Why is the Core2Duo better for gaming than the quad Core?

N

N1sh

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
979
Reaction score
13
Location
Durban
Why is the Core2Duo better for gaming than the quad Core?

What are the benfits of getting either?
 
charlie_82 said:
Quad core is a good long term investment but a Core2 won't give you any issues right now
Click to expand...

Ya that is tue but my theory is that when Quad Core Cpu's become the standard for games and apps. It would be time to upgrade my system anyway and to a better Quad core than the Q6600.

But then again I suppose it comes down to personal choice and use of the 4 cores.
 
How much of a difference would there be when running a game for example? is it noticible?
fps?
 
Because the current Intel Quad core is a gimmick:
A single CPU die

Intel's existing Core 2 quad-core chips may comfortably have the measure of AMD's competing Phenom processor when it comes to performance. But in purely philosophical terms, there's no doubting which is the more elegant architecture. And it ain't Intel's.

That's because Intel's current quads are actually a pair of completely separate dual-core CPU dies glued together in a single processor package. From an engineering perspective, that makes them something of a jerry-rigged kludge compared to Phenom, which has all four cores neatly arranged on a single die.

It also means that inter-core communications on a Core 2 processor can be a bit complicated. Between two cores on the same die, bandwidth is massive and latency low. But if cores on separate dies need a chat, the communication path is routed off the CPU through the north bridge chip on the motherboard. Not ideal.

Intel has done a great job in hiding the downside of its current quad-core architecture with fat on-die memory caches as well as the raw grunt of the Core 2 execution core. But as core counts rise, this approach would have become more and more of a boat anchor dragging down performance.

Consequently, all Core i7 chips will be monolithic in terms of the arrangement of the processor cores. At launch, Core i7 will be available in quad-core trim. An eight-core version is penciled in for next year and that too will have all its cores crammed into a single die.
Click to expand...
http://www.techradar.com/news/compu...-essential-guide-to-intel-s-new-killer-476154
 
Last edited:
Yea i am not so sure that dual cores are faster to be honest :), i ran a dual core e8400 @ 4.0ghz and now a q9550 at 3.8ghz and my system runs alot better on the quadcore, boot times when loading my apps and what not is much faster.

For gaming though quadcore and dual core are about the same and you might notice 1-5fps but thats all.
 
I don't quite get why its taking so long for the developers to use all 4 cores. Aside from in-game synchronization its not that hard and there is enough stuff in a game that doesn't have to sync 100% like AI and pathing.

But if cores on separate dies need a chat, the communication path is routed off the CPU through the north bridge chip
Click to expand...
:eek:

Damn...didn't know that.
 
If I can afford it I'm getting the nehalem early next year
 
The baby of the processors are expected to be around 8k and the msi eclipse motherboard is around 4k, and due to only ddr3 support i suppose a budget nehalem rig would cost around 15k to 20k. i would hold on until ddr3 prices drop or lga775 becomes uber cheap.
 
Silverlight said:
The baby of the processors are expected to be around 8k and the msi eclipse motherboard is around 4k, and due to only ddr3 support i suppose a budget nehalem rig would cost around 15k to 20k. i would hold on until ddr3 prices drop or lga775 becomes uber cheap.
Click to expand...

Wasn't is R3-3.5K for the baby?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X