to get a faster Dual Core over a Quad Core for most games? From what ive read the quad really helps with rendering and coding, but actually has a negative impact on most games or at least games from 2-3yrs ago.

From Newegg I can see a pretty large price difference between the two, 100$ or more, so I dont plan to drop that extra cash on something that wont benefit me, or will only benefit very slightly. Yeah I plan to play FF14 so that's another reason i'm getting a new CPU. I have an Intel Core 2 right now but its only 1.8ghz. Now I could get either a 3.2 ghz Dual core or better, or a 3.2 quad. Leaning towards the dual but need opinions on this.


Edit: I'm going with an AMD CPU so i'm getting a new Mobo as well. Figured id try AMD out this time around.

[Cayos]

If a game is optimized to use multi core CPUs, it's usually better. SE has said that they plan to make XIV support quad cores, so I'd probably go with the quad.

[Meresgi]

If a game is optimized to use multi core CPUs, it's usually better. SE has said that they plan to make XIV support quad cores, so I'd probably go with the quad.

Hmm, I thought they had said they planned to take advantage of Multi-Core processors, but I interpreted that as just being dual since a lot of games only harness the power of 1 core.(From what i've read)

How big a difference are we talking here? I mean i'm looking to run it smooth and lag free in a place like old Jeuno where there was a crowd.

[Somniis]

From what I understand, as you stated, quad-cores are better for graphical rendering and the such, not exactly gaming itself. I personally used a 2.3ghz dual-core for FFXI and never had any problems with (graphical) lag in places like Jeuno.

At the time I had a single 8800gt as my gpu. FFXIV may take advantage of a quad-core processor but having a dual-core should run it just fine.

[Don Katsu]

Get a Phenom 955 it's probably the least expensive upgrade, you can get the processor and motherboard for the price of a Core 2 Quad 9550

Quad Core = Heavy rendering. You can test it best with large map rendering like Dragon Age

[Cayos]

They probably did say multi-core processors and I just took that to mean quad, since that's what I have >.>

I assume that if a game can use more than 1 core, that 4 will usually be better than 2.
I have no idea how big of a difference there will be for new games in general, but for FFXIV, nobody has a clue.

[Pikarya]

Just because a game advertises it as multi-core functional (TF2, World of Warcraft, Lineage II, Left 4 Dead: 2, etc). Does not always mean the actual game itself is.

Most of the time these games set one core to operate sound related data streams, while the other core actually handles the rest of the game.

In a sense, Quad-core and up processors are currently not needed in the market we run in right now for the everyday gamer. Unless you're playing Crysis, doing encoding/compiling, or something along those lines. Anything else is just buffer.

If you can afford it, go big. You're going to have more headroom for multitasking for other single-core and such applications while the game is running. As for 2-core technology, you're fine for now if your strapped on cash.

[Cjskater]

Get a quad or a hexcore (about $30 more than the 955 and overclocks much easier).

TF2, L4D1/2, BC2, GTA4, RE5, FC2, WiC...most newish RTSs actually, and pretty much anything made in the last year or two that has the graphics to make use of it. If you bought a dual core now you'd probably hit yourself in about a year.

Edit: for the above... Crysis can only use 2 threads. TF2 definitely benefits from a quadcore. A full 32player server on high settings will really do a number on a dual but a quad will run it just fine. L4D1/2 also show big improvements. BC2 and GTA4 practically require quads.

[sruon]

I upgraded from a C2D to an i5 and the change was definitly noticeable in 14.

[Meresgi]

I upgraded from a C2D to an i5 and the change was definitly noticeable in 14.

How fast was your C2D?

[sruon]

E6550 overclocked to 3 ghz~
Using a i5 overclocked at 3.5 ghz atm

[Deadgye]

Video card is really what makes the most difference when it comes to gaming, but processors still have a big effect. I like this article most when it comes to this subject. http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/..._cpu_scaling/1

I personally wouldn't even bother looking at dual cores anymore.

[Heatsink]

Saw a post that someone with a fast dual core machine (4.2ghz e8400/ddr2-1200) and a slow video card (gts250) ran the alpha while checking process explorer. Said that 2 threads are regularly running, one maxed out most of the time (shows as 50% in process explorer), while the other one would nearly max out when bringing up the map. Allegedly, there are several other threads that might also be "graphics workers" but are not using any CPU time. The poster guessed that no work is scheduled on them when running on processors with only two cores. Could someone with a quad core who's in the beta check this out? With process explorer, a thread that's using a full core on a quad will show 25% usage in the thread list.