Quad-core CPUs About to Surpass Dual-cores for Gamers

Status
Not open for further replies.
those are some nice numbers to look at. however, the ghz numbers are easy to misunderstand - intel's 2.7 ghz is roughly equivalent to amd's 3.2 ghz.
amd's got some nice shares...quite possibly they have 100% lead in triple core segment.
 

reyshan

Distinguished
Dec 29, 2010
68
0
18,630
0
it's good that quad-core is almost in the lead. Many people don't really play cpu intensive and gpu intensive games. Simply because for most of the people it's costly and expensive in where they live.
 

theuniquegamer

Distinguished
Sep 7, 2011
279
0
18,790
1
Phew atlast !!!!!
They are going to utilize the all the avialable 4 cores in playing game. They release different patchs like one for 2 core or less systems (there are a lot gamers with 2 core cpus & few single core pcs) and another optimised for 4 core more core/thread cpus. Games will run more smother with all the available cores/threads used.
 

SteelCity1981

Distinguished
Sep 16, 2010
1,129
0
19,310
12
this is why intel is stopping at 4 cores at the moment and not going 6 or 8 in their mainstream,because the market as of now clearly shows that quad cores is where the main stream market is right now and even 4 cores is plenty of cores for most users at the moment.
 

JOSHSKORN

Distinguished
Oct 26, 2009
2,379
17
19,795
1
I'm still on a dual core, but I do have trouble running the newer games (CoD Black Ops, MW3, BF3, GTA 4 AND SA). I plan on upgrading to Ivy Bridge next summer.
 

Teeroy32

Distinguished
May 23, 2011
166
2
18,695
2
woo hoo I'm int he 5.52% rocking a single core, mines the trusty old pentium 4 3.4ghz,.
The cpu's still kicking strong its only my grapics card letting it down, old trusty G 6600
 

joytech22

Distinguished
Jun 4, 2008
1,686
0
19,810
10
[citation][nom]JOSHSKORN[/nom]I'm still on a dual core, but I do have trouble running the newer games (CoD Black Ops, MW3, BF3, GTA 4 AND SA). I plan on upgrading to Ivy Bridge next summer.[/citation]

Trouble running black ops? The game uses almost exactly the same engine as MW2.
I understand you might be having trouble in BF3 and GTA4 but definitely not GTA:SA, I mean C'mon my old Sempron 1.6GHz played that back in the day (With a 7600GS).

Still, Been on quadcore CPU's since 2007. But I DO own systems with 2 cores and they still perform admirably.
 
"...while 25 percent of AMD gamers use CPUs with clock speeds between 3 and 3.29 GHz, and 21 percent use processors ranging from 2.3 to 2.69 GHz."

That... I'm having trouble believing that.

I do know that most Athlon IIs and prior CPUs max out at 3.3Ghz-ish, but there IS market for 3.3Ghz + in AMD. I'm one with a 4Ghz PhII and I'm very sure all my friends have their Phenoms at at least 3.6Ghz. Where's the statistic for that? Is it such a lil' number? 8(

Anyway, I'm sure it works for Intel too; there's tons of folks with their i5's past the 3.6Ghz mark.

Cheers!
 

jacobdrj

Distinguished
Jan 20, 2005
1,475
0
19,310
5
Q6600 G0 FTW!!!


So glad I got 1 a couple years back... But the company I bought it from, unfortunately, no longer exists...

RIP ClubIT... Your giveaways and pension for super cheap components will be remembered and missed...
 

tmk221

Distinguished
Jul 27, 2008
173
0
18,690
4
[citation][nom]Yuka[/nom]"...while 25 percent of AMD gamers use CPUs with clock speeds between 3 and 3.29 GHz, and 21 percent use processors ranging from 2.3 to 2.69 GHz."That... I'm having trouble believing that.I do know that most Athlon IIs and prior CPUs max out at 3.3Ghz-ish, but there IS market for 3.3Ghz + in AMD. I'm one with a 4Ghz PhII and I'm very sure all my friends have their Phenoms at at least 3.6Ghz. Where's the statistic for that? Is it such a lil' number? 8(Anyway, I'm sure it works for Intel too; there's tons of folks with their i5's past the 3.6Ghz mark.Cheers![/citation]

for more numbers go to steam hardware survey:)
 

nottheking

Distinguished
Jan 5, 2006
1,456
0
19,310
16
To me, this sounds like we're finally starting to phase out all the Core2Duo E8400s that were so popular a few years back. For all the hype over how great a deal for high-end gaming the i5 2500K is, this is practically nowhere near what the E8400 got. Even though it had a locked multiplier, it still overclocked very well.

Of course, this shift to quad-cores doesn't mean a whole lot to most gaming, given that most games show no real benefit in moving beyond two cores, at least as of yet.[citation][nom]de5_roy[/nom]those are some nice numbers to look at. however, the ghz numbers are easy to misunderstand - intel's 2.7 ghz is roughly equivalent to amd's 3.2 ghz.amd's got some nice shares...quite possibly they have 100% lead in triple core segment.[/citation]
Given that Intel never really made a consumer-level 3-core CPU, that's not surprising.

As for comparing clock speeds, it depends way too much on the architecture: on the flip side, on a core-for-core basis, an old Northwood-era Celeron could clock 2.4 GHz, but would be inferior to even a 1 GHz Phenom II. That ratio you use only really works if you're looking at the CURRENT "enthusiast mainstream;" i.e, i5 & i7 Sandy Bridge CPUs vs. the Phenom II or FX. Obviously, the Pentium and Celeron lines get noticeably worse performance-per-clock, and even among Steam users likely account for a large portion of the market. (as Gamers != Enthusiasts)

[citation][nom]SteelCity1981[/nom]this is why intel is stopping at 4 cores at the moment and not going 6 or 8 in their mainstream,because the market as of now clearly shows that quad cores is where the main stream market is right now and even 4 cores is plenty of cores for most users at the moment.[/citation]
Well, it's not entirely this, actually. Rather, it's Intel's design philosophy, which clearly shows from die photographs, is that they're focusing less on "more cores," and more on the "uncore." Looking at a Sandy Bridge CPU reveals that the actual die area taken up by cores is a small minority: non-core fixed-function units (such as the memory controller, various extra accelerators, not to mention the embedded GPU in the SB chips) take up a much more significant portion of the die space compared to Nehalem, and even moreso compared to Core 2.

AMD appears to be taking the opposite approach: aside from integrating the NorthBridge into the CPU, the FX-series focuses a lot less of the non-cache part of the die on the "un-core" stuff, and in fact appears to remain relatively close to the level found with the older Phenoms and Athlons.
 

dennis555

Distinguished
Apr 11, 2011
112
0
18,680
0
I have been faithful to my first Quad core cpu, the Phenom II x4 945, for quite some time now. She has never let me down. Sadly you will be replaced with an i5 2500k soon :)
 

jimmy-bee

Distinguished
Nov 23, 2011
53
0
18,630
0
Doesn't do us any good (Q9650 here) as long as they continue to write for the kiddie consoles then give the PC games half ass ports instead of taking a little more time and write some code for the PC.
 

jimmy-bee

Distinguished
Nov 23, 2011
53
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]Teeroy32[/nom]woo hoo I'm int he 5.52% rocking a single core, mines the trusty old pentium 4 3.4ghz,. The cpu's still kicking strong its only my grapics card letting it down, old trusty G 6600[/citation]
To get the FPS from a rig it's best to match your CPu and GPU. It will do you little good if you put a GTX 480 on a single core, if it would even be compatible with that older MB. Same goes for building a Core i7 and putting some $50 video card with it.
 

dickcheney

Distinguished
Aug 11, 2011
194
0
18,680
0
Been on 4 core since the Q6600 came out, never looked back. Ok maybe a bit when I saw the OC numbers coming out of the E8400s but thats it.
 

jacobdrj

Distinguished
Jan 20, 2005
1,475
0
19,310
5
[citation][nom]dickcheney[/nom]Been on 4 core since the Q6600 came out, never looked back. Ok maybe a bit when I saw the OC numbers coming out of the E8400s but thats it.[/citation]
Meh, you can rock that Q6600 up to 3.2 GHz on air cooling with no voltage increases if you really want...

 

hannibal

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
2,472
86
19,890
14
So allmost half of the gaming machines still have two or less cores. No wonder why there normally is not support for more than two cores in the games...
*sigh* Have to wait until we have 90% or more with four or mo cores. Can take some time though.
If I don't remember wrong, the situation is allmost as bad in GPU department?
 

sticks435

Distinguished
Jul 24, 2008
31
0
18,530
0
[citation][nom]hannibal[/nom]So allmost half of the gaming machines still have two or less cores. No wonder why there normally is not support for more than two cores in the games...*sigh* Have to wait until we have 90% or more with four or mo cores. Can take some time though.If I don't remember wrong, the situation is allmost as bad in GPU department?[/citation]
Well hopefully next gen consoles have 4 or more cores, that will kick 4 core support into high gear. If not, then yea, it'll be YEARS before there is widespread support. Even now though, the xbox has a triple core and PC versions still usually don't take advantage of it, so who knows.
 

dickcheney

Distinguished
Aug 11, 2011
194
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]jacobdrj[/nom]Meh, you can rock that Q6600 up to 3.2 GHz on air cooling with no voltage increases if you really want...[/citation]

I was running it at 3.6, 1.45vcore and 2 120mm radiator (400lpm pump). I was getting 75°C under load.

;-)

The E8400 @4.0+ was still beating it at the time due to poorly threaded games.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS