FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Duo vs Quad for gaming

Post Date: 2008-10-10
 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
DL13 View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 17 Sep 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 110 		  Quote DL13 Quote  Post ReplyReply bullet Topic: Duo vs Quad for gaming
    Posted: 10 Oct 2008 at 11:14am
Will be buying a new PC in the next couple of months.  One of the decisions is of course on the CPU.  From what I've and researched is that for most games right now it comes down to the processor speed rather than the cores and likely will for a bit; in other words it may not provide much benefit to paying the extra for the quad.  However, when I look at performance charts on games it appears that on many games that the quads do perform better or on par even if the clock speed is lower.  For example UT3 http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/Unreal-Tournament-3-1680x1050,819.html the Q9550 has a better FPS than the E8600 (the two CPUs I'm looking at), even though the E8600 is 3.33GHz vs Q9550 2.83GHz.
 
So my questions are, with respect to gaming only, am I missing something?  Are the differences noticable (again in gaming only)?  Am I better off going Duo and putting the $ difference in the GPU?
 
And yes I do realize the the quad is futureproofing and will multi-task better, etc, etc.  But for this thread I'm looking solely at games over the next 2-3 years, no O/Cing - is GHz better than the cores right now.  Curious to hear from those with Duo's as to what factored into the decision to go that way.
Back to Top
SunfighterLC View Drop Down
DS Veteran
DS Veteran


Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1527 		  Quote SunfighterLC Quote  Post ReplyReply bullet Posted: 10 Oct 2008 at 1:47pm
It depends on whether or not the program in question has been made to utalize the extra cores or not, very few games and regular programs for that matter use it. It just doesnt happen, it has to be programed to split up things and give tasks to each core.
 
The new I7 coming out should  speed up the process and get the game programers off their butts, considering people dont seem to fuss a lot when their quad cores go half unused in games..but they will probably start to fuss when about only 1/3rd of their CPU is being used up by the game while the rest just do background stuff that maybe uses up less then 1-2% of their power.
 
I choose i duo because I plan to use this computer for around 5 years, and i dont expect them to be fully integrated with even 4 cores let alone 8 by then..god knows in 5 years intel will probably have 16 core CPUs. Add in the added benifit of being cheaper now, and use up less of the ol' electricity, you have a win win.
E8500@ 4.03Ghz
XFX 790i Ultra
1000W Corsair HX
2 280 GTX EVGA FTW
4GB OCZ Reaper 1800Mhz
250-80-300GB VR HD
Logitech Z-2300 2.1 Speakers
Asus Xonar 7.1
Hanns-G HG 281D 28" HDMI Monitor
Back to Top
Nomak View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 15 Aug 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 442 		  Quote Nomak Quote  Post ReplyReply bullet Posted: 10 Oct 2008 at 3:05pm
I hear duos oc better than quads... confirm/deny?
 
Embarrassed
Back to Top
SunfighterLC View Drop Down
DS Veteran
DS Veteran


Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1527 		  Quote SunfighterLC Quote  Post ReplyReply bullet Posted: 10 Oct 2008 at 4:43pm

I dunno though.

Though maybe cause quads produce more heat.
E8500@ 4.03Ghz
XFX 790i Ultra
1000W Corsair HX
2 280 GTX EVGA FTW
4GB OCZ Reaper 1800Mhz
250-80-300GB VR HD
Logitech Z-2300 2.1 Speakers
Asus Xonar 7.1
Hanns-G HG 281D 28" HDMI Monitor
Back to Top
DST4ME View Drop Down
DS ELITE
DS ELITE

Email address used to purchase matched with forums account email.

Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 36758 		  Quote DST4ME Quote  Post ReplyReply bullet Posted: 10 Oct 2008 at 5:08pm
Well once thing everybody is forgetting is that each chip that comes out has a better performance.

in short if the q9550 was 2 x E8xxx then you would not see a performance improvement.

however the dual core of q9550 is an upgrade to the E8xxx, which in short means, that the q9550's chip are better chips then the E8xxx, but because gamers are so stuck on the oc speed of E8xxx, they fail to realize that a dual core can't do what a quad core can, not just because it has 4 cores but also because those cores are better then the old cores.

Nvidia Drivers----AMD Drivers
Back to Top
SunfighterLC View Drop Down
DS Veteran
DS Veteran


Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1527 		  Quote SunfighterLC Quote  Post ReplyReply bullet Posted: 10 Oct 2008 at 6:05pm
I dont know where you are getting that considering they are in the same family of chips design wise. Core 2 -- Penryn. Meaning their archetecture is exactly the same. The only difference is one has 2 cores the other 4.
 
The only improvements in archetecure will come with the I7 with intels Quickpath feature.
 
I think your confusing the differences between a Q6--- and Q9--- and a E6--- to E8---. Those indeed are slightly different but only in manufactoring size, 65NM to 45NM. again there are no differences between a E8--- and Q9--- chip quality wise, only their number of cores.
 
 Edit: I forgot to add one more difference in the last paragraph, including with a smaller size, the Penryns also each got larger L2 cache sizes. Which obviously will increase overall performance slightly as well...but again, but the quad and the duo got these increases and they were both equal in size when compared core to core.


Edited by SunfighterLC - 10 Oct 2008 at 8:07pm
E8500@ 4.03Ghz
XFX 790i Ultra
1000W Corsair HX
2 280 GTX EVGA FTW
4GB OCZ Reaper 1800Mhz
250-80-300GB VR HD
Logitech Z-2300 2.1 Speakers
Asus Xonar 7.1
Hanns-G HG 281D 28" HDMI Monitor
Back to Top
DL13 View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 17 Sep 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 110 		  Quote DL13 Quote  Post ReplyReply bullet Posted: 10 Oct 2008 at 7:53pm
Thanks for the input.  Right now leaning Duo and then put the $ saved to the GPU.  As mentioned can always stick in a Quad later if needed.  Next is it ATI or NvidiaConfused
Back to Top
SunfighterLC View Drop Down
DS Veteran
DS Veteran


Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1527 		  Quote SunfighterLC Quote  Post ReplyReply bullet Posted: 10 Oct 2008 at 8:06pm
ATI---Better Performance per $ ratio by a goodly amount, slightly less overall performance 1 4870 vs 1 GTX 280. 4870X2 is the best single slot GPU out right now though. Though 4000 line of cards is fairly known for being somewhat toasty temp wise. Kinda took the high tech approuch to GPUs
 
Nvidia--Higher overall performance in 1 vs 1 GPU comparision. $ ratio isnt very good though. Prices have been falling pretty hard though. You can get a GTX 260 now on newegg with a mail in rebate that drops it to 199.99. GTX 280s will run around 399.99 after mail in...youll find a bit cheaper then that, but of companies that arnt as well known. BFG is the lowest price of what id consider well known companies that do a good job with their GPUs.
 
 
Personally, id just go with whatever mobo youd like to use. If its a P5 whatever or the intel types then go with ATI, if your using a 7--i line then go with nvidia.
 
Youll be happy with either choice though. Im more then content with the 2 GTX 280 FTW editions i have, they will provide enough power for...a long long time..the CPU will probably be changed out before the GPUs will be. Harleyman has experence with the 4870x2, so hell probably give some input on that.
E8500@ 4.03Ghz
XFX 790i Ultra
1000W Corsair HX
2 280 GTX EVGA FTW
4GB OCZ Reaper 1800Mhz
250-80-300GB VR HD
Logitech Z-2300 2.1 Speakers
Asus Xonar 7.1
Hanns-G HG 281D 28" HDMI Monitor
Back to Top
Networkgamer View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 13 Oct 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10 		  Quote Networkgamer Quote  Post ReplyReply bullet Posted: 13 Oct 2008 at 3:29am
A dual core or a quad core is not gonna game any better. Right now the bottleneck with games is in the gpu. No matter how good a processor you have, if your gpu is pacing left and right to keep up, it doesnt matter how much more the cpu can process. This may change years down the line but right now any dual core is PLENTY enough for gaming. Even the asus n10 netbook with a 1.6ghz atom can play call of duty 4 with its 9300m chip.
Back to Top
gamerk2 View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie

Email address used to purchase matched with forums account email.

Joined: 28 May 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 198 		  Quote gamerk2 Quote  Post ReplyReply bullet Posted: 13 Oct 2008 at 2:14pm
Get a decent Quad, and see if you need a new system in a few years.  The current CPU socket (LGA 775) is going EOL with i7's release, so theres no upgrade path from Quads barring a motherboard transplant.  A good Quad system will survive for around 4-5 years.  A good Duo system with an extra .3 GHz will only last around another year or so.  Get the Quad now and save yourself an upgrade later.
Back to Top
gamerk2 View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie

Email address used to purchase matched with forums account email.

Joined: 28 May 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 198 		  Quote gamerk2 Quote  Post ReplyReply bullet Posted: 13 Oct 2008 at 2:17pm
Originally posted by harleyman

Originally posted by Networkgamer

A dual core or a quad core is not gonna game any better. Right now the bottleneck with games is in the gpu. No matter how good a processor you have, if your gpu is pacing left and right to keep up, it doesnt matter how much more the cpu can process. This may change years down the line but right now any dual core is PLENTY enough for gaming. Even the asus n10 netbook with a 1.6ghz atom can play call of duty 4 with its 9300m chip.
 
 
 
Agreed....Welcome....
 
Wrong, at 1900x1680 and above, all benchmarks show games being CPU bound at max settings, with FPS evening out between the majority of cards.
Back to Top
SunfighterLC View Drop Down
DS Veteran
DS Veteran


Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1527 		  Quote SunfighterLC Quote  Post ReplyReply bullet Posted: 13 Oct 2008 at 7:39pm
uh...what charts are you looking at where games become CPU bound at 1900x1200? Cause ive yet to see that happen where there is a cap and all the cards bump into it.
E8500@ 4.03Ghz
XFX 790i Ultra
1000W Corsair HX
2 280 GTX EVGA FTW
4GB OCZ Reaper 1800Mhz
250-80-300GB VR HD
Logitech Z-2300 2.1 Speakers
Asus Xonar 7.1
Hanns-G HG 281D 28" HDMI Monitor
Back to Top
TomD View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie

Email address used to purchase matched with forums account email.

Joined: 22 Jun 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 289 		  Quote TomD Quote  Post ReplyReply bullet Posted: 14 Oct 2008 at 12:02am
Sunfighter wrote:
__________________________________________________
uh...what charts are you looking at where games become CPU bound at 1900x1200? Cause ive yet to see that happen where there is a cap and all the cards bump into it.
___________________________________________________
 
I think he meant GPU bound.
 
This article has some benchmarks that show how the CPU speed becomes a non-issue at 1900x1200 with some titles, depending on the videocard used. At higher resolutions the GPU becomes the bottleneck and a faster CPU doesn't help.
 
 
However, other titles (such as FSX) still benefit from increased CPU clocks at higher resolutions.
 
Don't be mislead by the article title, it talks about driver performance, but the article also shows OC vs. non-OC benchmarks.
Back to Top
workingman View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 05 Apr 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 411 		  Quote workingman Quote  Post ReplyReply bullet Posted: 14 Oct 2008 at 7:37am
Originally posted by SunfighterLC

ATI---Better Performance per $ ratio by a goodly amount, slightly less overall performance 1 4870 vs 1 GTX 280. 4870X2 is the best single slot GPU out right now though. Though 4000 line of cards is fairly known for being somewhat toasty temp wise. Kinda took the high tech approuch to GPUs
 
Nvidia--Higher overall performance in 1 vs 1 GPU comparision. $ ratio isnt very good though. Prices have been falling pretty hard though. You can get a GTX 260 now on newegg with a mail in rebate that drops it to 199.99. GTX 280s will run around 399.99 after mail in...youll find a bit cheaper then that, but of companies that arnt as well known. BFG is the lowest price of what id consider well known companies that do a good job with their GPUs.
 
 
Personally, id just go with whatever mobo youd like to use. If its a P5 whatever or the intel types then go with ATI, if your using a 7--i line then go with nvidia.
 
Youll be happy with either choice though. Im more then content with the 2 GTX 280 FTW editions i have, they will provide enough power for...a long long time..the CPU will probably be changed out before the GPUs will be. Harleyman has experence with the 4870x2, so hell probably give some input on that.
i have an ati 4870x2 its a sweet card..but download a fan controller..that sucker sure will run hot..other than that have always been an nvidia fan..but their boards..and their cards lately..seem buggy...just my opinion

Edited by workingman - 14 Oct 2008 at 7:39am
Back to Top
DL13 View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 17 Sep 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 110 		  Quote DL13 Quote  Post ReplyReply bullet Posted: 14 Oct 2008 at 8:46pm

I'm currently leaning to ATI based on past experience with Nvidia drivers and I've never had issues with ATI cards I've used.  The 4870x2 certainly rocks based on my research; although probably overkill for what I'll use my rig for - but it's only money Ouch

My concern that I've seen echoed in many posts is the temperature, but it might be nice to have that warm up the room over the winterSmile
 
 
Back to Top
gamerk2 View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie

Email address used to purchase matched with forums account email.

Joined: 28 May 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 198 		  Quote gamerk2 Quote  Post ReplyReply bullet Posted: 15 Oct 2008 at 8:33am
Originally posted by TomD

Sunfighter wrote:
__________________________________________________
uh...what charts are you looking at where games become CPU bound at 1900x1200? Cause ive yet to see that happen where there is a cap and all the cards bump into it.
___________________________________________________
 
I think he meant GPU bound.
 
This article has some benchmarks that show how the CPU speed becomes a non-issue at 1900x1200 with some titles, depending on the videocard used. At higher resolutions the GPU becomes the bottleneck and a faster CPU doesn't help.
 
 
However, other titles (such as FSX) still benefit from increased CPU clocks at higher resolutions.
 
Don't be mislead by the article title, it talks about driver performance, but the article also shows OC vs. non-OC benchmarks.
 
Toms did another article late last month (can't find the linky though) that showed clearly games becomming CPU bound at resolutions above 1980x1600.  I remember the article well; every game tested had all the grahpics cards even out somewhere between 30 and 45 FPS at resolutions above 1980x1600.  This proves that todays cards are faster than the CPU, as theres no way you can tell me a 3870x2 can run the same as an OC GTX 280 in any other circumstances.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.0703125 seconds.